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: 33
136
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 



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.


There are NO automatic gear extension systems on airliners. (The other member might be thinking of a few specific cases of small General Aviation airplanes that had such devices. Inexperienced pilots forgetting to lower the landing gear is quite common).

All airplanes with retractable gear have some version of a "gear warning". Or, gear not in correct position for phase of flight, is more accurate. Again, on small airplanes, it's usually wired into a combination of throttle and flap position....logic being, when flaps are extended, you are planning to land...and the power must be reduced to near idle...so, that is where a (at least audible) warning is set to trigger. Usually there is a visual cue as well (light or lights).

Airliners are more sophisticated, and the exact system design varies by type of airplane....AND, a lot of electronics are incorporated, and are tied in with the Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS)....a device and system that is always evolving and being enhanced. In fact, the "Enhanced" (EGPWS) is a version that uses GPS updating for predictive, that is "look ahead", terrain collision avoidance.

The GPWS programming software has many various warnings....terrain and configuration ("CONFIG" refers to inappropriate gear and flap settings for phase of flight) are preceded by a "Whoop! Whoop!" siren sound (in older systems), then a voice annunciation. Modern systems are moving away from the Whoop Whoop.

"Whoop Whoop! Terrain!" (old)

"Terrain!, Terrain!" (newer)

"Pull Up! Pull Up!" - (followed by)--

"Too Low! Gear!"

"Too Low! Flaps!"

(etc).

The onboard radar altimeter readings are part of the references used, as well as actual "config" positions. (There are others...."Don't Sink!", which is programmed to only occur during the takeoff, immediately after liftoff. "Sink Rate!" is programmed in during the approach phase, and looks at rate of descent and ground proximity...even IF the gear and flaps are in normal landing positions).

Gee, I bet there are some examples on the YouTubes.....yes, here is a "full" test of the sort of Enhanced (with GPS, to include predictive terrain) as installed on the latest version of the Boeing 737 (the "NG"):




BTW....we have "GPWS Inhibit" switches for those procedures that require landings with non-normal flap and gear position indications. To silence the nuisance warnings.


IF we had the actual CVR readable, and not damaged beyond recovery) form AAL 77 then we would have heard the various GPWS alerts...but only in the final moments when it was below about ~800 feet Radar Altitude (above the ground).....and that was an exceedingly short duration of time prior to impact.




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




Thanks for clearing it up man your good !!

I must of been confusing what i heard with light aircraft.

If that sized aircraft did hit the pentagon irrespective of speed, do you not think that we would see more debris?

I know you said and have shown links to the debris pictures but it just seems like hardly any given aircraft size.

I am not trying to be argumentative with you i respect your judgement.

Somethings amiss



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by stewalters1
 


AT those velocities the components of the airplane are reduced to small fragments, mostly. Those are incredible amounts of energy....the force is squared with each increase in velocity.

Compared the the majority of airplane crashes, historically.....they have various other factors that make the results, after all the debris comes to a stop, very different. One good comparison of a high-velocity impact is SwissAir 111, the MD-11 off the coast of Newfoundland some years ago. A fire, just over the First Class cabin area, resulted in eventual incapacitation of the pilots, and loss of control, with a very high speed impact with the ocean. The airplane was shredded, as hitting the water is just about as destructive as impacting solids...at least, initially, due to the incompressibility of liquids. Of course, it DOES 'move' out of the way, so the impact sequence is variable.

This is a photo as they were re-assembling all the bits, in order to determine the cause of that crash. The black metal framework you see is NOT part of the original airframe structure....it was used just as a way to place the pieces in original relationship to each other:



Here's another view of the reconstruction:



Of course, there was no fire in that case, being in the water.

Aluminum alloys melt very easily, in even moderate fires. A lot of the American 77 debris would have been consumed, and unrecognizable in many cases.

You can search the Internet for examples of post crash fire damage.....of course, many of those cases the entire airplane isn't consumed, since the fire is localized, being outdoors....and often the crash and rescue equipment has arrived to douse the flames. And, those cases, the airplane is largely intact, due to slower speeds as the crash progressed.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Ok it's making more sense to me especially after this post, although you said alluminium alloys burn away, i agree with you entirely, What about the case where the the women said there was no smell or jet fuel only the distinct smell of cordite?

I am nit picking here i think i will bow down on this and agree with you



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Also do a Google search for air Canada flight 797 pictures.

You will see how fire burned through the roof in several places of a DC9. The fire started in the rear lav. They landed asap and the fire crews were waiting. But in that short amount of time burn through occurred. It’s not surprising that we don’t see pictures of burnt fuselage being removed from the fire area.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Pour some gasoline on the ground and light it. Is there any smell of gas left? No it all burned. The same with the jet fuel.

The cordite? I don’t know. I suspect something else burning gave off that smell.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 




Good point fuel vapour burns not the liquid so it makes sense that once all the fuel has burned off there would be no vapour to smell

The cordite could have been melting plastic or metal or chemicle.

Point take.

Ats is a great platform to find things out and change your mind over things you are adamant over.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
What about aiming that aircraft into the building and actually hitting it given speed and altitude?

Do you think it required a degree of skill or just blind luck?

I was just going to make a comment about building security in ref to military buildings ( high profile ) and the apparent lack of defence from attack either by aircraft or other, then i remember MI6 getting hit by a rocket launcher a few years back.

I answerd my own question



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
there is a major flaw in saying this plane never struck the pentagon.
explain the rows of light poles the width of the plane that were knocked down as the plane came in?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfnow2
there is a major flaw in saying this plane never struck the pentagon.
explain the rows of light poles the width of the plane that were knocked down as the plane came in?




I hear you but my problem with that is they looked like they were pushed over ( hardly damaged ) if a plane going 800fps hit those poles i would think the wings would be ripped off or the poles would be mangled all over the place not laid perfectly flat in the exact width apart from eachother to fit that aircraft in between them.

Just a thought



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


this picture was taken quite of bit of time afterwards. the building smoldered for days.
the last link is an article

www.google.com...://i47.tinypic.com/29cy7o.jpg&imgrefurl=http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php%3Ftopic%3D156099.0&usg=__gqcCy 9NZX6h34oC_buBByJzbnEM=&h=482&w=529&sz=64&hl=en&start=21&sig2=gvmtnMP5-LZ2m6FEBPRMVQ&zoom=1&tbnid=Y7pY277e6kxu8M:&tbnh=151&tbnw=168&ei=6DkmTZOHBYH78Ab Gk-WcAQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dphoto%2Bevidence%2Bthe%2Bpentagon%2Bw%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26pwst%3D1%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D653%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&i tbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=264&vpy=87&dur=720&hovh=214&hovw=235&tx=144&ty=133&oei=1jkmTY2NKoP58Aai78TQDQ&esq=2&page=2&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:21

www.google.com...://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_Pentagon_Debris_111.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.usmessageboard.com /conspiracy-theories/100679-pentagon-9-11-analyzed-in-depth.html&usg=__Iy2FArdxqaUNe8zSj3it8Dy7qGU=&h=359&w=538&sz=49&hl=en&start=74&sig2=sgsbSwlSFRRQ ZyUVEFx1EQ&zoom=1&tbnid=JO9w8t6ez4JEAM:&tbnh=161&tbnw=211&ei=DTomTa7SO8H_lgf_7YX4AQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dphoto%2Bevidence%2Bthe%2Bpentagon%2Bw%26um%3D1% 26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26pwst%3D1%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D653%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=583&vpy=90&dur=1784&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=127&ty=118&oei= 1jkmTY2NKoP58Aai78TQDQ&esq=5&page=5&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:74


www.google.com...://911review.org/img/debris/wreckage.JPG&imgrefurl=http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/23/5165674-911 -words-by-iran-leader-lead-to-us-walkout-at-un&usg=__PZjmDWn1Y8F3ajjCpRqZ1GnQfZE=&h=354&w=450&sz=30&hl=en&start=91&sig2=f52ix4kKveAvGpnviR39oA&zoom=1& tbnid=hJO-2iq_P5EuZM:&tbnh=152&tbnw=193&ei=GjomTZOFGcaqlAe6hOXqAQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dphoto%2Bevidence%2Bthe%2Bpentagon%2Bw%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN %26pwst%3D1%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D653%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=640&vpy=154&dur=589&hovh=199&hovw=253&tx=122&ty=89&oei=1jkmTY2NKoP58Aai78T QDQ&esq=6&page=6&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:91

www.google.com...://www.truthnews.com.au/storage/images/pentagon/wreckage.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.truthnews.com.au/radio/wordp ress/%3Fp%3D320&usg=__A984hYREEs_05mKwcAz07ULfbz4=&h=1000&w=656&sz=139&hl=en&start=91&sig2=T50dLfgfrwUD1Fjn2pVA-w&zoom=1&tbnid=Hdn3zEWT1PN6dM:&tbnh=14 9&tbnw=101&ei=GjomTZOFGcaqlAe6hOXqAQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dphoto%2Bevidence%2Bthe%2Bpentagon%2Bw%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26pwst%3D1%26biw%3D1366%26bi h%3D653%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=987&vpy=271&dur=471&hovh=277&hovw=182&tx=108&ty=174&oei=1jkmTY2NKoP58Aai78TQDQ&esq=6&page=6&ndsp=20&ved =1t:429,r:18,s:91

www.google.com...://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/enginerotor.jpg&imgrefurl=http://xplore.wordpress.com/20 07/09/27/discovery-channel-propaganda-attack-on-the-pentagon/&usg=__Gz2_P7scAzPT0tVe-C66yaKKsaA=&h=318&w=346&sz=40&hl=en&start=111&sig2=a7KQoSk9T9CASU _mDs8IjA&zoom=1&tbnid=mnhx8d6R3QnpEM:&tbnh=159&tbnw=173&ei=LTomTeLxMoKglAfaoImiAQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dphoto%2Bevidence%2Bthe%2Bpentagon%2Bw%26um%3D1%26 hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26pwst%3D1%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D653%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=478&vpy=79&dur=1591&hovh=215&hovw=234&tx=99&ty=129&oei=1jk mTY2NKoP58Aai78TQDQ&esq=7&page=7&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:111

www.google.com...://www.911inplanesite.com/images2004b/pentagon_no_hole.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.911inplanesite.com/911synopsis .html&usg=__Q0bOW9dZWpJNE_KmNu0FQs3_-8w=&h=244&w=375&sz=11&hl=en&start=111&sig2=Bd3Rl-_kK_HM-blghxsV_w&zoom=1&tbnid=UJsc7L1dpe1VxM:&tbnh=159&tbnw=212& ei=LTomTeLxMoKglAfaoImiAQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dphoto%2Bevidence%2Bthe%2Bpentagon%2Bw%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26pwst%3D1%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D653%26t bs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=252&vpy=96&dur=1569&hovh=181&hovw=278&tx=151&ty=70&oei=1jkmTY2NKoP58Aai78TQDQ&esq=7&page=7&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:7, s:111

www.google.com...://www.aviationexplorer.com/flight-77-pent.jpg&imgrefurl=http://gnosis474.blogspot.com/2009/11/911-pentagon-ai rcraft-hijack-impossible.html&usg=__fOcgNinXk_BBqMwoKNo6Qe37Y-E=&h=300&w=368&sz=66&hl=en&start=111&sig2=Kc61m5K7laOm5tfUO7c5_w&zoom=1&tbnid=PIR5_-W42F 95nM:&tbnh=159&tbnw=193&ei=LTomTeLxMoKglAfaoImiAQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dphoto%2Bevidence%2Bthe%2Bpentagon%2Bw%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26pwst%3D1%26bi w%3D1366%26bih%3D653%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1076&vpy=85&dur=4437&hovh=203&hovw=249&tx=162&ty=143&oei=1jkmTY2NKoP58Aai78TQDQ&esq=7&page =7&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:111

www.google.com...://cassiopaea.netfirms.com/above_top_secret_files/pentagon%2520truck%2520bomb.jpg&imgrefurl=http://cassiopaea. netfirms.com/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm&usg=__qpHwjmnMSUaMExioKBurPbG5n8Q=&h=326&w=500&sz=49&hl=en&start=161&sig2=7VeigoqoAruQJTSiRRV6BQ&zoom=1&tbni d=0M4soanhKY19AM:&tbnh=152&tbnw=248&ei=kzomTZnQMYOBlAffrvnBAQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dphoto%2Bevidence%2Bthe%2Bpentagon%2Bw%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26p wst%3D1%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D653%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1047&vpy=185&dur=195&hovh=181&hovw=278&tx=196&ty=44&oei=1jkmTY2NKoP58Aai78TQDQ &esq=10&page=10&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:161


www.rense.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by surfnow2
 











Aaaaahhhh !!!! couldn't get the pics my laptops gone stupid



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by stewalters1
 


The poles were dislodged as would be expected.....toppled over, not necessesarily "dragged along"....clipped, knocked down, dislodged a few meters. And, of course, they would be "layiing" down afterwards.


...not laid perfectly flat in the exact width apart...


Is that a claim that's made? Is there a diagram, an overhead view somewhere, with exact final positioning and placement? Or.....is that claim merely something dropped in innuendo, by various "9/11 conspircy" websites? There is a great deal of hyperbole being spewed from those camps....(**)

(**)Did some sleuthing, and found an old ATS thread that I'd forgotten about....another (long gone) member, a very, very vocal proponent of the so-called "inside job" (although vague on details, as is typical) had a photo montage that I....well, copied from his post. Here:



If I recall, there was his claim that those poles all were "staged" in position. ( !! ) How, exaclty...in broad daylight at rush hour, in total view of hundreds of people in their cars, in a matter of a split second, he could never adequately explain...just kept waving his hands, and repeating the claims of "inside job"....no real evidence, just opinion and interpretation, and a stubborn refusal to look at ALL facts.



...plane going 800fps hit those poles i would think the wings would be ripped off...


Again, this is physics. Think of Karate, if it helps. Flesh and bone versus bricks......

No, not likely to rip through the wings all of the way, especially in view of the fact that such light poles are frangible at the base...designed to shear off, as a safety feature for motorcar accidents, when they impact them. It helps to dissipate the G forces on the occupants in the vehicle.

Here's a U.S. Patent on frangible poles....from 1973!!:

www.freepatentsonline.com...

Found this document online, from Australia:

www.bookshop.vicroads.vic.gov.au...

Look into incredible (yet true) reports of wooden planks of wood being hurled by tornadoes, and penetrating concrete block walls, etc. I've seen a "magic" trick where you can shove a paper drinking straw and impale it into a raw potato....IF you do it with great and rapid force. (There's another part of the "magic", though...you must pinch the end you are holding tightly closed with your fingers....the trapped air in the straw contribute to its rigidity and strength, in order to penetrate the firm flesh of the potato...)

Velocity makes a difference.......and the objects involved, of course.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by stewalters1

I hear you but my problem with that is they looked like they were pushed over ( hardly damaged ) if a plane going 800fps hit those poles i would think the wings would be ripped off or the poles would be mangled all over the place not laid perfectly flat in the exact width apart from eachother to fit that aircraft in between them.

Just a thought


...and being pushed over is all you're ever going to see them look like. Ever since 1985(?) light poles are of a breakway design so that they snap easily at the base. Apparently there have been a fair share of drunks plowing into light poles and wrapping their cars around the solidly fixed older street lights leading to lawsuits being filed. They now have a breakaway safety feature so that if someone is going to be a drunk driver, it'll have to be be something else behind the street light they'll need to wrap their car around.

If you didn't know they were of a breakaway design, this only means you're a safe driver. Thank you.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Of course it is misleading? You are seeking debris photos taken after the event, yet you yourself provide an image showing the area to the right of the control tower building. I take it from your laughing response that you have never seen the images presented in the following posts before?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or the Rense link posted in the following.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.rense.com...

Many people have attempted to discredit the aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon. Every conceivable theory has been put forward. I've even seen one of the wheels from a large wheeled fire extinguishire on the helo pad passed off as a Global Hawk wheel! Individuals have attempted to match up the engine wreckage with Global Hawk, BGM-109, A-3 Skywarrior, etc. All have failed.

No one has been able to present evidence that any of the wreckage is other than that from a Boeing 757. I take it that you are one of those that believe that those 'involved' did their homework and planted everything to match the type, model and engine fit of Flight 77?

No doubt the images will come back out again of those shady people caught planting the wreckage?

American Airlines marked piece of wreckage.

www.911myths.com...

This must have been in preparation for the visit of American Airlines Flight Attendant T. Carter? Look at the detail that they went to? Even down to the actual bracelet that she gave to Renee May as a birthday present.

You must admit that they are good at getting all this detail correct?


TJ



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Well, mate, that must be one hell of big purse she carries. Or maybe you dont understand that the majority of the wreckage ended up inside the building...



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


this is not all light poles. most of the accidents I have worked the poles were beat up or bent but otherwise intact.
maybe these are new design and just not replaced everywhere yet



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
at this point i dont understand why people are trying to disprove an airplane hitting the pentagon
there is so much evidence proving it did happen.

how about the letter "C" in american behind the fbi agent. this is getting ridiculous now.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Evening ATS

I think the original premise of this thread is wrong. The only way that that assumption could be made would be if the Pentagon was an isolated building whilst simutaneoulsy having complete C.C.T.V coverage. It isn't, therefore the assumption is wrong.

Just because there is no footage of an incident does not mean that the incident didn't happen.

I believe a plane was flown into the pentagon. There is too much evidence that shows it was a plane. What about the eye witnesses? The knocked over street lights? The wreckage? I find these hard to ignore.

That said, I do think there should be another public enquiry into Septmeber 11. I think the comission didn't have access to all the information and that opposing views/eye witness testomony were omitted for what ever reason. I believe those voices should be heard and be on record. I also think think that W should have testified under oath so the prince of darkness didn't get to hold his hand. But one rule for those that make the law and another for everyone else eh?

Cheers ATS. This was my first post, I have lurked for absolutely ages. Am real happy I have joined, however, I spent an unreasonable amount of time deciding if lamppost was spelt lamppost, lamp-post or lamp post. In the end I went with street light. I think this is probably why I didn't join until now. : )



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
There is one thing that makes me believe that the government is not necessarily lying, and that Flight 77 really crashed into there. Yes, I've read through so much stuff regarding arguments from boths sides.

The thing is, there were witnesses. People in and around the Pentagon. Even average "joe" citizens.

Second thing is, If the witnesses saw, say, a missile hitting the pentagon, then don't you think they'd be speaking up? Someone would have said something. People were in and around the Pentagon. I guarantee you at least a handful of Pentagon workers, saw this thing before impact. Why would you keep quiet if your coworkers have just been killed in the attack, and you know for a FACT from seeing it that it wasn't a passenger plane? Big brother's going to punish them if they do? Still wouldn't keep many people quiet.... that's a hard thing to take to your grave.

And if the government thought this thing so well out, then why make such a controversial looking point of impact in the Pentagon. Hell, they could have staged something to make it look less questionable that it came from a plane. Just a little thought.

There are some weird things about 911, but I've always had these questions in my head.



new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join