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.

 

What Level Of Skill Was Required To Fly A Plane Into The Pentagon ?

page: 113
42
<< 110  111  112    114 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Why are you talking about the commission. All evidence points to a large commercial jet causing the damage at the pentagon. Would you like to actually present a case to what caused the damage at the pentagon to supersede large commercial impact. We have pages of you ranting and behind debunked. I




posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: blackaspirin
a reply to: Salander

Especially in a world where you can look directly at plane wreckage and simultaneously say it wasn't there.


That is precisely the problem, though you seem to be unaware of that.

In the case of 93, it wasn't there. The several news crews flying overhead the field could not see it, their video cameras could not record it, the coroner and his team walking on the ground could not see it.

Yet you want me to believe it was there.



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

The jet that hit the pentagon was tracked by radar, then the end of the flight was witnessesed by civilians that give an account of a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon.

Scientists for 9-11 Truth show how people like you that deny the only possible cause for the damage at the pentagon was the large commercial jet tracked by radar killed the credibility of the truth movement.

What caused the damage at the pentagon? What remains were released to the surviving family members of flight 77’s crew and passengers?



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: blackaspirin
a reply to: Salander

Especially in a world where you can look directly at plane wreckage and simultaneously say it wasn't there.


That is precisely the problem, though you seem to be unaware of that.

In the case of 93, it wasn't there. The several news crews flying overhead the field could not see it, their video cameras could not record it, the coroner and his team walking on the ground could not see it.

Yet you want me to believe it was there.


And you have never provided a reference or cited the content of those broadcasts you can not provide evidence of.

You cannot reference when they took place in the context all civilian aircraft were called to be grounded around 10 am on 9/11.

I have posted 9/11 video from news crews at shanksville that showed bits of wreckage. Video not refuted by you.



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Still waiting on you to produce the actual quotes and cite the sources to further honesty debate. Statements that you will not produce.

Please produce the actual quoted statements by Wallace for the sake of debate.

The only reference I can find about Wallace’s statements at the shanksville site was the wreckage looked dumped into the crater. I have found no proof that Wallace ever claimed wreckage was missing.
edit on 28-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne


You show me the evidence


No, You show me the evidence. You made this claim :


originally posted by: Salander


wrong airliners in others,


Give us the evidence to back it up.



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

What you expect from an individual that argues no jet at the pentagon in one thread, and then argues a small military jet was converted into a drone in another thread. When all the evidence at the pentagon points to a large commercial jet.
edit on 28-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne


You claim that the official story is true. So far, neither you nor the government has been able to prove those claims.

You can repeat that claim 1003 times, but mere repetition does not make a statement true.

You cannot prove that 93 crashed in PA because it did not crash there.

This is getting tiresome. That you cannot prove your claim proves my claim of deception.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander




You claim that the official story is true. So far, neither you nor the government has been able to prove those claims.

It's been proven in court at least twice.
It's up to you to prove otherwise.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   
"My argument against it is that I refuse to believe it."

FOR 16 YEARS.

Everything that happened is a total mystery, you can't even think of a plausible alternative scenario. Not one. This is the real world - there are only so many possibilities to explain where the planes and passengers went, if they did not crash at those sites.

There are also only so many possibilities as to what DID crash there.

I don't know how you can stand the cognitive dissonance in believing that no planes crashed there, yet being completely unable to think of any other scenario.

It must be really frustrating to be that mentally handcuffed.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

See you have dropped your claims concern the miller quotes because there is nothing that supports your case.

I don’t have to prove anything. You need to come up with more credible case to what crashed in shanksville to supersede what happened to flight 93, what happen to flight 93’s passengers and crew, how a large debris field ended up in shanksville with wreckage shown in 9/11 news videos that you haven’t refuted, how jet wreckage ended up buried in an area 70 feet by 70 feet and 40 feet deep, how DNA identified remains ended up at shanksville, what human remains were released to families for burial, and discredit the 1000 plus individuals that recovered and attest to the wreckage, personal effects, human remains, and evidence at Shanksville.

So make your case what crashed, scorched a large area of trees, buried and caused a large field of wreckage and personal items, and how human remains ended up in tree tops.

Evidence consistent with a high speed crash, not your version of a Wile E Coyote cartoon.

You cannot even back your claims concerning the coroner Miller.
edit on 29-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne

This is getting tiresome. That you cannot prove your claim proves my claim of deception.


It is tiresome when a conspiracist cannot produce quotes, provide a cited reference, or proof of broadcasts they claim their believes are founded on.

Another false argument by you. Nobody is trying to prove the whole government narrative.

Individuals are stating all evidence supports flight 93 crashed at shanksville.

If flight 93 did not crash at the site, please post a more credible case on what scorched trees, deposited a large debris field, buried wreckage, deposited personal items, and deposited human remains over a forty acre area. And where did flight 93, it’s crew, and it’s passenger’s end up. What remains were released to families for burials.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Man there's alot of disinfo in this thread - it's pretty frustrating to see how good the COINTEL guys are at their job.

"There was no plane!"
"It was a missle!"

You're both half right and half wrong. Save for typing an essay (im sure its been discussed at length.. I hope) I think it was either a) a camouflaged (painted) drone plane or simply the actual flight was commandeered by software, or remotely controlled from somewhere else.

The technology to do this existed long before 9/11 and similar ideas were suggested in the Operation Northwoods documents.

The reason no video of the plane strike at the pentagon exists (publicly anyway) is that there's something about that plane they don't want people to see- whatever it was. If it was indeed a drone aircraft as others have suggested before, it would have had attachments to the exterior of the plane that could be identified accordingly. Conveniently, no images of that plane exist. Anywhere.

The idea some knucklehead with a flight simulator and a few hours flying a cessna could pull this giant sky train around in a 180 degree dive at 600mph, pull up level to the ground and slam directly into the part of the pentagon responsible for investigating what happened to trillions of dollars (naval investigations office) is just too ridiculous to believe. Why wouldnt he just point the nose straight down (assuming he also posesses the experienced pilot skills of navigating by ground to know where he was going and identify exactly where the pentagon was, from the air) and crash into the roof of the building? Surely thats much easier and would cause more damage than trying to hit it parallel to ground level but for the sake of argument lets pretend he's the Terminator and can pull this off.

As a military guy, how the flying # does someone fly a hijacked 747 into the MOST protected airspace on planet earth DURING the most significant terrorist attack in United States history in the wake of 2 other planes already colliding with buildings. The US Air Force is not that incompetent, nobody is. It's simply unbelievable that's even possible. Its absurd on its face.

Maybe if it was the first plane and that's still a long shot. Theres so many checks and balances into making sure nobody flies above washington DC that doesnt have a reason to be there he would have been stopped before he even got close.

Theres no way to know this for sure either but presumably (almost certainly) the pentagon and white house would be protected from the air by surface to air deterrents of some kind. Missiles, lasers, who knows what they have. We know they exist and the idea they wouldnt use them to protect their most sensitive areas is beyond stupid.

It's about as likely as me just walking into the Federal Reserve unmolested and shooting the chairmen, stealing a bag of money and walking out the front door.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne

This is getting tiresome. That you cannot prove your claim proves my claim of deception.


It is tiresome when a conspiracist cannot produce quotes, provide a cited reference, or proof of broadcasts they claim their believes are founded on.

Another false argument by you. Nobody is trying to prove the whole government narrative.

Individuals are stating all evidence supports flight 93 crashed at shanksville.

If flight 93 did not crash at the site, please post a more credible case on what scorched trees, deposited a large debris field, buried wreckage, deposited personal items, and deposited human remains over a forty acre area. And where did flight 93, it’s crew, and it’s passenger’s end up. What remains were released to families for burials.


I don't think it crashed, I think it was shot down judging by the giant area debris was scattered over, scorched trees etc. If you look up airline crashes (even ones that happened at high speeds) the crash is often confined to a much smaller area and the aircrafts are surprisingly intact for what you would expect.

This strikes me more of it being blown apart in the air and falling to the ground on fire, over 40 acres or whatever the area was.

EDIT: An interesting theory about this plane is that it's possible it was meant to his Building 7 in New York - which later would collapse on its own like it was made of pop sickle sticks for no apparent reason. The timing would have been it would have struck the building around 45 minutes prior to collapse. The media often showed its flight path and crash area heading towards washington but if you had a bigger picture (that they do not show) it appears to be turning north east and could have just as likely been heading for New York. There's no way to know what their actual target was but when a building also conveniently falls down simply from being on fire..... it fits in my opinion.
edit on 29-10-2017 by JMack674 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   
For those postulating that no plane crashed into the Pentagon, or it was a disguised drone or missile - what crashed into the Twin Towers?



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: JMack674

Nobody here is saying the US government is to be trusted. Can you provide quotes to the contrary?

“Debunkers” are tired of the false arguments by conspiracists.

Why does your arguments hinge on false arguments and based only in innuendo.

I want to start small. Let’s see if you can start small, or just go into another rant totally void of facts.

One, name a maneuver that the “knucklehead” could not conduct to hit the pentagon. A building seventy feet tall, and spread over an area larger than 24 football fields.

Two, quote from one of the alleged pilots instructors regarding the pentagon and Hanjour’s skills.



www.911myths.com
Flight School Dropouts
www.911myths.com...


"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said" www.pentagonresearch.com...



Three, the coverup is the military incompetence, and total failure of intelligence. And this is also from a individual that has proudly served.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JMack674

By the way. There is records and quotes showing WTC 7 was showing signs the structure was failing and individuals knew it would fail. Those reports start around 2pm on 9/11, if not earlier.

And just what path was the jet to take to hit WTC 7?
edit on 29-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: JMack674

By the way. There is records and quotes showing WTC 7 was showing signs the structure was failing and individuals knew it would fail. Those reports start around 2pm on 9/11, if not earlier.

And just what path was the jet to take to hit WTC 7?


I didn't once accuse anyone of saying to trust the government so why are you implying that? Is that because you're a shill setting up a classic straw man? Cause that's what it looks like to me looking at your posts - hitting all your prescribed talking points.

Military incompetence? That's not incompetence thats negligence to the point of treason. A truck driving private would have enough to sense to scramble fighters to cover the airspace knowing the country is under attack from hijacked aircraft. It was obvious to everybody in the world let alone the military after the 2nd plane collision. Theres multiple air bases in the immediate area who's entire job it is to protect that airspace. I guess they were all just taking a nap and nobody bothered to tell them anything.

"Records show signs the structure was failing" - yawn. That must be why firefighters across north america had to re-train and re-write all their procedures, since now steel buildings just collapse from minor damage and fire - WAIT, that didn't happen. It's never happened. Buildings withstood constant bombings from the Allies in world war 2 and didnt collapse yet I am to believe something built with the highest building code standards in the world, out of steel, in down town New York just falls in on itself entirely, because of a fire ?

Mental gymnastics or not, that is patently absurd. Happened 3 times, in one day - 2 of said buildings were SPECIFICALLY DEISIGNED with the possibility in mind of a collision from an airliner. In fact it was designed to withstand multiple impacts from a 767 (larger than a 747) as a safety redundancy. The architect himself said so. The idea the top portion of the building can warp and crush and obliterate into dust the rest of it underneath is also fantasy.

Total failure of intelligence? What? Are you aware of OP Able Danger? The intelligence apparatus was WELL aware of these guys and their intentions and had been followed for months - and not even just from the United States - they were warned from the UK and France as well as others.

The media where these "reports" came from, was clearly compromised. It reported the building collapsed over an hour before it did - that's a hell of a crystal ball. They are reading from cue cards, that's become pretty obvious to anybody paying attention the last 15 years. Anything you get from "the media" can't be trusted whatsoever.

Shill confirmed - how much do you get paid ? I'd honestly like to know, it sounds like a pretty entertaining and simple job.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackaspirin
For those postulating that no plane crashed into the Pentagon, or it was a disguised drone or missile - what crashed into the Twin Towers?


Likely the same thing - Drone or remotely flown airliner (maybe autopilot with pre-set flight path or controlled remotely by someone else on the ground).

It's still pretty impressive they were able to line up with those towers and hit them dead on if they were indeed human pilots but I suspect the person(s) in control of the aircraft weren't in the cockpit.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: JMack674

Likely the same thing - Drone or remotely flown airliner (maybe autopilot with pre-set flight path or controlled remotely by someone else on the ground).

It's still pretty impressive they were able to line up with those towers and hit them dead on if they were indeed human pilots but I suspect the person(s) in control of the aircraft weren't in the cockpit.


That was my reason for asking - I have seen people who admit that real planes hit the Twin Towers, and then go on to say that it was a missile at the Pentagon.

Which means they haven't really thought the 'government conspiracy' through at all.

So, you leave open the possibility that the REAL flights were hijacked by remote control pilots? That's at least logically consistent, even though the evidence for it is severely lacking.

I have no idea why you think a plane already in flight would be hard to direct into either of the Twin Towers. Seems like about the simplest possible thing to do at that point.




top topics



 
42
<< 110  111  112    114 >>

log in

join