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.

 

The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

page: 61
273
<< 58  59  60    62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

He held an FAA license to fly and Barack holds a license to practice law. So what? He couldn't fly according to his flight instructors, and Barack doesn't know a tort from a criminal offence.

Several pilots, years ago, were on record at Pilots For 911 Truth, line pilots in the 757, who said they could not have performed the precise maneuver required by the official story.

I believe them over a pentagon spokesman any day.




posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: D8Tee

He held an FAA license to fly and Barack holds a license to practice law. So what? He couldn't fly according to his flight instructors, and Barack doesn't know a tort from a criminal offence.
Hanjour wasn't exactly a "flight school dropout". He had a private and commercial pilots licence, and a not insignificant amount of flying experience, including some simulator work (although on 737's). He certainly could fly.



Several pilots, years ago, were on record at Pilots For 911 Truth, line pilots in the 757, who said they could not have performed the precise maneuver required by the official story.
Others say it wasn't that difficult.




I believe them over a pentagon spokesman any day.
Good example of confirmation bias.
edit on 30-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   
You can't get a commercial rating and be a bad pilot.



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And again you deny reality.

www.liveleak.com...

FY 2005 budget hearings. Even using conspiracy theory math, FY 2005 is long after September 10, 2001.



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And even Marcel Bernard, the flight instructor who refused to rent the Cessna to Hanjour, has said that he has no doubts that Hanjour had the skills to fly Flight 77 into the Pentagon....as long as he did not have to worry about taking off. Let me guess....you don't believe him either...



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears
Question how reinforced are the pentagon walls? The hole does not resemble the twin tower holes, and I seem to recall the official explanations is that the wings folded like origami and went through the hole made by the nose, which is a cartoon physics level explanation.


Are you talking about the jet entrance hole before the outer section of the pentagon collapsed?





www.popularmechanics.com...

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.




posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears

Webpage detailing the damage made by flight 77 on the pentagon's most exterior ring.

911review.com...



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

I didn't say he was a dropout, I said that his several flight instructors commented he was a lousy pilot. I can relate, as I'm a flight instructor myself.

FAA licenses are issued after the applicant meets "minimum standards". That's the FAA language, not mine.

The claim that he could fly the maneuver required, first time in a Boeing, is an absurd claim. Feel free to believe what you wish, but I'll pass, thanks very much.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
You can't get a commercial rating and be a bad pilot.


Really? Ask the family members of those killed on that flight going into Buffalo some years back in which a guy with a commercial rating lost control of the aircraft on long final, stalled it, and killed everybody onboard.

What FAA licenses do you hold? What aviation experience do you have? Why should I believe that statement?



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Marcel could not fly that maneuver himself. A handful of 757 line pilots have stated they could not fly that maneuver.

WTF should I value what Marcel said? I have enough aviation experience to know the maneuver as described in the official story is absurd, a mere concoction by the perps. An expert in FDR's, Dennis Cimino, after studying the data from NTSB, has said that the unit was not even assigned to an airframe, showing the story to be a hoax.

Why should I care what Marcel said?



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

If you are going to use him to back your story saying Hanjour was such a bad pilot at takeoff/landings in a Cessna that Marcel would not rent him a Cessna.....then you need to acknowledge that Marcel's opinion was also that Hanjour was fully capable of flying into the Pentagon. So, either you care about all he said, or you are being dishonest.

Using Dennis Cimino for information is like using Robert Lazar for information about Area 51....talks a good game, but in the end, not very accurate.

A handful of 757 pilots say they couldn't do it? And? To date, no DC-10 pilot has been able to duplicate the feats of United 232's crew from 1989 in a simulator.

Of course, I have watched a half a dozen pilots in a simulator hit the Pentagon. ( I hit the helipad...but then again, I was just an avionics tech)



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander



Marcel could not fly that maneuver himself. A handful of 757 line pilots have stated they could not fly that maneuver.


And others have said the maneuver was not difficult.

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."
Experienced pilot Giulio Bernacchia agrees:

In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I've flown a number of simulators over a 30 year span to remain current under the FARs. One thing everybody knows is that while they are most useful as training devices, they are not a real airplane. So I don't understand your point regarding efforts to duplicate UA 232's accident.

To defend the official story, one must attack any person brave enough to speak the truth, so I understand your dismissal of Cimino's findings. Denial of the truth, dismissal of the truth, is the only tool available to those who defend the official story.

As for me, I believe Cimino far more readily than I believe Cheney, Bush or Rumsfeld. His analysis of the long-delayed FDR information corroborates all the other evidence that shows the official story about what happened at the pentagon to be false.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

How much time do you have as a pilot in airplanes?



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: D8Tee

How much time do you have as a pilot in airplanes?

How many missile launches have you been at the controls for?



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

I bet you cannot even get Salander to make a statemet on a credible theory to supersede a large jet strike at the pentagon.

The poster will not put anything on the line, nor make a statement to stand behind. Other than they are all told to lie? Just spout how there is no evidence.

And completely ignores the 100 plus witnesses that give an account of a large jet hitting the pentagon.

Will not produce any argument why the eyewitnesses are wrong.

Will not explain how the crew and passengers of flight 77 ended up dead at the pentagon.

Will not explain how jet wreckage, engine wreckage, passenger seats, landing gear, and the passenger's effects ended up at the pentagon.

Will not explain any theories about the coroner, DNA testing, and what remains were released to families.

Will ridicule you because the individual thinks it's more probable the US government conducted a maritime operation to steal a salt water damaged missile from a Russian sub that had its front end blown off by torpedos exploding, somehow fixed the missile, somehow trained a launch crew, created a secret launch pad, and cannot explain what damage the missile would have done. Buys into the truth movement mantra of a missile over a large building by a busy airport got hit by a commercial jet.

The same individual will imply you are a sheep because you stay clear of the leaders of the truth movement that have milked the conspiracy circuit for 15 years? Leaders more concerned with staying relevant for financial solvency than getting to the truth.

edit on 1-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed finder fumbles



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: D8Tee

How much time do you have as a pilot in airplanes?

How many missile launches have you been at the controls for?


Such a awesome reply to Salander. Doesn't deserve to get lost do to my rant!
edit on 1-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Added to



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Very interesting twist!!!

S&F



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Staroth
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Very interesting twist!!!

S&F


Is it like some kind of game with truthers to come up with the most outrageous conspiracy theory and disseminate it?

A Russian missile from a sub that sunk? Really? People give this any kind of credibility?

Idiocracy has met Wag the Dog and formed a new reality.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Cant agree. if the missle was it and it was travelling at mack 2 then it would gone right theough that buidling and possible another 1-2ks beyond that.



new topics

top topics



 
273
<< 58  59  60    62 >>

log in

join