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.

 

100% conclusive evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon.

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 


Stall speeds vary from model to model and depending on altitude and descent/asscent. But in general, passenger airlines have a very high speed to stall in terms of comparibility with light aircraft. Turbine combustion engines require a decent supply of oxigenated air and the aerodynamics of a low elevation approach will mean that air flow is spoilt to the engines as the aircraft will need its nose up in order to create enough lift to keep it from hitting the ground. As the air pressure is much higher closer to the ground it requires more thrust for the airflow split at the wings to create a large enough varience of high pressure below the wing to low pressure above it to create the lift required. In short it is at best unlikely that this kind of manouvre could be performed by an experienced pilot and imo impossible to perform by a novice.

To be honest I do not see how the pilot could be coming in at the angle shown in the video at the same time as doing 450knts it is way too fast for that altitude, plus there would have had to have been a pretty damn precise nose dive and recovery to go from that 5000ft to 500ft in that space of time. It has all the ear marks of a stunt pilot not a novice light aircraft pilot, if at all posible at all.
edit on 20-6-2011 by michael1983l because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elieser
reply to post by userid1
 


They were not just government related people, read the information on your link, these were people involved in top secret stuff, look at the companies they worked for.
A quote from your link:
"The odds against this being a random group of 53 American Airlines passengers are simply astronomical! There are more top secret security clearances here than in most medium-sized cities in America."


edit on 20-6-2011 by Elieser because: typo


There are more top secret clearances in DC than anywhere else in the US - so? I had a TS clearance -didn't make me any particular target that I'm aware of. Think about it - DC is a Gov't town. People traveling from DC elsewhere during the week had a reasonable probability of being involved in some sort of Gov't work (meetings usually).

Think of it this way - suppose a jet leaving Norfolk International Airport during the week crashes for whatever reason and when you look at the passenger list you notice what you consider an unusually high number of Navy related employees. Being that you've got the Norfolk naval base, NAS Oceana, Naval amphib base little creek, plus assorted other smaller installations and that the Navy is the biggest employer in Hampton Roads, VA (not just Norfolk) - is this surprising?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elieser
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


I don't see any mention of the terrorists on the lists either, none of the passenger lists have the names of the terrorists on them, don't you find this little piece of missing information important, don't you want to know who did what?


I find the 9/11 threads interesting, but I do not like to post in them. Entirely too much bickering.

That being said, Elieser brings up an excellent point.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by userid1
 


Stall speeds vary from model to model and depending on altitude and descent/asscent. But in general, passenger airlines have a very high speed to stall in terms of comparibility with light aircraft. Turbine combustion engines require a decent supply of oxigenated air and the aerodynamics of a low elevation approach will mean that air flow is spoilt to the engines as the aircraft will need its nose up in order to create enough lift to keep it from hitting the ground. As the air pressure is much higher closer to the ground it requires more thrust for the airflow split at the wings to create a large enough varience of high pressure below the wing to low pressure above it to create the lift required. In short it is at best unlikely that this kind of manouvre could be performed by an experienced pilot and imo impossible to perform by a novice.


OK, but...is that to say that 300kts@5000 feet level and 450kts@ let's say 500' and constantly descending for a minute or less within that stall rating? Does that ring true to you? There's got to be a chart or something somewhere - but there's no way I could ever find it -maybe you could?

While I won't argue subjective terms such as "unlikely" with you (in fact, would probably agree based on what I've read), that does fall short of impossible (not saying you said that) and the witnesses and Data Recorder info seem to support that this was just one of those rare occasions where a novice managed to pull it off.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by VariableConstant

Originally posted by Elieser
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


I don't see any mention of the terrorists on the lists either, none of the passenger lists have the names of the terrorists on them, don't you find this little piece of missing information important, don't you want to know who did what?


I find the 9/11 threads interesting, but I do not like to post in them. Entirely too much bickering.

That being said, Elieser brings up an excellent point.


I know this is going to sound simple-minded - but could it be possible that people are distinguishing morally and definitionally between "passengers" and "hijackers"? I seem to remember way back when the number of victims was being published -it would be one of two different numbers. One included the hijackers - one did not, presumably because they didn't actually qualify as "victims". Maybe it's something along these lines? I dunno - just suggesting...



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I think it is close to impossible a novice could ever pull that off. I do not know the stall exact data for that aircraft stall speed however this relies on two issues, firstly that the figures released are true for altitude and speed and secondly flying that low at that speed would be the equivelant to getting a pick up truck through a hir pin at 150 miles an hour and keeping it on the tarmac. It is all very subjective as it is down to professional opinion but in my opinion I think what has been described is 99.9% likely to not be possible.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
It is apparent to me that you know not of what you speak.

Forget the amatuerish cartoon for a minute, and the lies of Dubya.

Since when is anything in this existence 100%?

To me, it lends more support to the missile theory that someone would go out of their way to make a thread debunking an uncertainty with this drivel and calling it 100 % proof.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
The evidence is what we have seen over and over.

Regardless of your belief, we all will never agree. I personally think it was not a plane. I do not know what made the hole, but to me it had to have a re-enforced nose to penetrate so many rings and leave such a clear round hole in the last ring.

Everyone knows how the govt. brought in rock to cover the ground right after the impact, yet I have never heard a plausible reason why.

I believe that regards less of ones belief about the incidents of that day, no one can argue that we have not received all the facts. This reason alone means it is a conspiracy. Some people are not being forthright with the evidence.

Probably a good reason for it. We will never know the truth, and if one argues we already know the whole truth, well they are fooling themselves.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
Everyone knows how the govt. brought in rock to cover the ground right after the impact, yet I have never heard a plausible reason why.


I thought I read somewhere that it was because the ground was a soaked, muddy mess from the firefighting efforts both inside and outside of the building. (the fire in the roof line smoldered and flared up for more than a week at least if I recall) Their concern was that the big equipment (cranes, etc.) might get stuck or off-balance. In a way, this does make sense to me since the pentagon is basically at sea level as it was mostly reclaimed land anyway.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


You actually believe this???Wow and we are wondering how the world is going in this direction...
Fail evidence.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
It's actually quite simple, if the government wants to shut us truthers up all they have to do is show us the confiscated surviellance video from the Sheraton Hotel. From there you have a perfect view of the cartoon you showed and by watching that tape we would all know the truth of what happened that day....10 years and the government still hasnt released it, there must be something good on there to keep it a secret this long...Maybe the tape shows who really killed Kennedy...jk



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
How can one honestly believe that a large commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon when:

1) There was no conclusive physical evidence (airplane parts, luggage, cargo, personal effects, seats, wiring, etc.) of such an aircraft impacting with the Pentagon.

2) No conclusive photographic or video evidence of the impact has ever been released.

3) A Top Gun Turban, who could not even fly a Cessna, performing such a complex high speed maneuver with an advanced aircraft is virtually impossible.

4) There is no photographic or video evidence from the airport of departure of these passengers or hijackers boarding the airplane.

5) There were no family members awaiting the arrival of the passengers at the destination airport.

6) 53 passengers on a transcontinental flight wouldn't even begin to cover the fuel cost for such a long distance flight.

7) There are numerous conflicting reports by alleged witnesses.

8) Sections of the downed light pole(s) should have been flung half way across the state if impacted with an aircraft traveling at 450 MPH, not just knocked over.

9) The Pentagon lawn appears to be in absolutely pristine condition after the impact when there should have been debris all over the place.

10) There is absolutely no conclusive visual evidence of the jet engines impacting with the exterior wall of the Pentagon.

All this doubt, however, we are asked to believe that an airliner crashed at the Pentagon because of some flight data info (which can easily be made up) and alleged DNA evidence. I can tell you I have the DNA of Jesus Christ. Without providing any additional proof, would you believe me?

There comes a time when one has to say, sorry mommy (media) and daddy (Government), but both of you are full of camel spit up to your humps.
edit on 20-6-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


You have no proof what so ever about it being a plane other than the fact that you trust your government just because its "your government"... and your right... how could they lie to us? the american public?... well they do... all the time... about more things than they tell the truth about...i mean you dont see a resemblance between the 911 commission and that BULL SHYT they call the "Warren Commission"... well if you dont see it then your just blatantly blind and you are just another skeptic that believes what hes told to believe... you also said you dont go off topic when this is about 911 and you basically call every conspiracy theorist out there an idiot and a loon and an insecure mind for the sake of your own benefit when in fact i think i can speak for most that you are the last type of person a conspiracy theorist would take seriously on a fourm or right to your face... which if i had the privelage of being near i would spit in a laugh dramatically at because you just like everyone like you tries to say were wrong and always go off topic and you are guilty of both on the same thread... so haha shame on you and just to keep this on topic ive counted roughly 37 different people to make accusations about 911 being an inside job AND those 37 are all ivy league scholars some with PHD's so untill you realize conspiracy theorists arent just the loosers with no lives who sit on computers all day... you realize maybe with enough research you will find alot of what you have been told by "your government" has already been PROVEN to have been lied about and thrown under the table as a "whoops, guess we made a mistake"



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
You think a jumbo jet traveling at 500 MPH slamming a post would just.... knock it over? Sounds like you believe in a false conspiracy theory to me.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


I can't believe I just wasted my time on that. Am I the only one?
In my second line I would like to point out what a silly joke that animation is.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar
You think a jumbo jet traveling at 500 MPH slamming a post would just.... knock it over? Sounds like you believe in a false conspiracy theory to me.


When you are that low to the ground it can definitely affect your flight making you crash into the street or lawn before crashing hitting the Pentagon...



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


The animation failed to establish/prove if the real collision objects were all points on a strait line. One photo with all objects would have accomplished this.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by jhn7537
 


I know right?! Your telling me the PENTAGON only had ONE surveillance camera that caught like ONE frame of this event?! That alone is the most huge stupid discrepancy of the whole thing. Its like when my daughter was playing with the curtains and broke them, then I come inside and she says, "it was the dog!" but the dog was outside with me when it happened. This is all just a waste of time.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   


They were not just government related people, read the information on your link, these were people involved in top secret stuff, look at the companies they worked for. A quote from your link: "The odds against this being a random group of 53 American Airlines passengers are simply astronomical! There are more top secret security clearances here than in most medium-sized cities in America."

The passenger and crew names were probably a combination of intelligence operatives and fictional individuals. After 911, the intelligence folk had their names, identities and locations changed, continuing on with their lives. Similar to the witness relocation program.

No need for risking real airplanes landing at secret NASA facilities in Cleveland or planes being ditched into the ocean, a la Bin Laden. These speculative stories are just planted distractions to marginalize conspiracy kooks. Not that many need help in being marginalized.
The plan here was to minimize exposure and eventual legal risk, not increase it.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


I don't mean to offend here and I might be wrong, but you and SkepticandBeliever legitimately sound like you're the same person, almost as if you have two accounts and you're pretending to be two people because you feel that will give your arguments more punch. You two guys both believe the OS, which on this website is a small fraction, and coincidentally seem to post at the same time on the same thread. On top of that you both seem to attack people's credibility by emphasizing how outrageous the idea of such a conspiracy theory is without really providing any evidence to back up your claims, other than your opinion, and more attacks.

The idea of you logging onto two different accounts is ironic since you're making "mental health" jokes about truthers as if they're delusional and insane for believing in a theory with a good amount of evidence to back up, while you're switching between accounts to back up your YouTube animation video.

edit on 21-6-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join