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: 38
40
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

Have your friend remote view and tell me what I was doing on the morning of 9/11. Should have no problem doing that.


I have not spoken to him a few weeks. And you are of no importance, you not a point in history worth looking at i don't think?


and here you just show us that you haven't got a full grasp on what remote viewing is.

A person doesn't have to be important, it matters not if they are the queen or just some bum down the street.

Remote viewing when successful isn't based on the importance of the target.

As far as I know Remote viewing has never been verified to be successful with viewing people only data and the success rate isn't something that makes Remote viewing a viable tool, hence why the Military stopped the programs.




posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Jacobu12




Twin Towers. There was 3 teams of 4 men. One team spotted for the team who entered the building on 9/11. People think this building was wired before the attack, not true ( my friend told) They placed the lab engineered (chemical placed bombs) at strategic points inside the building to melt the steel ( i believed incased in concrete), the day of the attack. Security footage will be lost with the collapse. I not sure if they placed just before the planes hit or earlier in the morning? They arrived in as white van pretending to be workers. Evidence a fingerprint ID will be confirmed if the molten steel was tested (test the particles) When you see the molten steel coming out the side the side of the building, that's the sign the chemical bomb was working.



and this has what to do with what?

Just reading it sounds like a child came up with the plan, encased in concrete, done either in the morning before or after the planes hit.

Fingerprint ID will be conformed if the molten steel is tested? test the particles or the molten steel to get fingerprint ID?

Seriously, am I reading that right?




Fires have to break the concrete incasing around the steel column/cores? Again i not a 9/11 truther, this could be inaccurate?


inaccurate?

How about completely undecipherable.

I know you are not a 9/11 anything, its clear you are trolling.

I am all out of food, so maybe some poor fool will feed you.


You guys have decided the official narrative is correct. This information might help the truther people?


Applying real science and physics vs the pseudoscience of the truth movement is what has determined what items had a bases in reality. Nothing to do with the "official narrative".



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12




How hot does it need to get to fail?

It depends on how much load it's carrying and how much safety factor they added.
But that goes out the window when half the exterior supports were completely severed in the impact.

You really need to look up how the building was constructed before making conclusions on how it fell.

Before you listen to others on how steel can't fail in plain old fires, google overpass collapses. You will find several that failed and collapsed.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I not a truther, but this information i found just having a quick look at 9/11 research.

Can someone confirm this true?

"!In the second week of August 2001, Hanjour had attempted to rent a small plane from an airport in Bowie, MD. Flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner declined his request, after taking Hanjour on three test runs, noting he had trouble controlling and landing the Cessna 172"

If this is true he's flying is even worse then i thought!



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Never mind i just got the source.

AMERICA'S ORDEAL
Tracing Trail Of Hijacker

By Thomas Frank
WASHINGTON BUREAU

September 23, 2001

A reporter. How is the official narrative still holding ? If this true he's not going to be an expert commercial jet pilot in just one month?

He reported and why has this got overlooked?

At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington,flight instructor Sheri Baxterinstantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.

However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.
edit on 13-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

You missed a bit.


He says things carefully, but words spill out as he talks about Hanjour.

"I'm not comfortable knowing I was close to someone who did something so evil and had such disrespect for life," Bernard said. "Of course, I wish, in hindsight, that I would have known something. In those days, suicide hijackers didn't exist."

Bernard and others who saw the hijackers in the weeks before the attacks are left to wonder: Was there anything I could have done?

www.baltimoresun.com...

So despite not renting him a plane, he doesn't seem to doubt that he did it.

Oh wait, I forgot. THEY made him say that.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

You missed a bit.


He says things carefully, but words spill out as he talks about Hanjour.

"I'm not comfortable knowing I was close to someone who did something so evil and had such disrespect for life," Bernard said. "Of course, I wish, in hindsight, that I would have known something. In those days, suicide hijackers didn't exist."

Bernard and others who saw the hijackers in the weeks before the attacks are left to wonder: Was there anything I could have done?

www.baltimoresun.com...

So despite not renting him a plane, he doesn't seem to doubt that he did it.

Oh wait, I forgot. THEY made him say that.


I actually saw hes testimony online and it's not consistent. He said he flying skills was terrible.
here’s no doubt in my mind that once [Flight 77] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it.” [CAPITAL NEWS, 9/19/2001; GAZETTE (GREENBELT)

We can't overlook this
Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172

If he has trouble controlling a Cesna, weeks before the attack. Is it realistic this guy took over from the pilot, brought the plane down, level off, and carried out in a straight line attack without stalling the aircraft?

edit on 13-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Flight 77 at first seemed to overshoot its target, the Washington Post will note that “the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level.… Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm.” [WASHINGTON POST, 9/12/2001]



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Finding it difficult to locate the website that has the Boeing-Engine part Quotes. From what i see online nobody has yet identified the part at the Pentagon. From what i see it's identified as Turbonfan disk. If true the official narrative is wrong.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Did you see what he had trouble with? Landing.

If you'd read the thread, the maneuver he carried out, just looking at the radar data from the airport next to the Pentagon, was an amateur maneuver. A trained, proficient pilot will do a standard rate turn when making that maneuver. It will take them two minutes to turn 360 degrees.

According to the radar data, it took Flight 77 over 5 miles, and three minutes. He was all over the place as he turned, and he took a long time to do it. Consistent with an inexperienced pilot.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

How do you figure it's wrong if it's a turbofan? What do you think the 757 engines are?



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Did you see what he had trouble with? Landing.

If you'd read the thread, the maneuver he carried out, just looking at the radar data from the airport next to the Pentagon, was an amateur maneuver. A trained, proficient pilot will do a standard rate turn when making that maneuver. It will take them two minutes to turn 360 degrees.

According to the radar data, it took Flight 77 over 5 miles, and three minutes. He was all over the place as he turned, and he took a long time to do it. Consistent with an inexperienced pilot.


He had trouble with control too and i just provided you with those quotes. That means he's not got a steady hand to be flying a commercial jet. You can't be rocking a commercial jet on the way down. It's just not believe non of he's instructor believed in him and some questioned the licenses he had. Some of them said he danger to himself and can't fly. A radar tower worker is on record saying he thought the plane was a fighter jet the way it was moving and it's height off the ground.
edit on 13-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

How do you figure it's wrong if it's a turbofan? What do you think the 757 engines are?


Part is still unidentified and the engine it came from. Truthers and people who believe the official narrative have a opinion about the part.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

You don't rock a plane if you care about passenger safety and comfort. It doesn't affect the plane to be rocked any.

Again, you misquoted. If you read the entire quote, they went on to say, "You don't maneuver a commercial plane like that. It's not safe."


"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

abcnews.go.com...
edit on 7/13/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

You said,


From what i see it's identified as Turbonfan disk. If true the official narrative is wrong.


How does it make it untrue if it's a turbofan disk? The RB211 is a turbofan.

There is no way to identify what type of engine it came from. The turbine disks not type specific. It matches the high pressure turbine disk from an RB211, minus the blades. When taken with the other wreckage, eyewitness statements, it shows that a large aircraft impacted the Pentagon.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

More truth movement false narratives by taking items out of context, using miss quotes, and hiding the whole account.


Another party of the narrative you forgot to add was the instructor's concerns based on Hanjour's skills in a busy air corridor. And the instructor went on to state Hanjour's difficulties were not uncommon for pilots in that busy air corridor.


edit on 13-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Starr.....just going from diameter?

Agree with the diameter to with-in two inches.....idk

Are there other details, too? Seems there was something like a ports manifold or something.....I don't remember....a reply to: Zaphod58


edit on 13-7-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

You don't rock a plane if you care about passenger safety and comfort. It doesn't affect the plane to be rocked any.

Again, you misquoted. If you read the entire quote, they went on to say, "You don't maneuver a commercial plane like that. It's not safe."


"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
abcnews.go.com...


He's belief that day it was a military plane he was watching ( a jet obviously) After 9/11 official narrative You don't fly a 757 in that manner!!!

I have yet to find a quote were a flight instructor was praising he's flying skills. They said he could not control a small plane, just weeks before 9/11. And somehow it believable to you he was able to control a commercial airline 40 feet off the ground approaching the Pentagon? And nevermind you need to drop altitude (when high up need to be in control of the plane) flying in a straight line ( requires control)



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY

There was part of a combustion chamber that also matched a large engine. It was matched up to an RB211 in drawings, but it definitely came from a large engine.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

You said,


From what i see it's identified as Turbonfan disk. If true the official narrative is wrong.


How does it make it untrue if it's a turbofan disk? The RB211 is a turbofan.

There is no way to identify what type of engine it came from. The turbine disks not type specific. It matches the high pressure turbine disk from an RB211, minus the blades. When taken with the other wreckage, eyewitness statements, it shows that a large aircraft impacted the Pentagon.


I have to leave now for awhile.

RB211 is a turbofan. The part came from RB211 has yet to be confirmed by official sources.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join