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

a reply to: Jacobu12

No. Again, not all 8 feet of engine is below the wing. I even posted a pretty picture to show that. Roughly 6 feet is actually below the fuselage. I can't make it any more clear.

The entire engine intake is 8 feet in diameter. Approximately 2 to 3 feet is even with the fuselage, meaning 5-6 feet is below it. Your measurements are off.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

No. Again, not all 8 feet of engine is below the wing. I even posted a pretty picture to show that. Roughly 6 feet is actually below the fuselage. I can't make it any more clear.

The entire engine intake is 8 feet in diameter. Approximately 2 to 3 feet is even with the fuselage, meaning 5-6 feet is below it. Your measurements are off.

Its a weird angle and you might be looking at the underbelly just under the nose cone? I take look and get back to this later tomo. Either way if i am off by a few feet, i don;t believe i am, is it realistic a commercial plane can fly at height of 2 to 3 feet off the ground?

a reply to: Jacobu12

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 been shown to be wrong at every turn.
You can't "guess" at measurements when you are making up your wild theories.

If you insist that a missile hit the pentagon then you have to explain everything else in terms of your theory.

1. How does a missile NOT BLOW THE BUILDINGS CONTENTS OUT ONTO THE LAWN ?

2. How did the 64 bodies get from boarding the plane alive. To dead inside the pentagon in less than 78 minutes , 27 miles away in morning rush hour traffic ?

3. How did the light poles fall at the right second ?

Your missile theory must cover everything or it is wrong.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jacobu12

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 been shown to be wrong at every turn.
You can't "guess" at measurements when you are making up your wild theories.

If you insist that a missile hit the pentagon then you have to explain everything else in terms of your theory.

1. How does a missile NOT BLOW THE BUILDINGS CONTENTS OUT ONTO THE LAWN ?

2. How did the 64 bodies get from boarding the plane alive. To dead inside the pentagon in less than 78 minutes , 27 miles away in morning rush hour traffic ?

3. How did the light poles fall at the right second ?

Your missile theory must cover everything or it is wrong.

I provided sourcing for my claims? I said the Fuelage was 12 feet and i said the engine length was 8 feet, i was correct. I going to see if Zaphod measurements are correct and we can go from there.

a reply to: Jacobu12

It's a weird angle? It's a head on picture! I can show pictures from any angle you want that all show the top of the engine is above the bottom of the fuselage. Your measurements are off.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jacobu12

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 been shown to be wrong at every turn.
You can't "guess" at measurements when you are making up your wild theories.

If you insist that a missile hit the pentagon then you have to explain everything else in terms of your theory.

1. How does a missile NOT BLOW THE BUILDINGS CONTENTS OUT ONTO THE LAWN ?

2. How did the 64 bodies get from boarding the plane alive. To dead inside the pentagon in less than 78 minutes , 27 miles away in morning rush hour traffic ?

3. How did the light poles fall at the right second ?

Your missile theory must cover everything or it is wrong.

I provided sourcing for my claims? I said the Fuelage was 12 feet and i said the engine length was 8 feet, i was correct. I going to see if Zaphod measurements are correct and we can go from there.

www.boeing.com...

Look at the f'n specks! When the 757 is sitting on the ground, the minimum spec from the lowest point of the fuselage to the ground is 7 feet 9 inches with the landing gear extended. The engines still clears the ground by at least two feet. The bottom edges of the engines only sit about 5 feet lower than the fuselage.

The left wing hit the concrete wall because the jet was tilled left and the wall was on ground higher than the lawn under the flight path.

a reply to: Jacobu12

And here is a source stating the entrance hole was 26 feet at its tallest....

911review.com...

Photographs show that the maximum extent of impact damage consisting of broken-away walls is about 96 feet wide on the first floor, 18 feet wide on the second floor, and about 26 feet high."

Meanwhile the punctured areas of the facade were large enough to admit the vast majority of the aircraft into the building.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

It's a weird angle? It's a head on picture! I can show pictures from any angle you want that all show the top of the engine is above the bottom of the fuselage. Your measurements are off.

I would have to measure this accurately to know, but from my simple calculations from top of the Fuselage to the ground, i got 21 Feet 2 inches. Hanjour is flying at 530 mph per hour (852 kllometres per hour)

photos of United airlines 757 flying prnt.sc... Hanjour flew the plane with no space at all to the ground (takeaway 1 feet) Takeaway 2 feet from the overall take you still left with 19 feet. That means he flew the plane just 12 inches above the ground at speeds the plane is not designed to fly at max. How did the plane not stall or break apart?

Boeing 757-223 max speed is 493mph. The Pentagon plane somehow could go faster?
www.airteamimages.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

And here is a source stating the entrance hole was 26 feet at its tallest....

911review.com...

Photographs show that the maximum extent of impact damage consisting of broken-away walls is about 96 feet wide on the first floor, 18 feet wide on the second floor, and about 26 feet high."

Meanwhile the punctured areas of the facade were large enough to admit the vast majority of the aircraft into the building.

The most important part is figuring out if a plane crashed at the Pentagon. Hanjour a weak pilot can't control a Cesna just weeks before a Hijacking on 9/11 is flying the plane at speeds it can't do. Plus he probably had no space or just 12 inches of space to keep the engines off the ground?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jacobu12

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 been shown to be wrong at every turn.
You can't "guess" at measurements when you are making up your wild theories.

If you insist that a missile hit the pentagon then you have to explain everything else in terms of your theory.

1. How does a missile NOT BLOW THE BUILDINGS CONTENTS OUT ONTO THE LAWN ?

2. How did the 64 bodies get from boarding the plane alive. To dead inside the pentagon in less than 78 minutes , 27 miles away in morning rush hour traffic ?

3. How did the light poles fall at the right second ?

Your missile theory must cover everything or it is wrong.

I provided sourcing for my claims? I said the Fuelage was 12 feet and i said the engine length was 8 feet, i was correct. I going to see if Zaphod measurements are correct and we can go from there.

www.boeing.com...

Look at the f'n specks! When the 757 is sitting on the ground, the minimum spec from the lowest point of the fuselage to the ground is 7 feet 9 inches with the landing gear extended. The engines still clears the ground by at least two feet. The bottom edges of the engines only sit about 5 feet lower than the fuselage.

The left wing hit the concrete wall because the jet was tilled left and the wall was on ground higher than the lawn under the flight path.

United Airlines plane is flying through the air with no landing gear down. Why would i be measuring the plane at a standstill on the runaway?

a reply to: Jacobu12

Why do you continue to ignore that the comments about him and the Cessna involve landing and that the man who refused to rent Hani the Cessna has also said that Hani had skills and there was no doubt on the part of the instructor that Hani was entirely capable of flying a jet into a building? Why do you continue to ignore facts.

a reply to: samkent

Sam, let's borrow from the Bible for a moment. It noted that one cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear, an obviously true statement.

No matter how many times one repeats a lie, it cannot become true. Another obviously true statement.

No matter how many times the government story of 911 is repeated, it cannot become true. The cell phone calls were impossible in 2001, and no matter how you rationalize the cell phone calls, no matter how you rationalize the ability of Hanjour to fly a Boeing as he had to fly it, the story is false. No matter how many times you repeat it, no matter what super-pilot status you want to give Hanjour, the story is false.

a reply to: Salander

Two cellphone calls connected, at points in which the airliners were withing 2000 vertical feet of a cell tower. ALL the other successful calls came from Airfones. Why do you continue to ignore the facts?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

Why do you continue to ignore that the comments about him and the Cessna involve landing and that the man who refused to rent Hani the Cessna has also said that Hani had skills and there was no doubt on the part of the instructor that Hani was entirely capable of flying a jet into a building? Why do you continue to ignore facts.

Marcel Bernard was not a instructor of Hanjour, he was just aware he flew at the school. He was chief instructor/admin at Freeway airport. Why i reject is the science and skills don't match what he did. Three weeks before 9/11 he could not control a small Cesna and had trouble with that, but its believable he could fly, like a fighter pilot, all the way to the Pentagon using a jumbo jet?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Those are not facts you present, those are propaganda talking points.

The entire story is false, as suggested by Kean and Hamilton, and therefore most tiny details are also false. The cellphone stories have been false since Day One, and anybody knowledgeable about the design and limitations of the cell phone system in 2000 understands that.

a reply to: Salander

What the heck does cell phones have to do with a large jet hitting the pentagon. Just drop the flight 77 part for this post.

How does you misconceptions over cellphones have any control over.....

The 100 plus eyewitnesses that attest to a large jet hitting the pentagon.

The flight controller accounts backed by radar, backed by an inflight pilot, backed by flight recorder data, and backed by contact evidence left on an antenna, trees, light poles, concrete wall, and trailers.

And that the flight crew and passengers ended up dead at the pentagon.

Now back to flight 77.

Calls out of flight 77 backed by operators, a secretary, a mom, a husband, a worker at American Airlines, and a fiancé

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Those are not facts you present, those are propaganda talking points.

The entire story is false, as suggested by Kean and Hamilton, and therefore most tiny details are also false. The cellphone stories have been false since Day One, and anybody knowledgeable about the design and limitations of the cell phone system in 2000 understands that.

Like to to state how cell pones and cell phone towers only transmit to ground again.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

There were not 100 people who saw an airliner, much less 77, strike the pentagon.

There were a handful of people including 2 uniformed police officers, who saw an airliner (not identified as to flight number) fly by where they were standing near the pentagon, but they did not see it hit the building.

Desperation in public dialogue can lead to a person making a false statement. Maybe one guy claimed he saw it hit the building, but he worked there and was part of the team.

a reply to: Jacobu12

And yet, you continue to ignore reality. Hanjour, had qualified for a commercial pilot's license. Instructors said that he obviously had flight training, most likely military, the big knock on him, was his English skills. Makes me wonder how much George Soros is paying you to keep the lies alive....

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

There were not 100 people who saw an airliner, much less 77, strike the pentagon.

There were a handful of people including 2 uniformed police officers, who saw an airliner (not identified as to flight number) fly by where they were standing near the pentagon, but they did not see it hit the building.

Desperation in public dialogue can lead to a person making a false statement. Maybe one guy claimed he saw it hit the building, but he worked there and was part of the team.

Eyewitnesses reported a military helicopter just before the attack, other witnesses reported a white plane, others saw a private jet. The eyewitness accounts are varied. Some saw the plane heading Northward instead of Southward.