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.
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: mrthumpy
Have you even read the last 20 pages ?
I has been mentioned several times.
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: mrthumpy
Scanned certainly. What did I miss?
The fact that the maneuver wasn't that dramatic as the conspiracy crowd want you to believe.
But the conspiracy minded believe what they want and ignore real facts.
Any particular maneuver or just The Maneuver?
originally posted by: samkent
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: mrthumpy
Scanned certainly. What did I miss?
The fact that the maneuver wasn't that dramatic as the conspiracy crowd want you to believe.
But the conspiracy minded believe what they want and ignore real facts.
Any particular maneuver or just The Maneuver?
Don't be obtuse.
You know what the topic being discussed is.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander
And you still have radar proving flight 77 hit the pentagon.
originally posted by: Salander
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander
And you still have radar proving flight 77 hit the pentagon.
Radar is like a video game, easily spoofed, easily forged. No matter what the radar says, 757 types cannot fly at the ridiculous airspeeds claimed by the government radar record.
These were staged events, pure and simple. In terms of details, certainly the most extravagant FAKE NEWS story of the new millennium. Some of us have figured that out, some of us have not yet.
No matter what the radar says, 757 types cannot fly at the ridiculous airspeeds claimed by the government radar record.
originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: neutronflux
There is a lot of manufactured evidence in a hoax. You have chosen to believe the first hoax, that an unskilled pilot was able to accomplish flying a Boeing 757 into a building with practically no navigation ability.
If you start at the beginning with this false hood it makes the other evidence you believe false.
Are you not in favor of the Pentagon releasing the videos they have of the plane approaching the Pentagon?
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bloodymarvelous
Diving a 757 into the top of the building would have been almost impossible. Diving any aircraft like that is incredibly hard and he would have been lucky to hit near the building.
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Zaphod58
The Pentagon takes up a huge area.
Your saying it's easier to hit just off the ground at high speed than hit a target that is 583 acres in size, sorry not buying that one.
A runway is only 26 feet wide(small) I have landed many times in an aircraft it descends at an angle and at about 150 MPH.
If he was in full control of the cockpit he would have slowed and come in at an angle just like the simulators train you to.
He either hits the grass and bounces or he hits the target deeper, I am not saying hitting this target was hard given it's massive size, just the way the plane came in and the type of plane flown with the level of expedience this pilot had.
The OP challenges these 5 points
1)The speed of the maneuver
2)The trajectory of the maneuver
3)The skill of the pilot
4)The ability of a standard commercial liner to pull that maneuver
5)The height of the final strike/crash
originally posted by: Salander
No matter what the radar says, 757 types cannot fly at the ridiculous airspeeds claimed by the government radar record.
Are you not in favor of the Pentagon releasing the videos they have of the plane approaching the Pentagon?
There are a number of valid reasons why only 4 of the 85 videos were released by the FBI in response to a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request filed in 2004, which was fulfilled in 2006. Because of a number of factors (listed below and detailed in the footnotes) only 2 of the 85 cameras captured any useful footage of the plane-impact event[1].
Most of those 85 cameras were not aimed in the direction of the Pentagon and/or at the part of the Pentagon in question.
Most cameras were located a considerable distance from the impact event, and virtually all surveillance cameras had wide-angle (fisheye) lenses which cause some geometric distortion and render distant objects at very low resolution.
Many cameras had obstructed views of the Pentagon impact area.
In 2001, virtually all surveillance cameras had low spacial resolution.
In 2001, most or all surveillance cameras recorded at low frame rates (low temporal resolution), generally at one frame per second.
The high speed of the plane, accelerating to over 550 mph, caused some image blurring and offered a low chance of catching more than a single frame of the plane, given the low-recorded frame rate (one frame/sec).
Conclusion
Since 2006, researchers have had all the frames of interest from both of the two surveillance cameras with the best useful information about the Pentagon event. Unfortunately, both sets of camera images are low resolution, and so what is seen is inconclusive. But what can be concluded with confidence is that the footage from both cameras is consistent with the large plane impact theory. Perhaps most significantly, one camera seems to show an unobstructed, but low-resolution view of the rapidly approaching plane.
originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander
No matter what the radar says, 757 types cannot fly at the ridiculous airspeeds claimed by the government radar record.
So why would the government give out ridiculous data on their own plan?
If you are going to make a cover story, why not use realistic data ?
You have never explained the expanding orange fireball of the explosion.
Explosives have milli seconds of orange.
You have never explained why the interior contents were not blown outside.
Explosives inside blows stuff outside.
Conspiracy theories ignore too many facts.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bloodymarvelous
The impact at high speed spread debris through the building like a shotgun. Hitting the roof at low speed would have spread the fuel more, but wouldn't have necessarily done a lot of more than superficial damage to the top of the building. There's no guarantee that it would have done more damage or been more destructive.
You'd get a more dramatic effect yes, but if the goal was to be more destructive rather than more dramatic then why would you be more worried about the drama effect?
originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Neutron, baby
What powers that brain, can we go back to the empirical evidence....not so much conjecture
Squirrel on a wheel possibly....idka reply to: neutronflux