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: 17
40
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: neutronflux




The jet almost crashed on the front lawn.


When you are about to crash in seconds at 500 mph and 20 feet off the ground, what you say is correct "from a certain point of view"



It was a bumpy descent that almost put flight 77 into the ground, trailers, trees, not a constant and static 20 feet.

And your point of view is not based off any cited flight data nor evidence.




posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

So Hani Hanjour had the skills to maneuver a commercial jet in a nearly impossible way for an unseasoned, rudimentary pilot that had limited to no skill on his first try into the Pentagon?

Was he also an expert at avoiding the missile defense systems surrounding the restricted air space? That guy is magic I guess.

It is impossible for that type of plane to fly that fast so low to the ground.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: m1kelowry

It is impossible for that type of plane to fly that fast so low to the ground.


Well obviously not impossible because it actually did that very thing. If we follow the twisted logic suggested then all pilots could avoid crashing by simply going fast enough?
I don't see it as an impossible manoeuvre to point the nose at such a large building and max out the throttles. Even if ground effect was a (very short time like 2 seconds) issue it's not going to be sufficient to make the plane clear the building.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: m1kelowry

Was he also an expert at avoiding the missile defense systems surrounding the restricted air space?



Was it your pilot friend who told you about the secrete Pentagon missile defence system around the restricted air space?

I would like to know how you found out about it.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: neutronflux

So Hani Hanjour had the skills to maneuver a commercial jet in a nearly impossible way for an unseasoned, rudimentary pilot that had limited to no skill on his first try into the Pentagon?

Was he also an expert at avoiding the missile defense systems surrounding the restricted air space? That guy is magic I guess.

It is impossible for that type of plane to fly that fast so low to the ground.


One, there is a large commercial air port within 10 mikes of the pentagon. How would they get the heads up on a hostile target in time to use a missile defense system.

Two, The pentagon is an office building. There are whole military combat bases that don't have a missile defense system.

Three, I cited a source that stated the pentagon had no missile defense system during 9/11.

Four, cite a source the pentagon has a missile defense system and when it was installed.

www.skybrary.aero...



The Extent of Ground Effect

Since the ‘lift bonus’ attributable to ground effect is primarily a consequence of a reduction in induced drag, the way in which this changes with height above ground is effectively a proxy for changes in the lift coefficient. As can be seen from the diagram below, induced drag increases non-linearly as the distance from the ground increases and reaches its free air value at a height above ground equivalent to the wing span of a fixed wing aircraft or the rotor diameter of a helicopter. In both cases, this means a rapid drop off of ground effect as height above ground increases so that it is typically reduced to half of the adjacent-to-surface maximum at a height above ground which is equal to 10% of the wing span or rotor diameter, to a quarter of this at a height equivalent to 25% of the wing span or rotor diameter and to 10% of it by the time this height is equivalent to 90% of the wingspan or rotor diameter. The detail, but not the principle, of this height-based change in ground effect will be affected by the extent to which a wing is swept back.


The pentagon was tall enough, and the ground uneven enough, ground effects would not have caused the jet to cleared the pentagon. As pointed out, why would a jet ever crash? And there is evidence an engine of flight 77 hit a concrete lip right before slamming into the pentagon.

Do you research anything you post?

And state in speed, bank, angle, altitude, rate of descent, turn radius, g force the impossible maneuver. For A pilot with a license, flight time, and professional commercial jet simulator training?

edit on 30-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: neutronflux

So Hani Hanjour had the skills to maneuver a commercial jet in a nearly impossible way for an unseasoned, rudimentary pilot that had limited to no skill on his first try into the Pentagon?

Was he also an expert at avoiding the missile defense systems surrounding the restricted air space? That guy is magic I guess.

It is impossible for that type of plane to fly that fast so low to the ground.


There was no missile defense system at the pentagon. At the time the white house had 4 stinger missiles manpads. After 911 they installed a missile defense system at the whitehouse. And currently have manpads stationed at the pentagon. This was a feel good measure for the brass because in reality by the time they realize a plane is there it's to late. These are office buildings nothing more. The important stuff is under ground.
edit on 6/30/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

I read this while trying to verify remarks made by a poster.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: waypastvne

I read this while trying to verify remarks made by a poster.


Why don't you save some effort and research before you post....

www.metabunk.org...

www.internationalskeptics.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum

originally posted by: m1kelowry

It is impossible for that type of plane to fly that fast so low to the ground.


Well obviously not impossible because it actually did that very thing. If we follow the twisted logic suggested then all pilots could avoid crashing by simply going fast enough?
I don't see it as an impossible manoeuvre to point the nose at such a large building and max out the throttles. Even if ground effect was a (very short time like 2 seconds) issue it's not going to be sufficient to make the plane clear the building.


Actually no, AA77 did not perform the maneuver, it did not strike the building. You may claim it did, but there is no evidence that it did.

All the facts show no airliner struck the pentagon. The FDR was bogus, it took some period of time for the walls to collapse, and prior to that there was no opening large enough for an airliner to have penetrated.

It was a story told for the credulous to believe. Frequent repetition of a false story does not make it become true.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum

That's the problem, it was impossible for him to do it, yet something occurred to the pentagon. You either choose to believe an incapable "pilot" pulled it off, then you can believe the other evidence.

If you choose to believe that an incapable pilot couldn't perform the maneuvers stated based on the accounting of his abilities, then you have a hard time believing any of the evidence post incident. The flight data and official report mean nothing if the pilot couldn't perform.

I know everyone understands what I'm talking about but analogies abound.

A person who has golfed for less than a year beating Tiger Woods in his prime? Never. BUT BUT BUT IT HAPPENED. "I saw the scorecard!", you say. I wouldn't believe that either unless I saw it for myself.

A swimmer beats Michael Phelps in the Olympics but he only learned to swim last year and hadn't actually tried to swim in an Olympic sized pool until the day of the event. "NO IT HAPPENED!!! I saw the times that were put on a computer generated model based on his splits." Sorry he didn't have the skill, the practice, the know how to have beat anyone let alone Michael Phelps.

A Tiger Woods, Michael Phelps maneuver and incident occurred and you believe a first day novice pull it off.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Prove the FRD was not from whatever jet that struck the pentagon. You are saying a clerical error equals the FDR was not the one on the jet that hit the pentagon and recovered from the crash site? A clerical error is you best attempt to discredit the 100 plus eyewitnesses that attest to a large jet hitting the pentagon. Accounts backed by trial evidence, trial testimony, DNA analysis, Radar data, and the physical evidence at the pentagon that could only be from a large jet strike. What theory would be backed by no interior of the pentagon on the front lawn.

What is your logic on the FDR again. How does it disprove a large jet hit the pentagon. How does it disprove the FDR recovered did not hold the flight data for the jet that hit the pentagon?

Seems your argument is based on false logic.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry

WHAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE? From the flight recorder evidence, radar data, air traffic controller accounts, the inflight pilot that saw a large commercial jet hit the pentagon, there is no proof of impossible maneuvers.

Can you form a rebuttal with cited facts and evidence.

You were wrong about flight 77 video, photos of human remains, missile emplacements, ground effects, and the nature of the pentagon air space with a neighboring large commercial airport?



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I cannot provide evidence to refute potentially manufactured evidence from authorities. If they released the video they have showing an actual Boeing 757 I would certainly believe their story and evidence. I only bring up the manufactured component because if I cannot believe the person was capable of pulling off the maneuvers despite authorities claiming he did, I cannot believe the evidence that supports that story.

Please review my analogies. It is record that the people who trained Hani Hanjour, who observed him 7 months prior COULD NOT FLY a small plane let alone a commercial airliner.

Here's another analogy. Find me a 300lbs obese person and have them run a sub 4 minute mile within 7 months. It ain't happening.

Why hasn't the Pentagon released the video they have from their own cameras showing the plane approaching or hitting the pentagon?



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry

Hanjour had a private pilot's license and flew with the instructors. He was denied a third flight due to his poor English skills, the air corridor was a high traffic area, and had trouble landing. Why are the first two reasons ignored. Much of his trouble was over English.

However Hanjour had 600 hours of logged flight time and was in simulator training for commercial jets. All he had to do was crash an in air jet into a target as large as 24 football fields and 70 feet tall. Flight 77 almost crashed short, hit trees, light poles, trailers, a concrete lip, and an anntana? The flight was sloppy and bumpy.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry

Ever find quotes from Hanjour's instructors that a large jet didn't hit the pentagon? That Hanjour was not in the cockpit when flight 77 crashed?



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

''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.''

www.nytimes.com...

Throughout the article they all have extreme doubt on his abilities. This was 7 months prior to the event so in that time you're choosing to believe he became effective enough to do it. I call this a historic feat that is highly unlikely.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry


From the same article...

The major concern was his English skills. Not his basic flight skills.

Again, thanks for cherry picking details to create a false narrative.


Why conspiracists are viewed with skepticism.

mobile.nytimes.com...



'The staff thought he was a very nice guy, but they didn't think his English was up to level,'' said Marilyn Ladner, a vice president at the Pan Am International Flight Academy, which operated the center in Phoenix. Ms. Ladner said that the F.A.A. examined Mr. Hanjour's credentials and found them legitimate and that an inspector, by coincidence, attended a class with Mr. Hanjour. The inspector also offered to find an interpreter to help Mr. Hanjour, she said.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry

Can you prove from the article the employee was even an instructor?



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry

And you still cannot provide references to the actual flight path that was impossible.

Like speed, radius of turn, bank angle, throttle position.....



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Fell free to ignore the word "basic". The Pentagon incident was anything but in skill and far beyond basic.

Please continue to ignore his inability and bring up the manufactured data.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join