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: 34
40
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12
I come back on later when you might have something to show me? For now i see you.


My post regarding turbofan v. turbojet was to NF, not to you.




posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   

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.



turbojet engine
en.m.wikipedia.org...


turbofan engine
www.grc.nasa.gov...

Strange, both engines are designed with different stages. Designed with different sized bladed discs to efficiently compress or scavenge power from expanding gasses to drive the compressor side or drive generators.

So you saying the two engines don't have numerous bladed discs that vary in size and blade length?
edit on 12-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording

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



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

en.m.wikipedia.org...


The turbojet is an airbreathing jet engine, usually used in aircraft. It consists of a gas turbine with a propelling nozzle. The gas turbine has an air inlet, a compressor, a combustion chamber, and a turbine (that drives the compressor).



www.grc.nasa.gov...


A turbofan engine is the most modern variation of the basic gas turbine engine. As with other gas turbines, there is a core engine, whose parts and operation are discussed on a separate page. In the turbofan engine, the core engine is surrounded by a fan in the front and an additional turbine at the rear. The fan and fan turbine are composed of many blades, like the core compressor and core turbine, and are connected to an additional shaft. All of this additional turbomachinery is colored green on the schematic. As with the core compressor and turbine, some of the fan blades turn with the shaft and some blades remain stationary. The fan shaft passes through the core shaft for mechanical reasons. This type of arrangement is called a two spool engine (one "spool" for the fan, one "spool" for the core.) Some advanced engines have additional spools for even higher efficiency.

How does a turbofan engine work? The incoming air is captured by the engine inlet. Some of the incoming air passes through the fan and continues on into the core compressor and then the burner, where it is mixed with fuel and combustion occurs. The hot exhaust passes through the core and fan turbines and then out the nozzle, as in a basic turbojet. The rest of the incoming air passes through the fan and bypasses, or goes around the engine, just like the air through a propeller. The air that goes through the fan has a velocity that is slightly increased from free stream. So a turbofan gets some of its thrust from the core and some of its thrust from the fan. The ratio of the air that goes around the engine to the air that goes through the core is called the bypass ratio.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12
I come back on later when you might have something to show me? For now i see you.


You had time to post this? But not time to post and link to what you claim is the "smoking gun" the wreckage at the pentagon was wrong?



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Have you even tried to refute or provide a rebuttal to the works by Scientists for 9/11 truth the proves the only credible explanation at the pentagon is a large jet impact?

You cannot even except the only feasible explanation for the damage at the pentagon is a large jet impact? Missile and bomb theories are based on pseudoscience?



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12
I come back on later when you might have something to show me? For now i see you.


You had time to post this? But not time to post and link to what you claim is the "smoking gun" the wreckage at the pentagon was wrong?


The stubby part protruding out it must likely is the disk part of the fan. The blades could have broken off at impact? If it is a Turbonfan and has the characteristics of it. The official narrative a commercial airliner crashed is fake. A 747 turbofan disk will be bigger, length and width and size.

We only left with 3 options a SLAM hit the Pentagon. A version of the cruise missile hit the Pentagon. Finally a Global hawk crashed at the pentagon and it would have left more engine parts in the debris?
edit on 12-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Ok, is it the inlet fan disk, one of the compression disks, or one of the expansion disks?

Which bladed disk are you saying it is from on an engine with multiple bladed disks the vary in size.

What disk from an engine uses that length of blading.

The fan disk would have taken the most damage, had the most blade length knocked off, and be the most deformed. Is that a false statement.

If you don't provide a link to the picture, or post the picture, you have no credibility.
edit on 12-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

All the multiple rotor disks in a jet engine that draw in air, compress air, and the disks that scavenge power in the expansion area have blades. No just one disk.
edit on 12-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Let's do the credibility test. Let's see who will try to derail this thread again.

Flight 77 flew to the pentagon.

The maneuvers at the pentagon:
A five mile radius turn between the speeds of 200 to 300 knots. The turn was 300 degrees in all. The turn took over 2 minutes. The speed and altitude were not steady as in flown "professional".

The jet was aimed at the pentagon.

The descent was started while throttles were worked up to full.

The descent was bumpy.

An antenna, trees, light poles, trailers, and a concrete lip was hit.

Flight 77 almost crashed short of the pentagon.

What maneuvers were impossible or took a "top gun".

What maneuver did Hanjour have no skills to complete? A pilot with 600 hours logged flight time, private pilot's license, and a FAA commercial certificate. Training in a 737 simulator that gave him knowledge to fly commercial jets. Hanjour rented simulator time where crashing into the pentagon could have been practiced. An instructor of Hanjour's is quoted Hanjour had the skills to crash an in air jet at the pentagon.
edit on 12-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12




We only left with 3 options a SLAM hit the Pentagon. A version of the cruise missile hit the Pentagon. Finally a Global hawk crashed at the pentagon and it would have left more engine parts in the debris?

No any missile would have blown the internals of the building out onto the lawn.
Did you see chairs-desks-computers-phones laying around on the lawn?

Every Gulf war video where a missile hits a building you see the internals being blown out.

Why were the internals not blown out like every other missile impact ?



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Got to hand it to you, you stick to your guns when you are dead wrong. You offer up a photo of a complete engine and cowling as it would look under the wing and ignore that the pieces at the Pentagon had smashed through a wall.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

Ok, is it the inlet fan disk, one of the compression disks, or one of the expansion disks?

Which bladed disk are you saying it is from on an engine with multiple bladed disks the vary in size.

What disk from an engine uses that length of blading.

The fan disk would have taken the most damage, had the most blade length knocked off, and be the most deformed. Is that a false statement.

If you don't provide a link to the picture, or post the picture, you have no credibility.


I would have to see a engineering diagram of the Turbofan to be sure. The size of the disk it don't belong to 747. And what other piece of the Turbojet engine has a stubby part sticking out/disk?



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12
I come back on later when you might have something to show me? For now i see you.


You had time to post this? But not time to post and link to what you claim is the "smoking gun" the wreckage at the pentagon was wrong?


The stubby part protruding out it must likely is the disk part of the fan. The blades could have broken off at impact? If it is a Turbonfan and has the characteristics of it. The official narrative a commercial airliner crashed is fake. A 747 turbofan disk will be bigger, length and width and size.

We only left with 3 options a SLAM hit the Pentagon. A version of the cruise missile hit the Pentagon. Finally a Global hawk crashed at the pentagon and it would have left more engine parts in the debris?
Good eye.....

Good eye my man, and the cooling ports were from the wrong turbine at the towers, ....the one they had dumped off at the street was the wrong one.....the inner cooling ring had curved pipes.....!



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jacobu12




We only left with 3 options a SLAM hit the Pentagon. A version of the cruise missile hit the Pentagon. Finally a Global hawk crashed at the pentagon and it would have left more engine parts in the debris?

No any missile would have blown the internals of the building out onto the lawn.
Did you see chairs-desks-computers-phones laying around on the lawn?

Every Gulf war video where a missile hits a building you see the internals being blown out.

Why were the internals not blown out like every other missile impact ?


Good point.....could it be a missile fuel at the facade and kinetic weapon on through.....that describes a plan for pinpointing,huh!



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

Got to hand it to you, you stick to your guns when you are dead wrong. You offer up a photo of a complete engine and cowling as it would look under the wing and ignore that the pieces at the Pentagon had smashed through a wall.


The plane at the Pentagon hit at fortified wall (allegedly). Twin Towers had glass windows, it's the reason the planes went straight in.

Crash a car against a wall, will the car be sucked in by the wall? The plane is going to explode apart upon impact.
edit on 12-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
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.




The problem with that assertion is that 8,000 feet is approximately a mile and a half. From the perspective of the technology, being a mile and a half above a tower is no different than being a mile and a half away from the same tower in a horizontal direction.

Cell phones and towers don't know the difference between up and sideways. It's all just distance.

So what you are essentially saying is that 2001's cell technology would not work unless the caller was always within a mile and a half of the cell tower.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12




The plane at the Pentagon hit at fortified wall (allegedly


What fortified wall is that...???

E Ring - outermost ring of Pentagon is composed of brick overlaid with façade of limestone to simulate marble

No reinforced concrete

Also on the 2 lowest floors there are no partition between E and D rings

Once through E ring will encounter no substantial obstructions until C ring wall, which again is brick



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue




What fortified wall is that...???

IIRC that wedge received blast resistant windows as part of the remodel.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY




could it be a missile fuel at the facade and kinetic weapon on through.....that describes a plan for pinpointing,huh!

No need to complicate things.
Usually the simplest explanation is the correct one.
Especially since many dozen witnesses saw a passenger plane. Pilots saw a passenger plane.
To blow off their testimony you then have to explain why they would lie.
You also have to explain how the dead passengers were placed in the Pentagon within the timeline of takeoff and crash.
And who cut the light poles.
And who placed the plane parts at the exact right instant so as to not be discovered before the faked crash.

So many little details that the conspiracy believers ignore.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

Got to hand it to you, you stick to your guns when you are dead wrong. You offer up a photo of a complete engine and cowling as it would look under the wing and ignore that the pieces at the Pentagon had smashed through a wall.


The plane at the Pentagon hit at fortified wall (allegedly). Twin Towers had glass windows, it's the reason the planes went straight in.

Crash a car against a wall, will the car be sucked in by the wall? The plane is going to explode apart upon impact.


The outer walls of the pentagon has no windows? The windows at the pentagon are just painted on for looks?



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join