It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 45
42
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 06:56 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux

When sitting on the runway the minimum distance from the bottom of the jet to the runway is 7 foot 9 inches?

www.boeing.com...

The closest the engines get to sitting on the rain way is 2 feet 5 inches.

The difference between the deployed landing gear and the engines are 5 feet 4 inches.

But you measure how close the plane is to the ground by the part that hangs off the closes to the ground.

If the jet was five feet off the ground that means the lowest hanging part was five feet off the ground. Why would you measure any other way?

I have no idea what you are even trying to prove?

www.b737.org.uk... Diagram for you.

Plane was 20 feet from the bottom (ground) to top of the fuselage. The fuselage width of 757 is 12 feet. That be enough room to keep above ground, without engines. The engines are located below the wings and they measure at least 8 to 10 feet. Which means if the diagram is correct the plane dropped to twenty feet the engines would have touched the ground.
edit on 14-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 07:05 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux

It's only about 13 people. Can you cite more than thirteen people.

Whole document on the list of eyewitnesses.

www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

As pointed out, what are the chances a clocks synchronized to the same time.

Logic dictates not all clocks will break when dropped. Not all clocks will completely break when dropped. Only some clocks will break when dropped.

Please state the scientific law that all clocks will instantly stop and indicated the time they were dropped. Is this for any hieght? What if one falls on a book case? Then hits the ground after it slowly slid of the book case.

They are reliable witnesses. Where the 100 witnesses asked whereabouts did they see the plane and the direction?

2 clocks stopping at the same time, where the attack took place is just weird. There doesn't always have to be a different explanation. It could be the attacks occurred earlier and that's it.

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 07:25 PM

It's been years since I've seen the 'frozen clocks' theory brought up but as anyone who ever worked on analog timepieces could tell you, the clock generally has 3 hands (hour, minute, second) pressed onto concentric spindles. The attachment is not solid and the hands can slip eg by pushing them or subjecting the clock to an adequate g-force (by dropping it for example). The minute hand has the most mass so it is the most likely to move toward the point of impact when the clock hits the floor due to the turning moment applied.

Simple as that IE the time indicated on a dropped analog clock is proof of nothing at all.

The fact that they fell to the floor suggests these were typical battery operated wall clocks and the shock of the fall disconnected the batteries. Mains connected synchronous motor type clocks would likely have remained hanging on their wiring after being jolted off their wall mounting.
edit on 14/7/2017 by Pilgrum because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 07:26 PM

Quote hack science, you look like a hack.

Again, state the scientific law that states all clocks must stop instantly and without question when dropped.

Prove all clocks hit nothing but floor.

The only reason a mechanical clock stops is due to being dropped? Not! I am sure a building that started to collapse just after being hit by a jet wouldn't be mechanically agitated by anything like falling debris.

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 07:42 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux

Quote hack science, you look like a hack.

Again, state the scientific law that states all clocks must stop instantly and without question when dropped.

Prove all clocks hit nothing but floor.

The only reason a mechanical clock stops is due to being dropped? Not! I am sure a building that started to collapse just after being hit by a jet wouldn't be mechanically agitated by anything like falling debris.

It's scientifically not possible the 757 crashed at the Pentagon. Was it a UFO? If the media done their job, this conspiracy would be solved and settled by now. The science does not even support the official narrative, only had to look over the diagram of 757 to figure this out!
edit on 14-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 07:53 PM

That is your opinion. I have quoted from sources the only credible explanation is a large jet impact.

I have cited and quoted extensive evidence it was large jet impact.

Almost all witnesses and a vast majority making statements end with a large jet hitting the pentagon.

What is your theory to supersede large jet impact and your supporting argument.
edit on 14-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 07:57 PM

I also have quoted sources all other theories are virtually impossible. Large jet impact by scientific evidence is the only fitting and credible explanation. Has nothing to do with the "Offical Narrative."
edit on 14-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 08:03 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux

That is your opinion. I have quoted from sources the only credible explanation is a large jet impact.

I have cited and quoted extensive evidence it was large jet impact.

Almost all witnesses and a vast majority making statements end with a large jet hitting the pentagon.

What is your theory to supersede large jet impact and your supporting argument.

Is 9/11 a religion for you?

Why are you still believing all that when you know the science don't match the explanation?

You accusing truther people for not listening, but you doing the same right now.

The plane would have exploded or broken apart when it descent to 20 feet. There was not enough room for the engines at that height. Why don't you try debunk what i said that be more useful!!
edit on 14-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 08:33 PM

Why would it explode at 20 feet?

Jets land and don't break apart.

Jets crash and don't break apart until they hit the ground.

I have quoted and provide scientific evidence that damage at the pentagon was caused by a large jet.

You invoke falling clocks, don't understand wide/fish eyed lenses, didn't understand call forwarding, don't believe the government but want to use FBI statements when it suits you, and don't understand speed limits on jets are conservatively low to achieve decades of flight services.

You don't even understanding that if the air frame started to fatigue, it still had momentum to get it into the pentagon.

It just would fail, stop dead in the air, and fall straight to the ground? Not
edit on 14-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Added clarity

edit on 14-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed more

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 08:38 PM

What theory do you champion to supersede large jet impact.

You don't even have the credibility to state a clear theory and create an argument.

So tired of individuals that are irrational and enable the con artist truth movement that exploits 9/11 for book sales and internet traffic. Individuals smug in their stupidity.

It's people like you that muddy the waters and pollute a truth movement so it becomes a road block to truth.

Like from the sources I quoted, thanks for killing the credibility of the truth movement.
edit on 14-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording.

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 08:42 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux

Why would it explode at 20 feet?

Why do you think?

12feet+ width add the engines size 8 to 10 feet below the wing= 20 to 22 feet.

That leave you with no room to fly the plane , the engines would touch the ground and plane would go out of control.
edit on 14-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 08:48 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux

What theory do you champion to supersede large jet impact.

You don't even have the credibility to state a clear theory and create an argument.

So tired of individuals that are irrational and enable the con artist truth movement that exploits 9/11 for book sales and internet traffic. Individuals smug in their stupidity.

It's people like you that muddy the waters and pollute a truth movement so it becomes a road block to truth.

Like from the sources I quoted, thanks for killing the credibility of the truth movement.

I think you need to get some fresh air. You wrapped up in your believes so much you cant see what's true anymore,

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:00 PM

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

Why would it explode at 20 feet?

Why do you think?

12feet+ width add the engines size 8 to 10 feet below the wing= 20 to 22 feet.

That leave you with no room to fly the plane , the engines would touch the ground and plane would go out of control.

Do you even think before you post.

The bottom half of the 757's engines hang down no more than 5 feet. The engine's diameters are around 8 foot. The minimum hieght when the bottom of the fuselage is supported by the landing gear on the runway is 7 feet 9 inches.

On the run way, the bottom of the fuselage can be as close as 7 feet 9 inches. And the engines are still about two feet above the runway.

What the hell are you talking about?

What if the engines hang lower? if say the jet flew 10 feet off the ground, that means there was ten feet of space between the ground and the parts that hung the lowest. Why would you measure any differently?

edit on 14-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording

edit on 14-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Added clarity

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:14 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

Why would it explode at 20 feet?

Why do you think?

12feet+ width add the engines size 8 to 10 feet below the wing= 20 to 22 feet.

That leave you with no room to fly the plane , the engines would touch the ground and plane would go out of control.

Do you even think before you post.

The bottom half of the 757's engines hang down no more than 5 feet. The engine's diameters are around 8 foot. The minimum hieght when the bottom of the fuselage is supported by the landing gear on the runway is 7 feet 9 inches.

On the run way, the bottom of the fuselage can be as close as 7 feet 9 inches. And the engines are still about two feet above the runway.

What the hell are you talking about?

What if the engines hang lower? if say the jet flew 10 feet off the ground, that means there was ten feet of space between the ground and the parts that hung the lowest. Why would you measure any differently?

Why is this hard for you to get? It was twenty feet from ground to the top of the Fuselage. If the Fuselage is 12 feet. You got space of 8 feet before it touches the ground. I read the engine extend around 8 to 10 feet below the wings. It's not possible he could have flown the plane at that height, unless it was a UFO of some kind or a exotic secret plane
edit on 14-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:21 PM

So you've gone from a 747, to a 737 now? If you're going to use drawings to try to prove a point, how about using the right aircraft? Or is that too much to hope for?

The engines don't start below the fuselage. The top of the cowling is even with the lower portion of the fuselage. So all of your heights are off.

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:36 PM

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

Why would it explode at 20 feet?

Why do you think?

12feet+ width add the engines size 8 to 10 feet below the wing= 20 to 22 feet.

That leave you with no room to fly the plane , the engines would touch the ground and plane would go out of control.

Do you even think before you post.

The bottom half of the 757's engines hang down no more than 5 feet. The engine's diameters are around 8 foot. The minimum hieght when the bottom of the fuselage is supported by the landing gear on the runway is 7 feet 9 inches.

On the run way, the bottom of the fuselage can be as close as 7 feet 9 inches. And the engines are still about two feet above the runway.

What the hell are you talking about?

What if the engines hang lower? if say the jet flew 10 feet off the ground, that means there was ten feet of space between the ground and the parts that hung the lowest. Why would you measure any differently?

Why is this hard for you to get? It was twenty feet from ground to the top of the Fuselage. If the Fuselage is 12 feet. You got space of 8 feet before it touches the ground. I read the engine extend around 8 to 10 feet below the wings. It's not possible he could have flown the plane at that height, unless it was a UFO of some kind or a exotic secret plane

In reference to what? In the context the ground around the pentagon is not flat either.

And wait for it.......

The engine on the left side did clip a concrete wall because the jet was tilled to the left when looking foreword. Then the left wing hit the pentagon foundation, and the right wing went in higher.

Ground clearance is measured from the "ground" to the lowest part of the vehicle that will hit the ground first.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

Gouge in Low Concrete Wall: One witness saw the left engine hit a low concrete wall and break apart. The wall shows a curved gouge consistent with impact by an engine. The distance between the wall and the struck end of the generator-trailer is approximately 43 feet, matching the engines’ separation of a Boeing 757 of 42.5 feet. When the left engine hit the wall it was a few inches above ground level at that point. The wall sits on a high point, and this explains why the engine did not gouge the surrounding lawn as it traveled over the lawn. Some nearby, upright wooden spools were not struck as they were positioned between the plane fuselage and the low-slung left engine.

edit on 14-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording

edit on 14-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed more

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:38 PM

originally posted by: Zaphod58

So you've gone from a 747, to a 737 now? If you're going to use drawings to try to prove a point, how about using the right aircraft? Or is that too much to hope for?

The engines don't start below the fuselage. The top of the cowling is even with the lower portion of the fuselage. So all of your heights are off.

www.airliners.net...
From the boeing website.

"The Boeing jetliners are similar in many ways; four models, the 707, 727, 737 and 757, have the same body width:"

A diagram of the Engine showing 8 feet for the engine 757.

Just need a diagram for the Fuselage, but i am guessing i be right it be 12 feet.

So no my measurements are not wrong i believe. You have to measure from the ground to the Fuselage, to 20 feet. If the engine is 8 feet and the Fuselage is 12! How did he fly with no space between the ground and the plane?

edit on 14-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:47 PM

Your measurements are off. You're basing 8 feet of intake off the engine being below the fuselage. Look at the picture I posted. The top of the engine is even with about the floor of the cabin. That moves the engine up at least two feet if not more. According to your measurement all 8 feet of the intake is below the fuselage.

If you're going to compare planes, use the same type. There are significant differences between a 737 and 757.
edit on 7/14/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:50 PM
www.airliners.net... I could not find a diagram but the guys on this airliner forum do say its 12 feet 4

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:55 PM

originally posted by: Zaphod58

Your measurements are off. You're basing 8 feet of intake off the engine being below the fuselage. Look at the picture I posted. The top of the engine is even with about the floor of the cabin. That moves the engine up at least two feet if not more. According to your measurement all 8 feet of the intake is below the fuselage.

If you're going to compare planes, use the same type. There are significant differences between a 737 and 757.

Below the wing is 8 feet. The fuselage is 12, i confirmed now. The engine would be touching the ground at 20 feet don't you think?

new topics

top topics

42