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.

 

Is this the real truth about the 9/11 planes

page: 16
53
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by pinkbirdatabase
 


Ground effect has a very small window where it affects the plane. It's quite easy to get through as long as you are expecting it.




posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by pinkbirdatabase
It violates all laws of physics if you could ever do that. Neither manually nor remote controlled you could do that. This plane CANNOT fly horizontally above ground level below an altitude of half wingspan. If you can do that then we'd have to rewrite all so far known laws of physics.


Once again, care to show us these "laws of physics" that state that... Why are you avoiding this simple question?

I posted a wikipedia and a princeton link both of those links explaining that law of physics in detail.
It isn't my fault that you arent able to read.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by lambros56



The people were real in my opinion.
In my opinion the planes were switched and remotely flown.

Sorry if that's too difficult for you to accept.



Why on earth would the conspirators do that?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pinkbirdatabase
 


I'm saying that angle of attack doesn't matter. You can be nose down, you can be nose up, and still fly with a zero climb rate. Even with ground effect in play. To get through ground effect you push forward on the stick, and it becomes less of a factor.

You can fly in ground effect at any altitude, even at half your wingspan, but at that point the effects of ground effect are highest. It's harder to control and stay at altitude at that point, but it's entirely possible. It's even possible to go lower than half your wingspan, just not easy.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinkbirdatabase
It violates all laws of physics if you could ever do that. Neither manually nor remote controlled you could do that. This plane CANNOT fly horizontally above ground level below an altitude of half wingspan. If you can do that then we'd have to rewrite all so far known laws of physics.


Then explain the F-18 picture I posted earlier. There's no way he's at over 25 feet, which is roughly half the wingspan of an F-18. And there are others out there showing fighters flying at less than half their wingspan with no problems at all.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
reply to post by pinkbirdatabase
 


Here are some pictures with the height:











The 757 has a wingspan of 124 ft. The pentagon's height is 71 ft.
What's the logical result regarding laws of physics and that altitude and height?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by pinkbirdatabase
It violates all laws of physics if you could ever do that. Neither manually nor remote controlled you could do that. This plane CANNOT fly horizontally above ground level below an altitude of half wingspan. If you can do that then we'd have to rewrite all so far known laws of physics.


Then explain the F-18 picture I posted earlier. There's no way he's at over 25 feet, which is roughly half the wingspan of an F-18. And there are others out there showing fighters flying at less than half their wingspan with no problems at all.


The F15 is s military plane and show me its speed in those pictures!
Show me flying 400+ knots at altitude below half wingspan at zero degrees angle of approach. I'd applaud you first if that is possible. It isnt. It violates all so far known laws of physics.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by pinkbirdatabase
 

So, what you're saying is that an airplane that flew at the altitude and speed that the 'OS' suggests would inevitably crash, right?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by pinkbirdatabase
 


And I already showed you an F-18 below half wingspan, level, and at well over 300 knots. Why would an F-15 be any different?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by pinkbirdatabase
 


Here are more pictures to ponder:










posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaws1975

Originally posted by TopsyTurvyOne
what if there were no plane crashes and no real deaths and
what we saw was all movie special effects combined with complete victim fakery?



See that is what the debunkers jump on to make us all sound crazy, it's too speculative. There's enough evidence of conspiracy without having to reach so far.


it is not speculative at all. it has teeth, with many of them sharp, jaws.
www.septemberclues.info
www.cluesforums.info

six years of cumulative research cannot be dismissed easily!

and it all makes perfect and verifiable sense.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by pinkbirdatabase
 

So, what you're saying is that an airplane that flew at the altitude and speed that the 'OS' suggests would inevitably crash, right?


It would never fly horizontally at the speed of 400+ knots at an altitude of half the wingspan or less because ground effect would automatically lift the aircraft back to wingspan level. That is how their wings are constructed.
I do not doubt a crash.
I just debunk
1) Either that type of airplane
Or
2) The CCTV images.

What we had seen and what we are told to believe regarding the pentagon crash and the CCTV violates the laws of physics.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by rigel4
 


The Passenger Manifest only proves who was on that particular flight. It doesnt prove who died or that they were even on the planes they were intended to be on. Your turn



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Those crashes dont usually have questionable circumstances about them so its logical to believe those passengers aboard those planes are indeed dead.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by pinkbirdatabase
 


Ground effect has a very small window where it affects the plane. It's quite easy to get through as long as you are expecting it.


Kindly tell me about how you would do that with a 757 at 400+ knots speed while you also consider the absolutely horizontal approach seen in the CCTV pictures. Zero angle of attack and a hell of speed? How do you reduce alt then? And then even below ground effect? Come on! Please explain what you would do if you were the pilot, for achieving any kind of sink rate and then even versus ground effect power.. I'd have no idea.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by pinkbirdatabase
 


Push forward on the stick, and if you're in it long enough, trim slightly nose down.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by lambros56
Those passengers were taken somewhere else.
The planes that hit the towers were empty. The passengers on the list were not on them.


What specifically makes you think this, and not that the planes were actually real and were full of those real people?
Where do you propose all those folks were taken too? Are you saying that they are alive somewhere on this planet and haven't once reached out to their families? This makes no sense. Or that their families know and are keeping quiet. Some actors they are, showing up each year on 9/11 to read off the names.

Wonder what the gov't is paying them.

Please keep in mind too, that AA and UAL would've had to be in on this whole thing.

Not ONE whistleblower! Anywhere. There has to be thousands of potential participants to this inside job. Regular Americans...

I'm sorry I don't buy it for one second




I never said they were alive somewhere on this planet and haven't reached out for their families.
You are trying to insinuate that's what I meant.

I don't know if they were taken alive or killed.

I'll say it again as I keep getting misquoted.
I don't believe those passengers made it onto the actual planes that hit the towers because I firmly believe the two planes were remotely controlled into crashing into the towers by the group who carried out the attack.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by lambros56

The people were real in my opinion.
In my opinion the planes were switched and remotely flown.

Sorry if that's too difficult for you to accept.


It's difficult to accept because it's so bizarre in its pretense and there's no evidence for any of it.
You fail to consider the implications of trying to pull that off.


It's also my opinion that the evidence put forward by the investigation didn't prove those people were on board the two planes that hit the towers.
They may have boarded the original planes but I don't believe the original planes hit the buildings.


I've heard no good reason for anyone to believe such a thing. You have to be in close proximity to the planes to remotely control them. So where was the person with the remote control?? SInce we know there weren't any planes shadowing them...


You find it hard to understand someone would say what I have said. That may be because you believe the official theory..........because that's all it was.


I find it amusing that CT's try to insult people for believing the facts as they've been presented- or the"official story". There's no need for another way for this to have been perpetrated.

Our gov't is not that smart people! Look at how they tried to convince the world of WMD's. They couldn't even do that convincingly!






How do you know how close the proximity needs to be for a plane to be remotely controlled ?
We don't know what type of technology the perpetrators possess.

I never mentioned the government carrying this operation out.
It may be a rogue branch of government OR military.

But I DO believe the government has a hand in the cover-up of the real perpetrators and that the official theory is a lie.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan


We've debunked the statement that it was a missile that hit the pentagon.
We've debunked the statement about Enron documents.
We've debunked the statement about remote control instead of pilots flying the planes.
We've debunked the statement that the people are alive and having plastic surgery.
We've debunked the statement that the planes landed safely in Canada.
We've debunked the statement that there was no plane wreckage in the Pentagon debris.
We've debunked the statement that the Air Force shot down the Shanksville flight.

Have you got any facts to present? Or is it just going to be more insulting rhetoric?
edit on 8/1/2013 by FlyersFan because: added one more debunked


You know what it means to debunk? It simply is someone say, "no", "no", "no", "no" and saying see, it's debunked! Again, how does a massive jet liner fit into a 16ft hole? Makes no sense.

Yes, let's believe a plane hit it because they say it did. Where is the plane?



It made a tiny hole?



Even a sign is amazingly stronger than this terrorist plane blowing out the floor



Added this one on edit:



If it doesn't fit, you must ......

Yes, it's so clear we are stupid conspiracy believers with no points to make.


edit on 2-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: added plane image



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinkbirdatabasewould never fly horizontally at the speed of 400+ knots at an altitude of half the wingspan or less because ground effect would automatically lift the aircraft back to wingspan level. That is how their wings are constructed.


Let me guess, Capt. Rob is your flight instructor?


At 400 kts near ground speed might be an issue, ground effect not so much.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join