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: 15
40
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TimBuk2
a reply to: GBP/JPY

The entrance hole was small until the building collapsed, hiding that very important fact.


False.....

Thanks for showing you post fiction as fact...


The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact
First Published January, 2011. Version 3, April 2016.

www.scientistsfor911truth.org...



The Building Façade Damage
The overall damage to the Pentagon West wall, a hole at the first and second floors of 18 ft diameter, roughly centered above a 96 ft gash in the first floor, indicates impact and penetration of the building by an airplane- shaped object46. The body of a Boeing 757 is roughly a cylinder 13 ft in diameter, and the wingspan is almost 125 ft. The 96 ft gash is more than wide enough to accommodate both engines and the wing tip damage is approximately correct for a Boeing 757.


edit on 28-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Changed wording to better statement




posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: TimBuk2
a reply to: neutronflux

There's even video from a helicopter of the missile strike at the pentagon that has never been debunked.


Got a smoking gun, then link to it?

This video?
DEBUNKED: Pentagon attacked by cruise missile
m.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY




The smoke from an airliner would fill the sky with black for hours.

The video shows an orange fireball rolling into the sky.
Explosives do not have an ongoing orange fireball.

Explosives use up their material in milli seconds.
Fuel burns as it gets more oxygen. Hence it takes seconds.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: GBP/JPY




The smoke from an airliner would fill the sky with black for hours.

The video shows an orange fireball rolling into the sky.
Explosives do not have an ongoing orange fireball.

Explosives use up their material in milli seconds.
Fuel burns as it gets more oxygen. Hence it takes seconds.


Seems you have posted that before, and it was never answered with a rebuttal?

I see a pattern forming.....



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Where are the photos of the bodies from the flight inside the pentagon?

You don't believe there are videos of the event that have been held back?

You believe that one of the most secure buildings in the world doesn't have video cameras pointing at it from every angle?

The only fact here is you choosing to believe everything you are told about the situation.

Similar to my analogy of a 3 years swimmer winning the Olympics...if there was no video proof would you believe that too? What if I told you the split times this 3 year swimmer had? You don't believe he could beat Michael Phelps???

The point is, this pilot was not good. It is not easy to maneuver a plane with the precision it would take at any of the speeds mentioned 530MPH into a direct hit of a building only 70 feet off of the ground. At least that is according to a seasoned pilot.

I've seen no photo evidence of bodies from the flight in the pentagon. Please provide those.
I've seen no video evidence that show a flight hitting the Pentagon. Please provide the one you've seen.

The pilot's history and lack of expertise and training do not pass the smell test despite your assurance of potentially doctored and scammed flight data and planted evidence to prove a plane hit the building.

They should just show the videos that have been confiscated from the cameras of businesses surrounding the pentagon. Show one video from the pentagons own cameras.

It could solve a lot of problems with the release of those things.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I find it hard to believe that you put credence in any report, after the fact, that suggests Hanjour was capable of flying the plane in any way the flight recorder data suggests.

This article from 2002:

www.nytimes.com...

This article was done prior to most people even considering a conspiracy of any sort, or questioning the information provided about 9/11.

Here are quotes from people who actually spent time training Hanjour:

"Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot.

''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''"

"Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine."

FEBRUARY 2001!!! So in 7 months he turned shoddy skills and a disbelief of a genuine pilot's license into a crafty pilot that could pull off an expert level maneuver of a commercial airliner after hijacking it? He knew how to use the controls and navigate effectively? All on his first try?

I'll go with the opinion of my friend, an actual 30+ year veteran pilot who said he likely couldn't pull it off, the experts that trained the guy, and an understanding that if he was already a shoddy pilot, what were the chances of him being able to navigate and utilize complicated equipment.

It doesn't pass the smell test, but they could simply release the video.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry

Passed his flight tests I guess, cause he had accreditation. Who cares if he was a good or bad pilot, not like he needed to land the thing on it's wheels.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: 67Camino

Exactly, you guess. The instructors that taught and observed him had a difficult time believing his license was legitimate. Landing it on it's wheels would have been far easier than navigating towards a specific location and ramming it into the side of a building after pulling off difficult maneuvers to align it correctly.

You may have missed this quote:

''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''"

This guy doesn't specify takeoff or landing...HE COULD NOT FLY AT ALL.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry




Where are the photos of the bodies from the flight inside the pentagon?

You sir are a classic example of the typical conspiracy believer.
I have already provided them.
You could use this new thing called "Google Images" and find them yourself but that's not what conspiracy believers do.



You believe that one of the most secure buildings in the world doesn't have video cameras pointing at it from every angle?

We are talking 2001.
The prehistoric times when everything was recorded on video tape at 1 frame per second.
Plus that wedge wasn't finished yet.
Ask yourself when you install new video cameras in a major reconstruction?



The pilot's history and lack of expertise and training do not pass the smell test despite your assurance of potentially doctored and scammed flight data and planted evidence to prove a plane hit the building.

My guess is that you haven't even read this thread.



They should just show the videos that have been confiscated from the cameras of businesses surrounding the pentagon.

Uhhhh maybe Google ???
Show me one business that aims their cameras at the surround sky.
If you had to install a multi camera system at your own house, how much sky would be included?

This is all the same old crap the conspiracy crowd parrots time after time.

Please explain how the bodies of 77 got inside the Pentagon in the prescribed time frame.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry

To be realistic, Hani was the logical choice to be the pilot but I don't think there's anything to confirm that he was actually the person controlling the plane, just the most likely based on his prior training etc activities compared to the other members of his 'crew'.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Just tell me this, do you think this scenario in the video posted below is impossible ?




posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry

I would suggest actually reading and studying this thread. Your credibility is about zero right now. Many of the items you ask, if not all, have been provided by cited works in this thread. You really are embarrassing yourself.....

I just linked to the freedom of information request that was fulfilled and cited a source there are no more flight 77 videos to release.

How does your straw man arguments discredit the 100 plus accounts of a large jet hitting the pentagon, the radar data, flight recorder data, DNA evidence, the wreckage on the lawn......


Title: American Airlines Flight 77 Rare Photos.... Graphic!
www.siasat.pk...!

What happen to that act of seeming reasonable and somewhat open minded...... its obvious you are biased and only study the BS provided by the truth movement.
edit on 29-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Added last

edit on 29-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry

I just quoted twice that an instructor said once the jet was in the air, Hanjour would have been able to crash the jet into the pentagon.

Another person quoted involved with Hanjour's training knew Hanjour was involved with 9/11 early on....

Your concerns have been addressed. Can you please state and explain what flight 77 maneuvers were impossible?



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry

Are you trying to provide evidence and an example why conspiracists are stereotyped as irrational and biased. Are you just trying to make conspiracists look bad? Especially when about 20 minutes of open minded googling would answer many of your own questions....



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent



There is a large security system for the sky called radar, but conspiracists ignore the data because is convenient.

And conspiracists ignore many "debunkers" concerns over the debacle that was the military response on 9/11.....

Fighting the ignorance and BS of the truth movement is a distraction from the truth.


edit on 29-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Added

edit on 29-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Added last



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Check out the title of the thread: What skill would be needed to fly into the Pentagon?

My friend, a 30 year pilot says you would need a lot to do the maneuvers, approach, navigation, controlling a commercial airliner.

The last people to have knowingly trained Hani Hanjour state he was a terrible pilot that couldn't fly.

So we are expected to believe, according to the official story, with no released video, that a fellow with no skill, experience in flying a commercial airliner, and limited to no experience flying any plane was able to accomplish this?

You have answers for everything but that which is the most important part. Nobody have show pictures of 70 bodies from the plane inside the pentagon(I googled it and came up with nothing). There are major conflicting reports on what was seen at the time. Whoever released the flight data could have made it appear to be anything.

However, the person that has been acknowledged as the pilot did not have the requisite skill to accomplish the task according to his flight instructors in February 2001.

It is the equivalent of a swimming instructor stating: "The guy couldn't swim. I still can't believe that he beat Michael Phelps in the Olympics."



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: neutronflux



You have answers for everything but that which is the most important part. Nobody have show pictures of 70 bodies from the plane inside the pentagon(I googled it and came up with nothing).


I can see how you would form that opinion IF YOU COMPLETELY IGNORE EVERYTHING THAN ANYONE POSTS

Truthers



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry

How many murder investigations publish all the crime seen photos of victims?

What remains were released to the surviving family members of flight 77?

We went from no pictures, you were proven wrong. Now you want to see horrific pictures of 70 mutilated people. When you cannot even discredit the 100 plus eyewitnesses that give an account of a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon. Discredit the accounts of rescue and recovery crews. Nor discredit the coroner's reports, death certificates, nor the DNA evidence.


You have your friend's opinion? But cannot state which maneuvers were impossible. Your friend's opinion is no where near a consensus among pilots, aerospace engineers, and not even Hanjour's instructors.

You ignore the works cited. Will not form rebuttals. You act of seeming open and unbiased was intellectually dishonesty. You fit the the bill of a stereotypical conspiracists. Get all agitated when the proof shows a large jet hit the pentagon.
edit on 29-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry

If you want to see, go check out the public trail records....

www.siasat.pk...!



American Airlines Flight 77 Rare Photos.... Graphic!

Human Remains
Photos of Charred Corpses Used as Trial Exhibit.These photographs of human remains at the Pentagon crash scene were released as exhibits in the 2006 trial U.S. v. Moussaoui.


Read more: www.siasat.pk...!#ixzz4lOdYwAnx




posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I cited the opinions of the experts who actually trained and observed the pilot and they all agreed he was inept and incompetent yet you believe the story as told.

You believe an unskilled pilot pulled off any and all of the navigation and control it would take to crash a commercial airliner into a building. The question of the thread is how much skill would it take? My friend, again a pilot, says a lot of skill. The people who trained him said he had no skill and still can't believe he was capable of doing it due to lack of skill.

They questioned whether he actually had a genuine license he was so bad.

Yet, you believe that in less than 7 months he because an effective all-star pilot who managed to pull off an Olympic gold medal sized challenge on his first try.

Yes you point to "evidence" which supports the "official story. Numbers from the official flight log etc. Well if the official story is a lie to cover up a conspiracy all the data would support that.

It doesn't change the fact the skill of the pilot didn't match the official story according to the people who saw him fly.




top topics



 
40
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join