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

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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...

You do understand if a person does not want to be distributed, they can program their phone to ring directly to the secretary's phone. Now call forwarding is a conspiracy.


And why would you hide the fact more than one person called from flight 77 to report the hijacking.

Why would you hide the fact that Ted's secretary received collect calls from Barbara?

"Operator dialed", you do understand collect calls.

Sorry someone only felt safe talking for a minute during a hijacking.

Show the FBI ever checked billing.

How does it to have your analysis of the picture of the engine part destroyed.

Still waiting on a quote from an instructor that Hanjour didn't have the skills to crash a jet into a building larger than 24 football fields.

And a description and reference to the flight data backed by radar data backed by air traffic control backed by an in flight pilot backed by ground eyewitnesses on what maneuvers you believe impossible.

And for you to form a rebuttal to the works by Scientists for 9/11 Truth the proves the only credible explanation for what happen at the pentagon was a large jet impact.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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.

The picture that is from the pentagon of the rotor hub had all its blades knocked off. No rotor as pictured from the pentagon uses uneven and broken blades in a working engine. I cannot believe people fall for the cons of the truth movement.

Please link to the pentagon engine wreckage photo so I can destroy your analysis again.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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.

The picture that is from the pentagon of the rotor hub had all its blades knocked off. No rotor as pictured from the pentagon uses uneven and broken blades in a working engine. I cannot believe people fall for the cons of the truth movement.

Please link to the pentagon engine wreckage photo so I can destroy your analysis again.

It's a Turbofan please stop muddying the waters with your nonsense. Do you even know what rotor hub looks like?

a reply to: Jacobu12

You cannot even comprehend that turbo jet engines are comprised of several fan discs. Was the part at the pentagon the inlet fan? From a compression stage? An expansion stage? What fan disc was it from what stage. Turbo jet engines are comprised of serval fan discs of various sizes. Then the one pictured at the pentagon had a majority of the blade lengths knocked off. I would even say there is no working production engine that has blade tips that short! Why? Because the part at the pentagon had its blades broken off.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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...

You do understand if a person does not want to be distributed, they can program their phone to ring directly to the secretary's phone. Now call forwarding is a conspiracy.


And why would you hide the fact more than one person called from flight 77 to report the hijacking.

Why would you hide the fact that Ted's secretary received collect calls from Barbara?

"Operator dialed", you do understand collect calls.

Sorry someone only felt safe talking for a minute during a hijacking.

Show the FBI ever checked billing.

How does it to have your analysis of the picture of the engine part destroyed.

Still waiting on a quote from an instructor that Hanjour didn't have the skills to crash a jet into a building larger than 24 football fields.

And a description and reference to the flight data backed by radar data backed by air traffic control backed by an in flight pilot backed by ground eyewitnesses on what maneuvers you believe impossible.

And for you to form a rebuttal to the works by Scientists for 9/11 Truth the proves the only credible explanation for what happen at the pentagon was a large jet impact.

You have to use an operator to place a collect call. There is no phone record Barbara Olson rang her husband office. Whomever has the records will need to release it to cast doubt away.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

You cannot even comprehend that turbo jet engines are comprised of several fan discs. Was the part at the pentagon the inlet fan? From a compression stage? An expansion stage? What fan disc was it from what stage. Turbo jet engines are comprised of serval fan discs of various sizes. Then the one pictured at the pentagon had a majority of the blade lengths knocked off. I would even say there is no working production engine that has blade tips that short! Why? Because the part at the pentagon had its blades broken off.

Link me to the part you think is similar? Should be easy to find.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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...

You do understand if a person does not want to be distributed, they can program their phone to ring directly to the secretary's phone. Now call forwarding is a conspiracy.


And why would you hide the fact more than one person called from flight 77 to report the hijacking.

Why would you hide the fact that Ted's secretary received collect calls from Barbara?

"Operator dialed", you do understand collect calls.

Sorry someone only felt safe talking for a minute during a hijacking.

Show the FBI ever checked billing.

How does it to have your analysis of the picture of the engine part destroyed.

Still waiting on a quote from an instructor that Hanjour didn't have the skills to crash a jet into a building larger than 24 football fields.

And a description and reference to the flight data backed by radar data backed by air traffic control backed by an in flight pilot backed by ground eyewitnesses on what maneuvers you believe impossible.

And for you to form a rebuttal to the works by Scientists for 9/11 Truth the proves the only credible explanation for what happen at the pentagon was a large jet impact.

You have to use an operator to place a collect call. There is no phone record Barbara Olson rang her husband office. Whomever has the records will need to release it to cast doubt away.

Yes, but there are four or five unknown callers to unknown phones that the FBI never checked on.

Thanks for trying to create a false narrative.

And Barbara is not the only one that called from flight 77 to report the hijackings.

So we both agree your assessment of call forwarding was wrong, and call forwarding is a real thing. Not a conspiracy?

a reply to: Jacobu12

How does it feel to try to create false narratives by hiding facts? To only have the safe space for fantasy conspiracy invaded by persons that studied 9/11 from more than conspiracy sites.

Why a majority of people don't trust the truth movement, because the truth movement hides facts and uses photos out of context to create false narratives.....

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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...

You do understand if a person does not want to be distributed, they can program their phone to ring directly to the secretary's phone. Now call forwarding is a conspiracy.


And why would you hide the fact more than one person called from flight 77 to report the hijacking.

Why would you hide the fact that Ted's secretary received collect calls from Barbara?

"Operator dialed", you do understand collect calls.

Sorry someone only felt safe talking for a minute during a hijacking.

Show the FBI ever checked billing.

How does it to have your analysis of the picture of the engine part destroyed.

Still waiting on a quote from an instructor that Hanjour didn't have the skills to crash a jet into a building larger than 24 football fields.

And a description and reference to the flight data backed by radar data backed by air traffic control backed by an in flight pilot backed by ground eyewitnesses on what maneuvers you believe impossible.

And for you to form a rebuttal to the works by Scientists for 9/11 Truth the proves the only credible explanation for what happen at the pentagon was a large jet impact.

You have to use an operator to place a collect call. There is no phone record Barbara Olson rang her husband office. Whomever has the records will need to release it to cast doubt away.

Yes, but there are four or five unknown callers to unknown phones that the FBI never checked on.

Thanks for trying to create a false narrative.

And Barbara is not the only one that called from flight 77 to report the hijackings.

So we both agree your assessment of call forwarding was wrong, and call forwarding is a real thing. Not a conspiracy?

A problem don't you think when nobody can confirm Ted Olson story? FBI said 2006 Ted Olson did not talk to he's wife when she tried to phone him.

a reply to: Jacobu12

You are afraid too.......

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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...

You do understand if a person does not want to be distributed, they can program their phone to ring directly to the secretary's phone. Now call forwarding is a conspiracy.


And why would you hide the fact more than one person called from flight 77 to report the hijacking.

Why would you hide the fact that Ted's secretary received collect calls from Barbara?

"Operator dialed", you do understand collect calls.

Sorry someone only felt safe talking for a minute during a hijacking.

Show the FBI ever checked billing.

How does it to have your analysis of the picture of the engine part destroyed.

Still waiting on a quote from an instructor that Hanjour didn't have the skills to crash a jet into a building larger than 24 football fields.

And a description and reference to the flight data backed by radar data backed by air traffic control backed by an in flight pilot backed by ground eyewitnesses on what maneuvers you believe impossible.

And for you to form a rebuttal to the works by Scientists for 9/11 Truth the proves the only credible explanation for what happen at the pentagon was a large jet impact.

You have to use an operator to place a collect call. There is no phone record Barbara Olson rang her husband office. Whomever has the records will need to release it to cast doubt away.

Yes, but there are four or five unknown callers to unknown phones that the FBI never checked on.

Thanks for trying to create a false narrative.

And Barbara is not the only one that called from flight 77 to report the hijackings.

So we both agree your assessment of call forwarding was wrong, and call forwarding is a real thing. Not a conspiracy?

A problem don't you think when nobody can confirm Ted Olson story? FBI said 2006 Ted Olson did not talk to he wife when she tried to ring.

I think his secretary did. Thanks for a blatant false narratives.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

How does it feel to try to create false narratives by hiding facts? To only have the safe space for fantasy conspiracy invaded by persons that studied 9/11 from more than conspiracy sites.

Why a majority of people don't trust the truth movement, because the truth movement hides facts and uses photos out of context to create false narratives.....

Hide what facts. Still waiting to see this rotor hub?

a reply to: Jacobu12

They said that for a specific network. They never followed up on the unknown calls, did they!

Thanks for another false narrative.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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...

You do understand if a person does not want to be distributed, they can program their phone to ring directly to the secretary's phone. Now call forwarding is a conspiracy.


And why would you hide the fact more than one person called from flight 77 to report the hijacking.

Why would you hide the fact that Ted's secretary received collect calls from Barbara?

"Operator dialed", you do understand collect calls.

Sorry someone only felt safe talking for a minute during a hijacking.

Show the FBI ever checked billing.

How does it to have your analysis of the picture of the engine part destroyed.

Still waiting on a quote from an instructor that Hanjour didn't have the skills to crash a jet into a building larger than 24 football fields.

And a description and reference to the flight data backed by radar data backed by air traffic control backed by an in flight pilot backed by ground eyewitnesses on what maneuvers you believe impossible.

And for you to form a rebuttal to the works by Scientists for 9/11 Truth the proves the only credible explanation for what happen at the pentagon was a large jet impact.

You have to use an operator to place a collect call. There is no phone record Barbara Olson rang her husband office. Whomever has the records will need to release it to cast doubt away.

Yes, but there are four or five unknown callers to unknown phones that the FBI never checked on.

Thanks for trying to create a false narrative.

And Barbara is not the only one that called from flight 77 to report the hijackings.

So we both agree your assessment of call forwarding was wrong, and call forwarding is a real thing. Not a conspiracy?

A problem don't you think when nobody can confirm Ted Olson story? FBI said 2006 Ted Olson did not talk to he wife when she tried to ring.

I think his secretary did. Thanks for a blatant false narratives.

No verification of those phone calls has ever shown up. This is not a lle, it's a fact.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

You cannot even comprehend that turbo jet engines are comprised of several fan discs. Was the part at the pentagon the inlet fan? From a compression stage? An expansion stage? What fan disc was it from what stage. Turbo jet engines are comprised of serval fan discs of various sizes. Then the one pictured at the pentagon had a majority of the blade lengths knocked off. I would even say there is no working production engine that has blade tips that short! Why? Because the part at the pentagon had its blades broken off.

By this post, you demonstrate a lack of knowledge and understanding regarding the differences between a turbojet engine and a turbofan engine. Yes Virginia, they are different.

Such a demonstration of ignorance, and such an arrogant attitude to other posters is why you have absolutely no credibility with me.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

How does it feel to try to create false narratives by hiding facts? To only have the safe space for fantasy conspiracy invaded by persons that studied 9/11 from more than conspiracy sites.

Why a majority of people don't trust the truth movement, because the truth movement hides facts and uses photos out of context to create false narratives.....

Hide what facts. Still waiting to see this rotor hub?

You are the one that envoked referring to the picture of the engine part.

And you are the one ignoring that crashing into a building knocks of blading, thus changing and deforming the size of fan discs. Making the part smaller. Is this a false statement.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

They said that for a specific network. They never followed up on the unknown calls, did they!

Thanks for another false narrative.

That's my problem? Official narrative of 9/11 story must be rock solid.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

You cannot even comprehend that turbo jet engines are comprised of several fan discs. Was the part at the pentagon the inlet fan? From a compression stage? An expansion stage? What fan disc was it from what stage. Turbo jet engines are comprised of serval fan discs of various sizes. Then the one pictured at the pentagon had a majority of the blade lengths knocked off. I would even say there is no working production engine that has blade tips that short! Why? Because the part at the pentagon had its blades broken off.

By this post, you demonstrate a lack of knowledge and understanding regarding the differences between a turbojet engine and a turbofan engine. Yes Virginia, they are different.

Such a demonstration of ignorance, and such an arrogant attitude to other posters is why you have absolutely no credibility with me.

Still waiting for the evidence this is not a Turbofan?

I come back on later when you might have something to show me? For now i see you.

a reply to: Jacobu12

The official story regarding the cell phone calls associated with 911 is one of the several glaring failures of the story.

Yes, today's cellphone technology is considerably more advanced than it was in 2001. In 2008 the industry basically stopped using the old analog cell phones and supporting ground equipment, but in 2001 they were still in use.


The phone calls that are really the foundation of the official story regarding the hijackings were impossible in those days. The cellphone system was designed for pedestrian traffic on the ground. They were NOT designed for use in airplanes, and would not work at altitudes above about 2000' or less, and speeds above 100knots or so.