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.

 

Pentagon - No camera footage = No plane. A reasonable assumption.

page: 32
136
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by stewalters1
 



Never looked at it that way, but what about the lack of debris ??


There is NO "lack of debris". That impression is made, and taken to heart, by the writers and readers of the many "9/11 conspiracy" websites that infest the Internet. All claims, without merit --- as a deeper search away from the lies and distortions of those sorts of websites proves. Those individuals who use those sites as their "sole source" of "information" are being terribly misled:

www.rense.com...

www.911review.com...

sites.google.com...


The Internet is riddled with outright lies...whether due to sincere ignorance, perpetuated by the same people who feed on each others' ignorance, or for some other nefarious reason....to keep the "conspiracy" lie going. (You don't sell stuff related to a "conspiracy" unless you fan the flames OF that "conspiracy", constantly.....)

________

Again i could be wrong but can an aircraft of substantial size (airliner) actually travel at that speed at that altitude with the drag


When going "downhill" (that is, assisted by gravity AND with the thrust levers up to full power) it certainly can, and did accelerate. The Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) information is definitive, and undeniable.

BTW....there were some confusions in that data, as the very end portions were missing....final fractions of seconds....due to some software coding being corrupted. A gentleman by the name of Mr. Warren Stutt, in Australia, has been working on that for some time, teasing out the final moments. There is a thread about it here, and he recently (yesterday) commented that he's solved the reason for the software glitches...and included a copy of his letter to the United States NTSB, that included his findings. He and a co-author are due to publish a paper about it, in the forthcoming months.

( ATS member wstutt's POST. )




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Would not most of these same principals apply at the Pentagon?

www.youtube.com...[/yvid]



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



There is NO "lack of debris". That impression is made, and taken to heart, by the writers and readers of the many "9/11 conspiracy" websites that infest the Internet. All claims, without merit --- as a deeper search away from the lies and distortions of those sorts of websites proves. Those individuals who use those sites as their "sole source" of "information" are being terribly misled:


Really.??
Still waiting for you to point out all the debris and damage in this pic Weedwhacker..



Funny how you tend to ignore certain posts..
I highly doubt that you don't read them but you tend to ignore mine..


edit on 5-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...

Maybe if you would actually look at photos taken AT the Pentagon, rather than across the highway, you might just see what you keep claming wasnt there.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


You are presenting quite a misleading image. Yes there was debris.

www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...

From

www.911myths.com...

From an American Airlines Flight Attendant who was taken to the Pentagon.

Watch from point 03:45 for T. Carter. T. Carter was an American Airlines Flight Attendant who was due to fly on 9/11. She took the day off work to take her Father to hospital. She also identified the bracelet that she has given to her friend Rene who was killed on Flight 77 for her birthday. T.Carter also highlights that some of the hijackers had cased the flights before hand and had made video recordings.


Google Video Link


See link for other accounts of debris that she saw at the Pentagon.

911blogger.com...

TJ



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Apologies,

Vipertech. I didn't check back in before posting my reply.

TJ



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by backinblack
 


www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...

Maybe if you would actually look at photos taken AT the Pentagon, rather than across the highway, you might just see what you keep claming wasnt there.


Mate, I've seen more mess and debris than that after an "end of year" footy party...

This was over 100.000 kgs of plane...
I wouldn't expect that every piece would fit in Paris Hilton's purse..



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 



You are presenting quite a misleading image. Yes there was debris.


How can a picture be missleading..??
Did I photoshop it.??

There was NO reasonable sized bit of debris and all very little considering the impact hole clearly demonstrates that most of the plane did NOT penetrate the building..

Where's the 44' high tail...
Where's the 3500kg engines that Weedwhaches states did not penetrate the building..
Where's the 124' wide wings..

Point those out to me or the HUGE hole they dissappeared into..



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I agree, also the "airliner" would have been fitted with a qacker which would bug the hell out of the pilots until they pull up. To try and fly at 545mph or 800fps into a building would have taken so much skill, the suggestion that a couple of terrorists that can't speak english could have done this with next to no flight hours is simply ridiculous.

But the lack of debris and size of entry whole upon impact raises a few eyebrows.

Again this is only my opinion and i could be wrong.
edit on 28/12/2010 by stewalters1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Once an airplane reaches certain altitude landing gear automatically flips out. I wonder how did the airplane sustain such speeds with landing gear out. how did the engine reach such revs with such air density as available at ground level. How did airplane manage to overcome this huge drag of air? As airplane travels in air it simply cushions upon air or uses Coanda effect cruising, yet when airplane approaches ground level the air cushion resistance is dramatically increased because there is ground underneath, . Airplanes at such speeds would be simply thrown upwards with wings probably broken off.I have also noticed that American witnesses are crazy educated in aviation, especially women who could easily claim having seen an 450 mph travelling airplane passing by, yet unmistakenly those women would recognize that it is a 757. Damn, I have studied aviation since childhood, yet I am not sure if I could tell 757-767-777 apart at such speeds and close distances. It is not exactly that she noticed Bird of Prey from Boeing or Blue Tacit and recognised it immidiately, damn, those women could pinpoint that is was exactly 757, probably they could even tell from sound if it was Pratt and Whitney ,or Rolls _Royce powering them.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by stewalters1
 




Again i could be wrong but can an aircraft of substantial size (airliner) actually travel at that speed at that altitude with the drag ?


Yes. Already brought up in this thread. For your convenience here is a link to the paper that discusses it in detail: Aerospaceweb.org - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Boreal
 


I concur! the aircraft was not travelling at 545mph its impossible, even if the aircraft was in a dive to generate speed it would have broke to bits when it levelled out on collision course.
The landing gear could have been manually lifted using a hydrolic lever. Dont think they would have time for this though.
Simply can't get to grips with this one, the government must of had video evidence better than the one provided.
A big noisey jet plane at that altitude and not one person got a shot of it with a camera or video cam.

Look at concorde when that crashed, ok it was blowing flames out of it's rear but it was filmed by a guy driving his car.
It looked out of place with the flames pouring out the back so it was filmed.

If a low flying noisey (out of place) aircraft did hit the pentagon, i think that there would be more photo evidence.

Again i could be way out here. If i am wrong i apologies.
edit on 28/12/2010 by stewalters1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   


Once an airplane reaches certain altitude landing gear automatically flips out.


What? This is news to me. Do you have any proof at all for such a statement?




Airplanes at such speeds would be simply thrown upwards with wings probably broken off.


Again where are you getting this crud? Try searching for some real information.

Like here




The 757's flight augmentation system is also designed to damp out aerodynamic instabilities, and computerized control systems often automatically account for ground effect by making adjustments to the plane's control surfaces to cancel it out.


And




This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."


And




Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain.


And




One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all.





I have studied aviation since childhood,


I hope you don’t need to take a test on what you know.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by stewalters1
 




Again i could be wrong but can an aircraft of substantial size (airliner) actually travel at that speed at that altitude with the drag ?


Yes. Already brought up in this thread. For your convenience here is a link to the paper that discusses it in detail: Aerospaceweb.org - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   


A big noisey jet plane at that altitude and not one person got a shot of it with a camera or video cam.


The camera was 86 years old and the sinking took 2 ½ hours but not one photo of the Titanic sinking.




Look at concorde when that crashed, ok it was blowing flames out of it's rear but it was filmed by a guy driving his car.


Concorde wasn’t traveling at 500+ mph nor across a highway. Concorde was some distance from the expressway so the man had time to grab and activate his camera.

Has there ever been any other video of a air crash that wasn’t expected to happen?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Are you a pilot?
I was under the impression that once the aircraft is coming in to land the automatic landing gear light is activated along with an alarm, if it's ignored then gear is deployed based on altitude and speed.
Is this wrong? is it a CAA must for PA with retractable landing gear ?

I am not being ignorant it's actually a question.
I am probably wrong but have heard this off someone

edit on 28/12/2010 by stewalters1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent



A big noisey jet plane at that altitude and not one person got a shot of it with a camera or video cam.


The camera was 86 years old and the sinking took 2 ½ hours but not one photo of the Titanic sinking.




Look at concorde when that crashed, ok it was blowing flames out of it's rear but it was filmed by a guy driving his car.


Concorde wasn’t traveling at 500+ mph nor across a highway. Concorde was some distance from the expressway so the man had time to grab and activate his camera.

Has there ever been any other video of a air crash that wasn’t expected to happen?



With respect far more people have cameras now than they did when the titanic sank

Also the people on the titanic were sinking and in a state of panic, if your fearing for your life a camera isnt a priority.


Filming an out of place plane that you are in no danger from being killed by is completely different.
Do i have a point?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Boreal
 





Once an airplane reaches certain altitude landing gear automatically flips out.


I am extremely skeptical about that. (I am struggling to be polite about it).

Please provide a link to reputable evidence for your assertion.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Boreal
 





Once an airplane reaches certain altitude landing gear automatically flips out.


I am extremely skeptical about that. (I am struggling to be polite about it).

Please provide a link to reputable evidence for your assertion.




To be honest i can't find it out either, i am sure i have heard this mentioned in the past though.

Could be wrong though



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   


Also the people on the titanic were sinking and in a state of panic, if your fearing for your life a camera isnt a priority.


Granted, to a point. I don’t think there was panic in the first half hour though. But my overall point was that just because cameras are common doesn’t mean that they are always on and pointed in the right direction.

Some are applying today’s standards to 10 years ago. There wasn’t cell phone video back then. Was there even cell phone stills back then? How many people actually carried still/video cameras on their car seat? So to expect a picture of a fleeting event is not reasonable. Even if you had a camera on your lap, could you have powered it up and aimed in the short amount of time?




I was under the impression that once the aircraft is coming in to land the automatic landing gear light is activated along with an alarm,


I have looked on the web and the only ‘gear’ warning I can find is if the flaps are in the ‘landing’ configuration and the altitude is below 8oo feet. There is no mention of auto gear anywhere I can find.



new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join