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: 48
41
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

And, yet again, he flew that high for a few seconds. He didn't fly that way for miles and miles.

And you're deliberately ignoring that he just came down a "hill" and accelerated.




posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   
you are avoiding real debate while making up numbers....

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.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

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.


Is this a debunker site or we trying to find out what happened? The plane specifications confirm it's not possible Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon. You just as bad as the people who claim beams from space destroyed the towers, aliens are involved, no planes hit the Twin Towers.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

And, yet again, he flew that high for a few seconds. He didn't fly that way for miles and miles.

And you're deliberately ignoring that he just came down a "hill" and accelerated.


prnt.sc... look at this please. Hani inexperienced pilot nosedived the plane, was able to fly beyond the speed the plane was designed for at max, could keep the plane straight and narrow 12 inches from the ground, if that? Any pilots on this site?



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
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.



Thanks, least one person on here who not completely crazy.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

He didn't "nosedive" the plane. He did a normal descending spiral that all pilots are trained to do. He did it poorly, but it was a routine maneuver.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

He didn't "nosedive" the plane. He did a normal descending spiral that all pilots are trained to do. He did it poorly, but it was a routine maneuver.


youtu.be...



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Which again ignores that he was type training in 737s, so had at least some simulator experience in larger planes.

Oh wait, that goes against what you believe, so it's just an internet story.
edit on 7/15/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Which again ignores that he was type training in 737s, so had at least some simulator experience in larger planes.

Oh wait, that goes against what you believe, so it's just an internet story.


You just keeping ignoring the facts. The plane max speed is 493 mph. Simulator was testing the plane at that speed and the plane broke up and toppled over. Pentagon flight speed was 530mph impossible feat that defies logic and science. And we pretty much have proven Hani is a terrible inexperienced pilot. Plane 12 inches off the ground is laughable. The only people doing honest research from what i see from experience on here is the truther people.
edit on 15-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   
New York times.
Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine.

Records show a Hani Hanjour obtained a license in 1999 in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Bernard says online he produced a pilot licence he obtained in Arizona. Could this be the same license he produced August 2016? That could mean the licence is fake, because in Feb 2001 instructors had doubts?



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

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.


Is this a debunker site or we trying to find out what happened? The plane specifications confirm it's not possible Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon. You just as bad as the people who claim beams from space destroyed the towers, aliens are involved, no planes hit the Twin Towers.



What? The limits are based on years and promise of how long the fuselage has a serviceable life by the manufacturer. They are conservatively low so the airframe can meet the promised service life by the manufacturer. That is engineering best practice. Fact.

Boeing proves the longevity of their air frames, but it's based on their restrictions. An air frame can survive, and there are examples, maneuvers and speeds exceeding safety limits. But the resulting damage may be beyond economic repair and prevents the air frame from ever being place into survive again do to safety concerns and failing inspections.

That is real life, but it's a conspiracy to you.

Simple example for you, I went over the RPM limits of my first car with a manual transmission several times. Totally topping the RPMs grossly for a few seconds. You can argue I took years of the life of the engine. But the engine didn't go into sudden and catastrophic failure.

Exceeding limits for a few seconds does not automatically cause sudden and catastrophe failure that cause a jet to stop mid air and fall stright to the ground. If the jet started to "break apart" the jet would have kept to its trajectory unless something with greater forces pushed the jet weighting 212,000 lbs down out of the air. And even if a great force was pushing down, the jet still would be going at speed torwds the pentagon.

You love killing reality and science...



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Still waiting on you to quote Hanjour's instructors that he didn't have the skills to crash into the pentagon.

Going to willfully cite false demissions for the placement of how far the engines hang down off a 757.

How does it feel to have everything you present is based on a lie or the hiding of facts.

And you still don't have the credibility to state a theory to supersede large jet impact at the pentagon and create a supporting argument.

You are unashamed to keep citing the false narratives of the truth movement.

Just keep killing your credibility.
edit on 15-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
and you still will not address the numerous works by Scientists for 9/11 Truth that show the only credible explanation for the pentagon is a large jet impact.

I think your only goal is to post as much crap as possible to push opposing view points off into the back of this thread. A intellectually dishonest tactic.

You cannot stand that it is reality a large jet hit the pentagon. Proven by science, not the official narrative.


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.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

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.


Is this a debunker site or we trying to find out what happened? The plane specifications confirm it's not possible Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon. You just as bad as the people who claim beams from space destroyed the towers, aliens are involved, no planes hit the Twin Towers.



What? The limits are based on years and promise of how long the fuselage has a serviceable life by the manufacturer. They are conservatively low so the airframe can meet the promised service life by the manufacturer. That is engineering best practice. Fact.

Boeing proves the longevity of their air frames, but it's based on their restrictions. An air frame can survive, and there are examples, maneuvers and speeds exceeding safety limits. But the resulting damage may be beyond economic repair and prevents the air frame from ever being place into survive again do to safety concerns and failing inspections.

That is real life, but it's a conspiracy to you.

Simple example for you, I went over the RPM limits of my first car with a manual transmission several times. Totally topping the RPMs grossly for a few seconds. You can argue I took years of the life of the engine. But the engine didn't go into sudden and catastrophic failure.

Exceeding limits for a few seconds does not automatically cause sudden and catastrophe failure that cause a jet to stop mid air and fall stright to the ground. If the jet started to "break apart" the jet would have kept to its trajectory unless something with greater forces pushed the jet weighting 212,000 lbs down out of the air. And even if a great force was pushing down, the jet still would be going at speed torwds the pentagon.

You love killing reality and science...



Tested and proven the plane would break apart, be uncontrollable at 500mph . The plane is designed to fly at height altitudes not ground level. You not a pilot and either i am, and pilots who have looked at the evidence agree this could not have happened.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

Still waiting on you to quote Hanjour's instructors that he didn't have the skills to crash into the pentagon.

Going to willfully cite false demissions for the placement of how far the engines hang down off a 757.

How does it feel to have everything you present is based on a lie or the hiding of facts.

And you still don't have the credibility to state a theory to supersede large jet impact at the pentagon and create a supporting argument.

You are unashamed to keep citing the false narratives of the truth movement.

Just keep killing your credibility.


Official narrative is wrong, just need to accept it. I know it hard for you to change, but you got to!
edit on 15-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   
abcnews.go.com... Who where those guys? My friend told me the teams used white vans for the operation at the trade center?



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

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.


Is this a debunker site or we trying to find out what happened? The plane specifications confirm it's not possible Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon. You just as bad as the people who claim beams from space destroyed the towers, aliens are involved, no planes hit the Twin Towers.



What? The limits are based on years and promise of how long the fuselage has a serviceable life by the manufacturer. They are conservatively low so the airframe can meet the promised service life by the manufacturer. That is engineering best practice. Fact.

Boeing proves the longevity of their air frames, but it's based on their restrictions. An air frame can survive, and there are examples, maneuvers and speeds exceeding safety limits. But the resulting damage may be beyond economic repair and prevents the air frame from ever being place into survive again do to safety concerns and failing inspections.

That is real life, but it's a conspiracy to you.

Simple example for you, I went over the RPM limits of my first car with a manual transmission several times. Totally topping the RPMs grossly for a few seconds. You can argue I took years of the life of the engine. But the engine didn't go into sudden and catastrophic failure.

Exceeding limits for a few seconds does not automatically cause sudden and catastrophe failure that cause a jet to stop mid air and fall stright to the ground. If the jet started to "break apart" the jet would have kept to its trajectory unless something with greater forces pushed the jet weighting 212,000 lbs down out of the air. And even if a great force was pushing down, the jet still would be going at speed torwds the pentagon.

You love killing reality and science...



Tested and proven the plane would break apart, be uncontrollable at 500mph . The plane is designed to fly at height altitudes not ground level. You not a pilot and either i am, and pilots who have looked at the evidence agree this could not have happened.


Do you have any credibility or consistency?

Can you quote Boeing that flight 77 should have experience sudden and catastrophic failure that would stop it mid air and cause it to fall straight to the ground.

Fist you claimed the jet would have hit the ground before the pentagon based on the wrong size of how tall the pentagon entrance hole was, the willfull and repeated misstatements how far the engines hang down from the fuselage, and ignoring the lawn is slopping down and away from the pentagon.

Now you don't understand that limits are set conservatively to do jets can meet their promised service life and economical use measured in decades.

Thanks for misrepresenting what I am saying. I agree flight 77 might have undergone some form of early stages of fatigue failure. But there is no reason the failure would make the jet lose all forward movement, stop it mid air to knock flight 77 of it's trajectory, and straight into the ground.

I like how you claim the government lies, but want to use FBI evidence when it suits you.

I like how conspiracists say the media was part of 9/11, but uses news quotes as supporting statements concerning Hanjour. All the while not actually quoting a instructor that stated Hanjour didn't have the skills to crash flight 77 at the pentagon.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Except what? You have been caught pushing false narratives over and over again. Willfully ignoring science and hard and set demissions of a 757.

Ignore what. You don't even have the backbone to state a theory to supersede large jet impact.

You will not even answer a simple question.

Why was the interior of the pentagon not exploded out into the front lawn.

Why were the windows of the pentagon and nearby cars not blown out. Why is there no proof of an over pressure event caused by a exploding bomb or exploding missile.

How did the remains of flight 77's crew and passengers end up at the pentagon.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

Still waiting on you to quote Hanjour's instructors that he didn't have the skills to crash into the pentagon.

Going to willfully cite false demissions for the placement of how far the engines hang down off a 757.

How does it feel to have everything you present is based on a lie or the hiding of facts.

And you still don't have the credibility to state a theory to supersede large jet impact at the pentagon and create a supporting argument.

You are unashamed to keep citing the false narratives of the truth movement.

Just keep killing your credibility.


Official narrative is wrong, just need to accept it. I know it hard for you to change, but you got to!


You cannot and will not refute all the works by Scientists for 9/11 Truth that shows all other theories besides large jet impact are virtually impossible.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

And a DC-8 couldn't exceed Mach 1, but did. A 767 couldn't approach Mach 1 at lower altitudes and survive, but one did briefly.




top topics



 
41
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join