It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

page: 12
127
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by freighttrain
 


Not by the bridge.. It was at our 9 oclock and if was on an angle down... there are over passes there and the pentagon is down below.. On the angle it is impossible that it could have done anything other than hit the building.. we could see it until about 300 yards from the building. Then we saw the explosion.. We didnt see it enter.. but with the speed and angle.. it would be impossible to do anything but!




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Mobius1974
 

OH, OKAY.
So this is what PROOF looks like, your visuals at "9 o'clock" and NO WAY it could not have hit the Pentagon.

Okay, we can all go back to sleep.

Not.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by markygee



Who says the american people have bought into it? My opinion is they haven't, anyone can see the ridiculous amount of unanswered questions regarding this topic and how suspect the official line is but anyway the real problem is what can the average american do about it? Nothing, just take it as it is and post comments on websites like this.
I'm not in the USA either.

And that's the real punchline to 9/11.



[edit on 12-7-2010 by boomadatigger]

[edit on 12-7-2010 by boomadatigger]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
This study ASSUMES that the aircraft which struck the WTC were the same ones that took off from Boston and D.C.
I have always considered it to be a strong possibility that once the flight data recorders were turned off other aircraft were substituted for the original flights.


I agree with you. Actually, I know that they have such contingencies - all you need to read are the Continuity of Government Executive Orders for emergencies pre-911 to see this. It's all out there prior to 911. Sociopaths always have trophies they use to brag about later.
Others that have this info: DoD operations such as Communications and Air Traffic - both public before 911. I need to research the info on line because the last time I read them was at DoD. No, you will have to do that yourselves. Just remember that the movie "Broken Arrow" was one of at least 12 land and air base ops under the same header.
en.wikipedia.org...
Please read!
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.commondreams.org...
(Note: Do not read if you are scared easily.)
Quote: The capstone to all these efforts to stay mobile was a special airplane, the National Emergency Airborne Command Post, a modified Boeing 747 based at Andrews and specially outfitted with a conference room and advanced communications gear. In it a President could remain in the air and run the country during a nuclear showdown. In one exercise a team of officials stayed aloft in this plane for three days straight, cruising up and down the coasts and back and forth across the country, refueling in the air." End Quote.
This is just a scenario - there are scenarios within scenarios. The government plays fool to fool you into believing that they are stupid and love it when you buy it! - they knew about air fuel bombs and the like from WWII - kamikaze fighters anyone? There's more but that's what Google's for. Enjoy!



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


OP if I am ask regarding this information...

To what end?

If these experts are correct (though I would guess none of them have experience at the very edge of these aircrafts performance), what does it prove?

Radar is not accurate.

Personally I worked with a number of radar systems while in the Navy and many things can impact its performance (atmospheric conditions, aspect angle of the return, interference from other radio systems). While I guessed at a + or -10mph I've seen radars (especially long range air tracking radars) give some whacky data, especially if there is a large speed change or aspect angle change (combine both for real fun!) between sweeps. "Hello that Backfire looks like its stopped midair (plainly not possible)", two sweeps later its evident the plane has turned around.

Perhaps the implication this that "aha we caught them in a lie!", yet given the variables in this scenario is it ever possible to naildown the information to erase all doubt for everyone?


The NTSB had access to ASR data from Newark, JFK and Laguardia, including Mode C on the aircraft.

pilotsfor911truth.org...
(NTSB Radar Data Impact Speed Study, pdf)

As pointed out in the presentation, if you think the NTSB data is wrong, you should think twice about getting on an aircraft in the NY area or arriving to a terminal area, as all separation is done by speed and radar.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
FBI Counter Terrorism Division agrees that the 9/11 Truth Organisation evidence deserves further scrutiny.


"Munyak and his fellow AE911 supporters recently received acknowledgement from the FBI's counterterrorism division, which concluded that the organization's core evidence deserves—and will get—FBI scrutiny. In a letter, Deputy Director Michael J. Heimbach assessed AE911's presentation as "backed by thorough research and analysis."

realneo.us...



"First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win." M. Gandhi



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
... as all separation is done by speed and radar.


A standard call you hear quite often on the VHF and UHF frequencies in nearly every class airspace:

"...and maintain visible separation...".

Good job there, Cap't Tiff. Got any more aeronautical tidbits of wisdom from your vast experience you'd like to share with us?

It is tough to beat the Mark-1 Mod-0 eyeball to establish and maintain situational awareness in the air.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
... as all separation is done by speed and radar.


A standard call you hear quite often on the VHF and UHF frequencies in nearly every class airspace:

"...and maintain visible separation...".

Good job there, Cap't Tiff. Got any more aeronautical tidbits of wisdom from your vast experience you'd like to share with us?



When "visible" identification is established, agreed. (They actually say, "Maintain visual separation", but meh, I don''t expect you to know). I guess you never flown IMC or an ILS to minimums. Or perhaps you don't think it gets cloudy in terminal areas?

Ever hear "4 miles in trail"? How do you think ATC maintains such separation. Guess work? What about if one controller has 5, 6, 10 aircraft in trail? Why does ATC assign airspeed at an approach gate regardless of aircraft type or weather?

Do you know what it's like to pick out an aircraft at 4 miles from the low profile cross-section of a tail? Even in CAVU? How about 3 miles in haze?

No, you don't know. Because you never been in such a situation.


Are you saying the NTSB data is inaccurate? And if so, how far inaccurate?

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by boomadatigger
 

Why is your location a punchline? I don't get it.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


I think that pretty much sums up your "experts"...fanciful, fantastic and delusional.


“Sigh”

Besides your insulting opinions, do you have any proof that these experts are wrong?



So, go ahead and take your "experts" with their flight time and their "credentials" and their aircraft and their moon bases and their "falling apart at 450 knots" and do something other than try to sell cute teddys with your logo on them on the internet.

To close, I believe the fact that Deets, Aimer, Kolstad and the rest of your "A Team" put their names to these fanciful, delusional, factually baseless and factually frivolous claims speaks more to *their* credibility in the toilet than anything else.


How is this delusional?
How is this factually baseless?

Do you care to address these issues with some real evidence with internet links, and sources?
I believe the OP has presented very credible information from a credible source.
Besides your nasty opinions what do you have to put on the table.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
There are lots of "events" associated with 911 that literally couldn’t have happened. The word for such things is "Miracles".

911 wasn't as OS says, it wasn't a man made conspiracy, it was an "Act of God" (UFO/ET/Alien).

That's the definition of "Miracle".

My expertise is UFO/ET/Alien – I’ve been working with ET Presence for 25 years on a daily basis.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
And I Repeat...*you* stated the following:


... as all separation is done by speed and radar.


Which is an incorrect and ignorant statement.

You did not specify a specific flight parameter or terminal weather condition with your above "... as all separation is done by speed and radar."

All separation is *not* accomplished with speed and radar only. If you want to amend your post by specifying the type meteorological conditions where "speed and radar" covers "all" separation criteria, feel free.

But even that is not true, since any final or ultimate decision that has to be made concerning the safety of the aircraft rests with the pilot in command, not a radar operator or an approach or departure or ground or tower controller. Go check with your pilot compadres about that.

This really is pretty funny, Bob. Can we expect a big fat guy next time?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   






You know, when people say that a plane cant fly low and fast, for whatever reason, I like to watch these videos. Nearly scraping the belly on the runway going well over 300mph, or scorching the sagebrush. If they can go this fast scraping the ground, why not faster at 1,000ft?

The MAIN thing to remember is, the terrorists DID NOT GIVE A RAT'S ASS what happens to the people or the plane in their maneuvers. All they were worrying about is aiming at the building and slamming into it, as fast as possible for maximum effect. The plane was not traveling at 500mph for a long period of time. In the amount of time it took for the plane to reach that speed, it was only seconds. Had the plane been traveling at that speed for much longer time and lower, then yes, we would have seen the aircraft begin to lose pieces and structural integrity. Aircraft ALWAYS have a certain amount of ruggedness built in, because you never know just what "extraordinary" circumstances the aircraft may find itself. There have been incidents where actual passenger planes have actually broken the sound barrier in uncontrolled dives, and survived. A 747 once did, a DC-8, and a 727 as well. Yes they needed some repairs in some instances, but they held together. The whole point is that the aircraft reached its speeds in a DIVE.

These two sites also give better insite into these questions:
www.airliners.net...

boards.straightdope.com...

aviation-safety.net...
Here was an incident with the 747SP where it decended out of control from 41,000ft to 9,500ft. It also broke the sound barrier.

The maximum vertical acceleration forces recorded during the descent were 4.8Gs and 5.1Gs as the airplane descended through 30,552 feet and 19,083 feet, respectively.


[edit on 7/12/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
It is so funny how you can tell by the writting style that Tiffany is not a woman. Women argue differently than men, even the lesbians. The elephant is not in the room and there is no smoking gun for me. I do think a plane did not go down in the spot they staged in Skanksville and the hole in the pentagon seems just wrong. Too bad the truthers don't have a unified theory. Here is mine:
The CIA ripped off Bin Laden, he sent some guys to get even, they crashed into the twin towers. This greatly benefited American Oil interests. Flight 93 was shot down and something strange hit the pentagon. I suspect an inside job. That is all I have.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
These planes are not designed to do sudden G- force maneuvers, and these commercial airliners basic top speed for cruising are 315 to 320 max anything over that causes stress on the airplanes planes. Every alarm would be ringing in the cockpit, the wings cannot handle 550 knots it would tear them off the plane.
Now military jets, that something very different.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I also have to say that the footage you gave also proved that a 757 did not hit the pentagon. That one footage that showed something hit the pentagon is now a hoax in my book.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

Besides your insulting opinions, do you have any proof that these experts are wrong?

How is this delusional?
How is this factually baseless?

Do you care to address these issues with some real evidence with internet links, and sources?
I believe the OP has presented very credible information from a credible source.
Besides your nasty opinions what do you have to put on the table.


Don't take my word for it! Heavens no! You could take take the pronouncements of United States District Court Judge Denny Chin, who's opinion I quoted.

Or you could reject that reality and create one of your own. There is no law in our nation (or anywhere, that I am aware of) that states, so long as you do not impact any other human being in a negative manner, you and the PfT and the CIT and the Architects and the Firemen and the Mailmen and the Proctologists for Truth people can live in whatever reality you want. Don't let a simple matter of a duly-appointed and competent (Democrat, even! He probably hates Bush just as much as you do!) US District Judge stop you from living in your own world where April Gallop's "delusional and factually baseless" claims (rendered such by an officer of the US court, backed by the US Constitution. Want to reject that reality, too?), not to mention the Pilot for 9/11 for 9/11 Truth contribution to that ridiculous waste of taxpayer's time, are all perfectly logical and legitimate claims of fact.

As far as providing "internet links", you seem to be of the opinion that nothing is true unless it has an "internet link". There are a bazillion links out there if you choose to read them. You need to check with your alternate reality if you are allowed to do that, however.

Knock yourself out.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
And I Repeat...*you* stated the following:


... as all separation is done by speed and radar.


Which is an incorrect and ignorant statement.

You did not specify a specific flight parameter or terminal weather condition with your above "... as all separation is done by speed and radar."


Oh for crying out loud.

Bottom line is ASR radar in terminal areas is highly accurate as they use such radar to separate thousands of lives traveling at hundreds of miles per hour.

Do you disagree? Do you think the NTSB radar data is inaccurate? Second time asked.

By the way, ATC is responsible for aircraft separation in Class B and aircraft on an IFR flight plan, regardless if the pilot claims he has visual contact, as pilots lose visual contact all the time.

Yes, pilot has final authority as clearly if he see's an aircraft or gets a TA/RA, he will avoid the traffic conflict. But ATC is responsible for the separation.

It appears you listen to a handheld transceiver outside the gates of a Class G airport and think you know what you're talking about. you don;t.

Sorry, but you don't have the knowledge to play with the big boys, nor a little girl.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 




You know, when people say that a plane cant fly low and fast, for whatever reason, I like to watch these videos. Nearly scraping the belly on the runway going well over 300mph, or scorching the sagebrush. If they can go this fast scraping the ground, why not faster at 1,000ft?


I just watched your three videos and I would like to know where you got the information that all of these planes are doing well over 300 knots??

Also please link your information to how many feet these plane were from the ground?


[edit on 12-7-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   


As pointed out in the presentation, if you think the NTSB data is wrong, you should think twice about getting on an aircraft in the NY area or arriving to a terminal area, as all separation is done by speed and radar.
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I understand what they are saying but they are forgetting one important condition of the situation. The aircraft were not performing within normal parameters. Radar is rythmic in nature and a lot can happen between one sweep and the next. The systems used on 9/11 and today are not optomized for conditions experienced that day. So for your everyday flights around the world? sure the systems are fine but once you have lots of course/speed/apsect changes you are entering a scenario more akin to combat situations and again the everyday traffic control systems are not up to snuff for that.




top topics



 
127
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join