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

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

See, there you go again. You keep calling it a 747. At least get that much right in your claims. You say you aren't a pilot, and that's obvious, but you can at least get the type right.

For a missile to carry a turbine that size, it would have to be far too big to be launched by anything but a ground launch system. So they'd have to build a ground launcher, which is more that could be leaked that could give it away.

You're wrong. I have many years of actual hands on experience with aircraft maintenance, including some work on engines. You have to add in blade length on any turbines. They all have blades that attach to them.

Those rough bits on the edge, are where the turbine blades attach. That adds anywhere from over a foot, to about 6-8 inches to the diameter of the turbine, depending on which turbine you're talking about. That one came from the inside of the engine, and is about the right size for an RB211 engine, which is the type used by the 757 (oh, and it's also used by your 747 you keep claiming hit the Pentagon).

I don't spend my days on forums and reading 9/11 websites one after the other. I look at the oddity of the events that day and talk about it..

Cough and you not far wrong? And my friend said one of the beliefs is this how they launched the missile at the pentagon. A trained team used a ground launch system,, to control takeoff, direction and the impact

"it would have to be far too big to be launched by anything but a ground launch system. So they'd have to build a ground launcher, which is more that could be leaked that could give it away"

Stubbing protruding disk! What part of the Turbojet engine do you think that fits and slots at?

a reply to: Jacobu12

If you zoom in on it, you can see the blades are jagged, uneven, and the lengths knocked off. Bottom line that rotor disc is not it's original size. Is that a false statement.

Jet engines are comprised of many different rotor/fan discs of various sizes and diameters. As in more than two or three. Is that a false statement.

a reply to: Jacobu12

Again, the slots are for the turbine blades. The blades fit into the slots, and lock in place.



It's part of the high pressure section of the engine. The blades attach to it, and compress the air further as it passes through them.

So they built a one off missile, that was never tested and didn't even come close to any other missile ever built, built a one off ground launcher, that was never tested and didn't come close to previous ground launchers, and pulled off a strike at the Pentagon that convinced every eyewitness they saw a large plane, somehow spread passenger DNA inside the Pentagon, and didn't have a damage pattern that matched any other missile ever seen, and left minor damage to the building.

a reply to: Jacobu12

You are wrong again, there is footage from two pentagon security cameras that was released by court order from a lawsuit stemming from a freedom of information request.

And there is no evidence there was more than two pentagon security cameras that recorded flight 77.

And you have Ted Olson's claims backed by his secretary and made possible by the unknown calls from flight 77.

But Barbara isn't the only individual that called out of flight 77 to warn of the hijacking.

a reply to: Jacobu12

We don't know if the conspirators put together and engineered a one of a kind SLAM (air to surface) missile and used it?

So now you are making up new theories to fit your conspiracy narrative.

You still refuse to explain why the internal contents of the pentagon were not blown outside.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Again, the slots are for the turbine blades. The blades fit into the slots, and lock in place.

It's part of the high pressure section of the engine. The blades attach to it, and compress the air further as it passes through them.

So they built a one off missile, that was never tested and didn't even come close to any other missile ever built, built a one off ground launcher, that was never tested and didn't come close to previous ground launchers, and pulled off a strike at the Pentagon that convinced every eyewitness they saw a large plane, somehow spread passenger DNA inside the Pentagon, and didn't have a damage pattern that matched any other missile ever seen, and left minor damage to the building.

Boeing workers have already denied this was a RB211 engine part have they not? Turbofan jet engine for a 757 is huge, the disk would have to be the correct size, how can we investigate this?

My job is security (military tasks mainly) i currently living in Europe working there.

My friend is working at top secret facility (remote viewing) The facility is not remote its actually located in a Urban area. He's bosses know what happened and they asked him to remote view it to see what he sees (they dislike the conspirators) The conspirators are too powerful to take out and if they tried the secret will be revealed.

I guess my friend people is using me to leak information about 9/11 online? ( least that's how i feel because he is a friend) Both sides are just accepting of the reality right now to keep the peace and and avoid social unrest.

Regarding the Pentagon attack. This is all i know.
My friend told me morning of 9/11 men ( hes not sure they are American?) They could be middle eastern men, but trained for this task . They setup not far from the Pentagon (not sure why) They had a device advanced control panel. They used this to launch the missile, it launched, kind of stopped mid air (hard to explain this) then a rocket boost ignited and they rocket flew off towards the Pentagon and they controlled the flight.

Thats all i know about that attack. There is more but he can't tell me for security reasons?

a reply to: Jacobu12

I was just told some things recently by a friend who i worked with. He's works at a base remote viewing for the Pentagon.

It appears you will believe anything.
Remove viewing does not exist.

a reply to: Jacobu12

No, they didn't, and Boeing workers wouldn't know the interior of an engine. Boeing doesn't make it, Rolls Royce does. When Boeing gets it, they're already assembled, and all they do is attach it. A spokesperson from Rolls Royce said he didn't think it was from an RB211, but he was a public affairs guy, who didn't work on engines. You can clearly see however, from the drawing that it matches nicely with a high pressure turbine.

It's become obvious to me that people that believe in the no plane theory really didn't do any research. As I'm watching them argue you realize just how misinformed they truly are. You really can't dismiss the families of the victims those people died that day and we have people on here calling them liars wow.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jacobu12

I was just told some things recently by a friend who i worked with. He's works at a base remote viewing for the Pentagon.

It appears you will believe anything.
Remove viewing does not exist.

Government entities are paying he's wages. I know what he can do, and he's background. And will agree with you though i can't confirm this information is correct and honest.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

No, they didn't, and Boeing workers wouldn't know the interior of an engine. Boeing doesn't make it, Rolls Royce does. When Boeing gets it, they're already assembled, and all they do is attach it. A spokesperson from Rolls Royce said he didn't think it was from an RB211, but he was a public affairs guy, who didn't work on engines. You can clearly see however, from the drawing that it matches nicely with a high pressure turbine.

I'm fairly certain i read something online that had quotes and workers denied this part belonged to the engine. I will look it up later and post, have to look for it.

a reply to: Jacobu12

Boeing doesn't have anything to do with the engine. That's like going to a car salesman to have your car fixed. I said above it was denied to be from Rolls Royce, but it was a spokesperson who never built an engine, talking about an engine that wasn't built at the plant he worked at.

The article describes John Brown as a spokesman for Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis, Indiana. This location is home to the Allison Engine factory that builds the AE3007H turbofan used aboard the Global Hawk. Brown's quote regarding the mystery wreckage states that, "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy." Furthermore, the article correctly notes that the RB211 is not built in Indianapolis but at the Rolls-Royce plant in Derby, England. Since Brown is a spokesman for Allison Engines, which was an independent company that only became a subsidary of Rolls-Royce in 1995, it stands to reason that an engine built in the United Kingdom would be one he's not "familiar with." The article even goes on to point out that Brown could not identify specific parts from one engine or another since he is not an engineer or assembly line technician who would be familiar with the internal components of turbine engines.

For what it's worth (and it isn't worth much, given the author's apparent lack of journalistic skill), the Bollyn article actually supports the evidence assembled on this site. The article provides quotes from Honeywell Aerospace indicating that the piece did not come from an APU, from Allison Engines suggesting that it is not a component found in the turbofan used on Global Hawk, and from Teledyne Continental Motors indicating that it is not part of a cruise missile engine. All of these conclusions match those explained above.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

a reply to: Jacobu12

Boeing workers have already denied this was a RB211 engine part have they not?

have they?

If you seem to think they have why not recall where you gained this info from and share it here, or was it maybe remote viewed as well?

I guess my friend people is using me to leak information about 9/11 online? ( least that's how i feel because he is a friend) Both sides are just accepting of the reality right now to keep the peace and and avoid social unrest.

leak info?

Remote viewing has been brought up many times by many deranged idiots that make the truth movement what it is today, a joke.

All you have done is parrot what been said before you, you haven't leaked any info or even brought new speculation that hasn't been "leaked" or mentioned before.

Regarding the Pentagon attack. This is all i know. My friend told me morning of 9/11 men ( hes not sure they are American?) They could be middle eastern men, but trained for this task . They setup not far from the Pentagon (not sure why) They had a device advanced control panel. They used this to launch the missile, it launched, kind of stopped mid air (hard to explain this) then a rocket boost ignited and they rocket flew off towards the Pentagon and they controlled the flight. Thats all i know about that attack. There is more but he can't tell me for security reasons?

What about your claims about Rumsfeld that came from remote viewing?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Boeing doesn't have anything to do with the engine. That's like going to a car salesman to have your car fixed. I said above it was denied to be from Rolls Royce, but it was a spokesperson who never built an engine, talking about an engine that wasn't built at the plant he worked at.

The article describes John Brown as a spokesman for Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis, Indiana. This location is home to the Allison Engine factory that builds the AE3007H turbofan used aboard the Global Hawk. Brown's quote regarding the mystery wreckage states that, "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy." Furthermore, the article correctly notes that the RB211 is not built in Indianapolis but at the Rolls-Royce plant in Derby, England. Since Brown is a spokesman for Allison Engines, which was an independent company that only became a subsidary of Rolls-Royce in 1995, it stands to reason that an engine built in the United Kingdom would be one he's not "familiar with." The article even goes on to point out that Brown could not identify specific parts from one engine or another since he is not an engineer or assembly line technician who would be familiar with the internal components of turbine engines.

For what it's worth (and it isn't worth much, given the author's apparent lack of journalistic skill), the Bollyn article actually supports the evidence assembled on this site. The article provides quotes from Honeywell Aerospace indicating that the piece did not come from an APU, from Allison Engines suggesting that it is not a component found in the turbofan used on Global Hawk, and from Teledyne Continental Motors indicating that it is not part of a cruise missile engine. All of these conclusions match those explained above.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

There going to cover the tracks and discredit information that came out. I trust workers at Boeing to know the engines. We have to be careful.

And there was other quotes from different boeing workers besides him, i look it up later i am out on my phone right now.

a reply to: Jacobu12

Grounds crew at Arlington National Cemetery (across the highway from the Pentagon) had pieces of Flight 77 end up landing near them. Yes, big explosion, parts fly a distance.

a reply to: Jacobu12

Boeing, DID NOT MAKE THE ENGINES. Rolls Royce did. The parts at the Pentagon, were identified by investigators as belonging to an RB-211 engine. It does not get any clearer than that. People, who actually KNOW RB-211s, said, yep, that was an RB-211.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

Boeing, DID NOT MAKE THE ENGINES. Rolls Royce did. The parts at the Pentagon, were identified by investigators as belonging to an RB-211 engine. It does not get any clearer than that. People, who actually KNOW RB-211s, said, yep, that was an RB-211.

If the conspiracy is real. They're going to be influencing people behinds the scenes to push the official narrative.

a reply to: Jacobu12

And now we get back to "Everybody is in on the conspiracy". Tell me, do you listen to George Noory?

a reply to: Jacobu12

You really don't know anything about planes, do you? Boeing doesn't make the engines. Would you expect a line worker at Ford to know everything about the engine? Or just about what they work on?

Boeing designs the aircraft, then goes to engine manufacturers to get suggestions of engines that fit what they're looking for. The manufacturer offers certain engines that fit. Boeing then lists those engines with the aircraft as being available. Usually it's two, sometimes three different types, from GE, Rolls-Royce, and Pratt&Whitney, each offering one engine model.

The customer then orders the aircraft and decides which engine they want on it. In this case, we'll stick with Rolls-Royce. The customer orders the aircraft from Boeing, and tells them they want the RB211 engine. Boeing then orders that engine from Rolls who sends it from either their England or US plant. Boeing receives the completed engine, attaches it to the wing and puts the cowling on.

At no point during the process does a Boeing worker see the inside of the engine, where this component came from. The engine is already put together and ready to start when it arrives at the Boeing plant.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Boeing doesn't have anything to do with the engine. That's like going to a car salesman to have your car fixed. I said above it was denied to be from Rolls Royce, but it was a spokesperson who never built an engine, talking about an engine that wasn't built at the plant he worked at.

The article describes John Brown as a spokesman for Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis, Indiana. This location is home to the Allison Engine factory that builds the AE3007H turbofan used aboard the Global Hawk. Brown's quote regarding the mystery wreckage states that, "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy." Furthermore, the article correctly notes that the RB211 is not built in Indianapolis but at the Rolls-Royce plant in Derby, England. Since Brown is a spokesman for Allison Engines, which was an independent company that only became a subsidary of Rolls-Royce in 1995, it stands to reason that an engine built in the United Kingdom would be one he's not "familiar with." The article even goes on to point out that Brown could not identify specific parts from one engine or another since he is not an engineer or assembly line technician who would be familiar with the internal components of turbine engines.

For what it's worth (and it isn't worth much, given the author's apparent lack of journalistic skill), the Bollyn article actually supports the evidence assembled on this site. The article provides quotes from Honeywell Aerospace indicating that the piece did not come from an APU, from Allison Engines suggesting that it is not a component found in the turbofan used on Global Hawk, and from Teledyne Continental Motors indicating that it is not part of a cruise missile engine. All of these conclusions match those explained above.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

There going to cover the tracks and discredit information that came out. I trust workers at Boeing to know the engines. We have to be careful.

And there was other quotes from different boeing workers besides him, i look it up later i am out on my phone right now.

its like talking to a ###### wall.

as pointed out already The engines are made by Rolls Royce, Boeing Workers wouldn't know the engine.

Different Boeing workers other than him?

You mean the Rolls Royce worker Zaphod mentioned?