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

a reply to: Salander

And now, you misrepresent the words of Kean and Hamilton.....who were speaking about the immediate days after 9/11 when the US government was presented the picture of a well-oiled, but tardy, response to that day..when the reality they were finding was that the response that day was a confused clusterf*ck, hampered by idiotic rules and horrible communications.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
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....

He can't control a Cesna 3 weeks before 9/11 and two different instructors both said this. Different flight schools reported Hani Hanjour believing he's papers are fake and they probably are if he had trouble flying.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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.

What the hell does that all have to do with you not understand the engines of a 757 do not hang down eight feet below the fuselage, you thinking the pentagon had a missile system on 9/11, not understanding the pentagon is just a few miles away from a busy air port, not understanding call forwarding, not understanding the wide angle/fished lenses used in the security cameras, the entrance hole at the pentagon was 26 feet tall, want to say the government lies except when FBI evidence suits you, and your arguments rely on hiding facts.

So people saw aircraft at the pentagon which is only a few miles away from a large commercial airport?

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
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....

He can't control a Cesna 3 weeks before 9/11 and two different instructors both said this. Different flight schools reported Hani Hanjour believing he's papers are fake and they probably are if he had trouble flying.

Provide a name of an instructor that is quoted as saying that. It's been pointed out that is not an actual quote by anyone. It was a paraphrase opinion of the reporter. So the media is now a reliable source, or just when it suits you.....

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

And now, you misrepresent the words of Kean and Hamilton.....who were speaking about the immediate days after 9/11 when the US government was presented the picture of a well-oiled, but tardy, response to that day..when the reality they were finding was that the response that day was a confused clusterf*ck, hampered by idiotic rules and horrible communications.

English is not my second language. I know what Kean and Hamilton meant by their words.

Here is a bit more insight into their words: Though they claimed on September 10 to not have a clue about what was going to happen the next day, by the afternoon of September 11 the Bush administration had it all figured out. They knew instantly who did what to whom, and why.

Because of that the administration fought all efforts to investigate what happened, and they fought those efforts for the better part of 2 years. Why would a sitting POTUS with clean hands NOT want to investigate the events of the day? For almost 2 years? Why.

The Jersey Girls, widows of men killed in the towers, also wanted to know. They made a documentary about it called "Press For Truth".

If the government had nothing to hide, why were they hiding so much.

Deception sir, a magnificent deception, a bright and shining lie, to borrow from the days of the Pentagon Papers.

a reply to: Jacobu12

Going to ignore this some more, or actually address the work cited....

By a group that does not support the official narrative and invested in the truth movement.

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate

Conclusion
Despite the clear evidence and its analysis using the scientific method of large plane impact, a substantial portion of the 9/11 truth movement, including accepted leaders and those involved in major organizations, continues to publicly endorse, adhere to, or promulgate talks, writings and films on false Pentagon hypotheses. Some simply offer criticisms and reject or ignore evidence that would bring closure to the argument. There is clear evidence by way of disintegrating truth groups that these endorsements and communications are injurious to the movement. Public feedback shows that the false Pentagon hypotheses undermine public acceptance of other highly credible scientific findings, such as the demolitions of the Twin Towers and Building 7 (WTC7) in New York City.

Most rank and file members of the 9/11 truth movement take their cues on the Pentagon from well-known speakers, writers, and acknowledged leaders of the movement. The quickest way to end the ongoing damage to the movement’s credibility and bring closure would be for these prominent individuals to publicly repudiate their former endorsements, views, and statements on the Pentagon event and acknowledge the scientific method and its conclusion of large plane impact. In the absence of public repudiations, the damage caused by false Pentagon hypotheses is likely to continue indefinitely, even if those who fueled their spread cease to promote them. Consequently, the surest way to end the debate and enhance the credibility of the movement is for each individual to study, without bias or prejudice, the evidence for themselves.

The recent papers by scientists, engineers and others showing large plane impact at the Pentagon have been collected together on a website that invites feedback and discussion. Comments can be sent to the Scientific Method 9/11 website which specifically invites feedback on many of the papers listed below.

a reply to: Jacobu12

What proof do you have the papers were fake?

Like how you get caught making things up and hiding information, get smaked down with truth, but are so emotionally investing in the truth movement your desperation for a smoking gun overrides your credibility and rationality. While providing examples why the vast majority of people turned their backs on the truth movement. But you just keep enabling those that exploit 9/11 and the truth movement.

While you try to label those that are sickened by you pseudoscience as "supporting the official narrative".

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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.

What the hell does that all have to do with you not understand the engines of a 757 do not hang down eight feet below the fuselage, you thinking the pentagon had a missile system on 9/11, not understanding the pentagon is just a few miles away from a busy air port, not understanding call forwarding, not understanding the wide angle/fished lenses used in the security cameras, the entrance hole at the pentagon was 26 feet tall, want to say the government lies except when FBI evidence suits you, and your arguments rely on hiding facts.

So people saw aircraft at the pentagon which is only a few miles away from a large commercial airport?

"What the hell does that all have to do with you not understand the engines of a 757 do not hang down eight feet below the fuselage"

You seem to not understand.The plane from top to the bottom of the engine is 21 feet 2 inches. The official narrative is the plane came in southward, made a sweeping manoeuvre, dropped the plane, it now 20 feet from the ground to the top of the Fuselage.

Even if the engine is not parallel to the bottom. The gap is only about 1 feet or 2 feet. That means Hani had about 12 inches of space or no space at all to fly this plane.

not understanding call forwarding? The unknown calls are operator based calls. Collect calls-someone is paying the bill and there is no such thing as a free call. Where is the bill to prove Ted Olson claims? This is the only way to verify he's story. FBI said he not talk to he's wife don't you think this is important?

Wide angle lens have to do with seeing an outline of the plane crashing?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

What proof do you have the papers were fake?

Like how you get caught making things up and hiding information, get smaked down with truth, but are so emotionally investing in the truth movement your desperation for a smoking gun overrides your credibility and rationality. While providing examples why the vast majority of people turned their backs on the truth movement. But you just keep enabling those that exploit 9/11 and the truth movement.

While you try to label those that are sickened by you pseudoscience as "supporting the official narrative".

Instructors reporting him to the FAA and you need good English to pass exams. By all accounts he's took hours to complete exams and failed.

a reply to: Jacobu12

When planes descend, they can accelerate. Just like when you drive a car downhill, it goes faster. When the car levels off, it slows down, just as a plane will.

a reply to: Jacobu12

Good point about the dimensions of the airplane and the dimensions of the building.

For the official story to be true, Hani The Magnificent had to thread the proverbial needle, in an airplane he had never flown before, at about 90 knots over redline, in ground effect. An absurd proposition.

a reply to: Jacobu12

Why do you continue to ignore information that he didn't "fly like a fighter pilot"?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Why do you continue to ignore information that he didn't "fly like a fighter pilot"?

Yes he did about 12 inches from the ground or near hitting the ground at 530mph.. The plane is not designed to fly at this max speed, it max is 493 miles per hour. Hani was flying a UFO..

a reply to: Jacobu12

He flew a foot above the ground for a few seconds, just prior to impact. He didn't fly 12 inches above the ground for miles, which is what you don't understand.

So you're saying, that if I'm driving a car that has a maximum top speed of 70 mph, and I go downhill, it's not going to go over 70 mph?

What I see on here is called Willful Ignorance.
There is simply no other way to put it.

1. Saying cell phones could not have been used after the gov said most of the calls were seat back calls.
Willful Ignorance

2. Saying he could not even fly a Cessna after knowing he holds a multi engine commercial license.
Willful ignorance

3. Sticking to a missile theory knowing that the buildings contents would have been blown outside.
Willful ignorance

This is why the truth movement gets laughed at.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

He flew a foot above the ground for a few seconds, just prior to impact. He didn't fly 12 inches above the ground for miles, which is what you don't understand.

So you're saying, that if I'm driving a car that has a maximum top speed of 70 mph, and I go downhill, it's not going to go over 70 mph?

If the Plane max speed is 493 mph and the Plane at the Pentagon speed is 530mph, do you not see the problem?

Trying controlling a plane at that speed 12 inches off the ground, it's not believable.

a reply to: Jacobu12

How tall was the entrance hole at the pentagon, twenty six feet tall. That even gives your lying numbers 6 foot to clear the ground.

But the truth is the engines only hang down about five feet below the fuselage of a 757 for 17 feet. Remember, the lowest point of a 757 fuselage sitting on the runway is still 7 feet 9 inches above the runway. And the engines are still a good 2 feet above the runway.

So now we are up to 9 feet possible clearance for the pentagon. And the pentagon is on higher ground and the lawn slopes down an away. Imagine a building in a swap having be built so its foundation is higher the the swamp?

Only conspiracists come up with ground sloped down and away from a building is a conspiracy.

Do keep distorting the facts while killing your credibility.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

How tall was the entrance hole at the pentagon, twenty six feet tall. That even gives you lying numbers 6 foot to clear the ground.

But the truth is the engines only hang down about five feet below the fuselage of a 757 for 17 feet. Remember, the lowest point of a 757 fuselage sitting on the runway is 7 feet 9 inches. And the engines are still a good 2 feet above the runway.

So now we are up to 9 feet possible clearance for the pentagon. And the pentagon in higher ground and the lawn slopes down an away.

Only can conspiristsconspiracists come up with ground sloped down and away from a building is a conspiracy.

Do keep distorting the facts while killing your credibility.

Top of the Fuselage to the bottom of the engine is 21 feet 2 inches. Plane was 20 feet at the Pentagon ground to the top of the Fuselage. If so that means Hani had about 1 feet of space or nothing at all.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

He flew a foot above the ground for a few seconds, just prior to impact. He didn't fly 12 inches above the ground for miles, which is what you don't understand.

So you're saying, that if I'm driving a car that has a maximum top speed of 70 mph, and I go downhill, it's not going to go over 70 mph?

If the Plane max speed is 493 mph and the Plane at the Pentagon speed is 530mph, do you not see the problem?

Trying controlling a plane at that speed 12 inches off the ground, it's not believable.

Again, speed limits based to provide decades of economical service.

Prove the fuselage was not going under early stages of fatigue failure when it struck the pentagon.

And the momentum will still have carried the jet into the pentagon.

how much skill is needed to fly into the pentagon, there was a good example on the eleventh of september some years back.
for there to be a reason other than terrorists committing the heinous act, what would it be?
when george w bush was in power, a republican, the theories revolved around a jewish (remember them?) plot of global domination that spread to a plot involving an iraqi oil grab, the bush family and cabinet had many connections to oil giants.
obama took power, pulled out of the supposed plot killing the conspiracy because, well nobody profited, not even the clintons!
step forward trump who puts jewish bankers in his cabinet (now there cool!) and exxon's top guy in charge of foreign affairs (oil companies now being a good thing).
it leaves the whole conspiracy broken, unless the (very) long game was to get goldman sachs and exxon mobil in power at the expense of a countless loss of lives.
but hey, that would mean trump was involved too and that would be highly unpopular here.