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.

 

Five Little Known Facts About The Pentagon

page: 3
40
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
For an event like hitting WTC and Pentagon accurately by an airliner, it will need help from the ground. A pilot cannot discern a fast moving scenery very well. A modern fighter relies on many computerized aids for accurate strikes. This proves difficulty of accurate positioning needed for manual bombing in a small fighter airplane. Now think about an airliner?




posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


The 757 and 767 aren't modern or computer controlled. The first fly-by-wire Boeing produced that would require computer control is the 777. Both the 757 and 767 were designed in the 70s, and entered service in the 1980s. Both have computers to monitor aircraft systems, but neither require or use computer control.

Yes, yes I can. The autopilot is not connected to any kind of communications system. All input is made through cockpit controls. If you're going to add remote control systems you're going to need complete unfettered access to every part of the plane. Care to show when all four were out of service for those modifications to be made?



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   

GargIndia
A pilot cannot discern a fast moving scenery very well.


And we all know how fast the WTC towers and the Pentagon were moving....

You really have no clue at all about planes!



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Please look at this thread:

letsrollforums.com...

"B757's and B767's have on-board computer systems making them capable of executing either a pre-programmed or in-flight updated FLIGHT PROGRAM.

A B757/B767 is "prefectly capable of" flying itself from Point A to Point B and LAND all by itself."



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


Are you kidding? I know of a KC-135 pilot who used a first generation, hand held GPS, occasionally holding it against the side window in the cockpit to get to within three miles of the runway, after a 2500 mile flight.

Between the navigation systems on the plane, that didn't suddenly stop working, and the navigation aids at the THREE New York area airports, finding the city was childs play. Then it was a simple matter of looking for the two really big unmoving buildings.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


You are misquoting my statement. Fast moving does not mean WTC is moving. When you are travelling very fast, your visual senses get overloaded by amount of visual information. Landing on a well lit and well marked runway is very different from hitting Pentagon or WTC.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


Yes, when programmed FROM THE COCKPIT. You can update it from the cockpit, not from the ground. I've dealt with these systems and the update is done through the cockpit computer systems.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


Really? I bet that F-18 pilot that went over me at about 40 feet would be surprised to hear that.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The issue is NOT getting to New York or seeing WTC which stands out. The issue is accurate flight to hit the WTC in first go, that also a perfect hit.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by GargIndia
 


Yes, when programmed FROM THE COCKPIT. You can update it from the cockpit, not from the ground. I've dealt with these systems and the update is done through the cockpit computer systems.


If you can program it, means plane has the capability to store the program, and possibly choose a formerly stored program.

As regards F-18, a 757/767 cannot be compared with F-18 at all.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


No it doesn't. It can store programs but it can't select them without the pilot both choosing and verifying he wanted that one. It's not a computer like your desktop. Everything has to be selected and verified.

And yes it can be. You said that at low altitude your vision becomes overwhelmed. That applies to all aircraft then.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


And at that point why would they be looking at anything but the buildings? That would be the easiest part of the whole thing.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Please see AA-11 flight path: 911research.wtc7.net...

I am surprised at the accuracy of this flight path with respect to location and impact point. Very hard to achieve in light of all the variables associated with hijacking a plane.

If it was so easy to fly a plane like this, I bet WTC type attacks would have happened in many places around the world.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   

GargIndia
When you are travelling very fast, your visual senses get overloaded by amount of visual information. Landing on a well lit and well marked runway is very different from hitting Pentagon or WTC.


So these planes must be radio controlled.... as according to you when moving very fast their visual senses must have been overloaded....


Or you have no clue at all what you post here....



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


You do realize that they were all commercially certified pilots right? They had all passed the FAA certification tests, and were licensed. And the 757/767 were designed to be fairly easy to fly.

As for "everything associated with hijacking" at the point they took the plane they would have already been on autopilot, and the pilots would have still been strapped into their seats in the cockpit. But even if they had fought you wouldn't see it on that path. That's the large path, and doesn't show fine details, like the one at the Pentagon that shows a perfect circling descent. But when you look at the NTSB animation, you can see that it's anything but a perfect descent, and the flight controls are constantly moving the entire time.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 
George Washington himself picked the site of D.C. on a tract of land that was called Rome, 'Mary'land. He was also born on a site called Popes Creek in 'Virgin'ia.

The Washington Monument depicts the Above and Below.

The American Eagle depiction was originally going be a phoenix.

Ben Franklin, George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and more were all Rosicrucians.

Downtown Nashville, TN. is modeled after Mount Meru.

Blah, blah, Blah.

The U.S. is a nation of symbols. Hermetic to the 5 points.
edit on 21-9-2013 by timewalker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   

hellobruce

GargIndia
When you are travelling very fast, your visual senses get overloaded by amount of visual information. Landing on a well lit and well marked runway is very different from hitting Pentagon or WTC.


So these planes must be radio controlled.... as according to you when moving very fast their visual senses must have been overloaded....


Or you have no clue at all what you post here....


Comparing this tiny acrobatic plane to a large airliner. Wow???

You have the intelligence to run CIA. Hope Obama knows about you.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   

GargIndia
A pilot cannot discern a fast moving scenery very well.


You didn't say that small planes and fighters are different than large planes. In fact you said fighters have to have computer assistance to hit anything on the ground, so why is that different from an airliner? Or the F-18 I saw the other day different? Their brains and eyes all work the same, so they should be overwhelmed as well, according to you.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I hope you are right.
Circumstantial evidence of many things that happened since is not very encouraging.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


It's a known fact that they had all received their commercial certificates. It's on FAA record.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join