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: 32
40
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12


Your list....

To say somebody is lying without proof is slanderous.

You have not discredited the civilian eyewitnesses accounts of a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon.

You have not discredited the radar data, air traffic controller's accounts.

You have not discredited the fully decoded flight recorder.

You have not discredited the DNA evidence.

You ignore or willfully hide all calls made from flight 11 from at lease two different people that reported the hijacking.

You ignore or hide that Barbara Olson not only talked to Ted, but a secretary and operators.

You ignore the six or so calls that Barbara tried to make to Ted's office as accounted by the secretary.

Your cited evidence was only focused on AT&T, it hides the other calls made from flight 77.

And your evidence is a broken engine part the wrong diameter for and jet? A picture you use out of context.

You will not provide a name of any instructor who stated Hanjour could not crash the jet into the pentagon which is larger than 24 football fields.

Will not describe / reference the maneuvers he supposedly could not preform.

Will not describe/ reference the maneuvers you claim experience pilot's couldn't make.

While ignoring instructors believed Hanjour could have crashed into the pentagon, his 600 hours logged flight time, private pilot's license, FAA commercial certificate, his simulator training, and rented time in simulators where he could have practiced crashing into the pentagon.

And you will not explain how there was no interior of the pentagon on the front lawn.

You ignore the size of the entrance hole into the pentagon.

You have offered no rebuttals to the work by Scientists for 9/11 Truth the have proven the only credible explanation of what happened to the pentagon was a large jet impact.

I will remind you of things you willfully ignore to answer....

edit on 12-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording




posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

What does Olsen have to do with the skill level needed to fly a plane into the Pentagon?

This thread is getting long in the tooth.
There are like two people on here, that don't believe a human piloted plane struck the Pentagon.
Neither of whom could prove their point in a court of law.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   
There is a gif of what the security cameras should of shown at the bottom of this page - GIF - if a plane really hit the Pentagon. Sorry dont know how to post gifs.

This is also what i think it should have looked like, not what they have shown us.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

Funny.....there are at least four people who state that Barbra did talk to her husband that day. Their testimony about said phone calls and Justice Department phone records match calls known to have originated from Flight 77.....and then there is you...saying they are all lying.


I'm wasting my time here trying to express facts to you people. If you don't want to listen or believe the facts, i am out decide?

No phone record verification (flight 77) exists that proves Barbara Olson phoned her husband secretary on 9/11

The FBI and DOJ have never provided any evidence for who the call was for, the believe , it was the secretary, as she claimed she talked to Barbara on the phone!

We know those calls are, to unknown numbers. The numbers are not verified.

We know the husband is a liar. FBI has no record of him speaking to he's wife when she boarded the plane. Ask yourself this why did he go around telling everyone he spoke to he's wife aboard flight 77.. And why did he make up a story about terrorists with box cutters?
edit on 12-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jacobu12

What does Olsen have to do with the skill level needed to fly a plane into the Pentagon?

This thread is getting long in the tooth.
There are like two people on here, that don't believe a human piloted plane struck the Pentagon.
Neither of whom could prove their point in a court of law.


To know what happened onboard flight 77 we look to eyewitnesses. Only two people are verified to have phoned a registered number -- Ted Olson wife ( Barbara Olson) and flight attendant Renne May. However we know Barbara only dialed her husband number and it was not received!

Considering he's fake elaborate tale about hijackers, could Renne account be fake also? There is no voice recording of her to listen to?

If we have no eyewitness to the hijacking of flight 77, what happened then?



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12




If we have no eyewitness to the hijacking of flight 77, what happened then?

We have no eye witnesses to the Titanic and the iceberg either.
You are arguing while ignoring evidence.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12


Your list....

To say somebody is lying without proof is slanderous.

You have not discredited the civilian eyewitnesses accounts of a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon.

You have not discredited the radar data, air traffic controller's accounts.

You have not discredited the fully decoded flight recorder.

You have not discredited the DNA evidence.

You ignore or willfully hide all calls made from flight 11 from at lease two different people that reported the hijacking.

You ignore or hide that Barbara Olson not only talked to Ted, but a secretary and operators.

You ignore the six or so calls that Barbara tried to make to Ted's office as accounted by the secretary.

Your cited evidence was only focused on AT&T, it hides the other calls made from flight 77.

And your evidence is a broken engine part the wrong diameter for and jet? A picture you use out of context.

You will not provide a name of any instructor who stated Hanjour could not crash the jet into the pentagon which is larger than 24 football fields.

Will not describe / reference the maneuvers he supposedly could not preform.

Will not describe/ reference the maneuvers you claim experience pilot's couldn't make.

While ignoring instructors believed Hanjour could have crashed into the pentagon, his 600 hours logged flight time, private pilot's license, FAA commercial certificate, his simulator training, and rented time in simulators where he could have practiced crashing into the pentagon.

And you will not explain how there was no interior of the pentagon on the front lawn.

You ignore the size of the entrance hole into the pentagon.

You have offered no rebuttals to the work by Scientists for 9/11 Truth the have proven the only credible explanation of what happened to the pentagon was a large jet impact.

I will remind you of things you willfully ignore to answer....


I have addressed this already and you keep asking me the same dumb question.

The guy could not pass an English exam,and was not able to fly, and this was sevens months before 9/11?

JetTech flight school in Phoenix said she called the FAA inspector that oversaw her school three times in January and February 2001 to express her concerns about Hanjour. "I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had," said Peggy Chevrette, the JetTech manager. She also has been interviewed by the FBI. Marilyn Ladner, a vice president for the Pan Am International Flight Academy that owned JetTech before it closed in the aftermath of Sept. 11, said the flight school expressed its concerns and believes the FAA official observed Hanjour's weaknesses firsthand. "We did have skill level concerns and a bit of language fluency concern and we did mention it to our FAA training center official," Ladner said. The FAA official "did observe Hani's limited knowledge of flying" and "did check his flight credentials"

Commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (ring going off in that head of yours?) How the hell is he got the ability to pilot a commercial airliner 40 feet off the ground?

There is no flight recorder? All 4 black boxes from all 9/11 crashes, either got damaged or could not be found (red flag again)
edit on 12-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jacobu12




If we have no eyewitness to the hijacking of flight 77, what happened then?

We have no eye witnesses to the Titanic and the iceberg either.
You are arguing while ignoring evidence.


Think you need a history lesson! Titanic had survivors not just one (many)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12




I'm wasting my time here trying to express facts to you people. If you don't want to listen or believe the facts, i am out decide?


Your "facts" as you can see are debatable, your sources are internet blogs if you do supply a source.

No one that wants follow and keep on topic wants to hear your off topic nonsense,

This is the 2nd Thread in the 9/11 forum where you cannot follow what the OP is about.

This thread is about the level of skill needed perform a maneuver and crash like the flight 77 did not about phone calls

The other thread was about was about If Osama wasn't responsible why didn't he make more of fuss about not being responsible, you couldn't post anything about that just like in this thread you cant keep on topic.

Lets see is there something on topic

Oh yes

Just after this little beauty




I have addressed this already and you keep asking me the same dumb question.


Reading what you quoted and were replying to I am troubled to see any questions be them dumb or smart.




The guy could not pass an English exam,and was not able to fly, and this was sevens months before 9/11?


was not able to fly?


Yet this always comes from a person that ........ wait for it........ Flew with him.

His level was very basic, no need to be Maverick from TOP GUN when you plan to crash a plane, just basic knowledge will get you there.




How the hell is he got the ability to pilot a commercial airliner 40 feet off the ground?


He didn't pilot the 40 feet of the ground, he wasn't trying to perform any stunt, he was trying to crash the plane.

Coming in at an angle anyone behind the controls of plane that is just about crash is not piloting the plane.

Its one thing to say he couldn't do it if there is something concrete that displays that the flight path taken was exactly planned for and executed which would raise questions, however, is there some info of what he was thinking or what the planned flight path was supposed to be and what the exact part of building was being targeted?

I don't think the plan involved such details like 'this is the exact flight path you need to take', I could agree that there was a preferred part of the building that would have been selected as being preferred to be hit directly but is there any info that details what the plan was and if there was specific part of building targeted?

It could have been a 1 in a million chance that he held control as long as he did which is what many pilots say when viewing the data.

How can you say he piloted the plane 40 feet of the ground?

He was on decent to crash coming in at an angle, was he meant to fly that exact way or was he struggling to keep control and it was luck on the terrorists part that he held it up for as long as he did?




There is no flight recorder? All 4 black boxes from all 9/11 crashes, either got damaged or could not be found (red flag again)


So how were relatives of people killed on the flights (if they wanted to) able to listen to cockpit recordings of the final seconds?



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12




Think you need a history lesson! Titanic had survivors not just one (many)


yes,

using your logic there are no survivors that witnessed a plane crash into the Pentagon.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Jacobu12




I'm wasting my time here trying to express facts to you people. If you don't want to listen or believe the facts, i am out decide?


Your "facts" as you can see are debatable, your sources are internet blogs if you do supply a source.

No one that wants follow and keep on topic wants to hear your off topic nonsense,

This is the 2nd Thread in the 9/11 forum where you cannot follow what the OP is about.

This thread is about the level of skill needed perform a maneuver and crash like the flight 77 did not about phone calls

The other thread was about was about If Osama wasn't responsible why didn't he make more of fuss about not being responsible, you couldn't post anything about that just like in this thread you cant keep on topic.

Lets see is there something on topic

Oh yes

Just after this little beauty




I have addressed this already and you keep asking me the same dumb question.


Reading what you quoted and were replying to I am troubled to see any questions be them dumb or smart.




The guy could not pass an English exam,and was not able to fly, and this was sevens months before 9/11?


was not able to fly?


Yet this always comes from a person that ........ wait for it........ Flew with him.

His level was very basic, no need to be Maverick from TOP GUN when you plan to crash a plane, just basic knowledge will get you there.




How the hell is he got the ability to pilot a commercial airliner 40 feet off the ground?


He didn't pilot the 40 feet of the ground, he wasn't trying to perform any stunt, he was trying to crash the plane.

Coming in at an angle anyone behind the controls of plane that is just about crash is not piloting the plane.

Its one thing to say he couldn't do it if there is something concrete that displays that the flight path taken was exactly planned for and executed which would raise questions, however, is there some info of what he was thinking or what the planned flight path was supposed to be and what the exact part of building was being targeted?

I don't think the plan involved such details like 'this is the exact flight path you need to take', I could agree that there was a preferred part of the building that would have been selected as being preferred to be hit directly but is there any info that details what the plan was and if there was specific part of building targeted?

It could have been a 1 in a million chance that he held control as long as he did which is what many pilots say when viewing the data.

How can you say he piloted the plane 40 feet of the ground?

He was on decent to crash coming in at an angle, was he meant to fly that exact way or was he struggling to keep control and it was luck on the terrorists part that he held it up for as long as he did?




There is no flight recorder? All 4 black boxes from all 9/11 crashes, either got damaged or could not be found (red flag again)


So how were relatives of people killed on the flights (if they wanted to) able to listen to cockpit recordings of the final seconds?



Debunkers are waste of time to me. Some of the facts are public record if people want to know the truth.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

True are false? there are five calls from flight 77 from unknown numbers to unknown numbers.

See, you have to rely on hiding facts to push your false narrative.

There are at least five individuals that received calls from flight 77, and then operators that handled the calls.

So your whole argument is:
Based on ignoring more than one person reported by phone the hijacking of flight 77.
Not acknowledging the unknown calls from flight 77, thus opening up that Ted Olson and his secretary did get calls from Barbara.
And you have a picture of an engine part you use out of context.

Items that have nothing to do with eyewitness accounts, radar data, flight recorder data, contact evidence, and damage at the pentagon.

Or your inability to refute quoted items from Scientists for 9/11 Truth.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

You don't even have the credibility to form an actual description of the maneuvers you claim Hanjour could not make, nor describe the maneuvers you claim only a top pilot could make.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12




Debunkers are waste of time to me. Some of the facts are public record if people want to know the truth.


Righttttttt

So I take it you cant engage in normal conversation.

Yes the public records are out there which directly contradict your nonsense.

yes it is waste of time when you speak a brick wall, however a brick wall wouldn't be quoting Youtube videos in every post so maybe the intellectual level of the conversation with a brick wall would be as much a waste.

I'm off to look for a wall



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

True are false? there are five calls from flight 77 from unknown numbers to unknown numbers.

See, you have to rely on hiding facts to push your false narrative.

There are at least five individuals that received calls from flight 77, and then operators that handled the calls.

So your whole argument is:
Based on ignoring more than one person reported by phone the hijacking of flight 77.
Not acknowledging the unknown calls from flight 77, thus opening up that Ted Olson and his secretary did get calls from Barbara..


4 unknown calls are made. (Fact 1) All 4 are operator dialed calls.

) FBI and DOJ have said it could be Barbara Olson? However they have never provided concrete evidence for this and we know the 4 unknown calls used a different handset (phone) to ring someone. She is ringing he's office, so why the number not known? She's on the phone speaking for over a minute? AT&T operator calls will be registered and billed to who ever made the call or the person making the emergency call on the line.

We have the phone records. www.scribd.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

You don't even have the credibility to form an actual description of the maneuvers you claim Hanjour could not make, nor describe the maneuvers you claim only a top pilot could make.


The flight school instructor did not believe in him so why should i? He lacked the skills to be a pilot. Are you calling Jettech staff liars?

"JetTech flight school in Phoenix said she called the FAA inspector that oversaw her school three times in January and February 2001 to express her concerns about Hanjour. "I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had," said Peggy Chevrette, the JetTech manager. She also has been interviewed by the FBI. Marilyn Ladner, a vice president for the Pan Am International Flight Academy that owned JetTech before it closed in the aftermath of Sept. 11, said the flight school expressed its concerns and believes the FAA official observed Hanjour's weaknesses firsthand. "We did have skill level concerns and a bit of language fluency concern and we did mention it to our FAA training center official," Ladner said. The FAA official "did observe Hani's limited knowledge of flying" and "did check his flight credentials"
edit on 12-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   
And you have a picture of an engine part you use out of context.

People on here claim the Turbofan pictured near Pentagon wreckage on 9/11 can only be a part from a plane.

False. high valued missiles like SLAM (air to surface) and cruise missiles also have a turbofan.



edit on 12-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

You've been shown pictures of the engine wreckage found at the Pentagon. You've been shown where those parts would be on a RB-211 jet engine. You post a photo of the very small jet engine from a Tomahawk cruise missile and claim that was what was found at the Pentagon and do not seem to understand that the pieces found at the Pentagon, are larger than the entire engines found on cruise missiles. You have been shown the evidence entered into a court of law about Flight 77 and you ignore it.

Because of a remote viewer you know.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Lnm
edit on 7/12/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

You've been shown pictures of the engine wreckage found at the Pentagon. You've been shown where those parts would be on a RB-211 jet engine. You post a photo of the very small jet engine from a Tomahawk cruise missile and claim that was what was found at the Pentagon and do not seem to understand that the pieces found at the Pentagon, are larger than the entire engines found on cruise missiles. You have been shown the evidence entered into a court of law about Flight 77 and you ignore it.

Because of a remote viewer you know.


This is the RB-211 Notice the size of the Turbofan?
airandspace.si.edu...

The Turbofan pictured at the Pentagon, it too small, length, height, and size. Plus this is the only picture of an engine part photographed outside the Pentagon, with people in the background.




top topics



 
40
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join