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: 49
41
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

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.


I have answered most of your questions already and not going to repeat myself for your benefit.

The evidence is Hani Hanjour was too inexperienced to pull this off. The specifications state 493 mph was the max speed for that type of aircraft. Pentagon attack the plane had to reach max speed of 530+ mph. Ted Olson account of hijackers with boxcutters! ( we don't have the phone bill or AT&T record) i have shown you why that is!

More evidence. Can you tell me what part of the plane burst through the opposite end to make that hole?

Mitchell, Terry at the Pentagon
It's more to the right of where we were at. This is the -- this is in a renovated section on the opposite side, if you were facing the opposite side. This is a hole in -- there was a punch-out. They suspect that this was where a part of the aircraft came through this hole, although I didn't see any evidence of the aircraft down there. . . .
This pile here is all Pentagon metal. None of that is aircraft whatsoever. As you can see, they've punched a hole in here. This was punched by the rescue workers to clean it out. You can see this is the -- some of the unrenovated areas where the windows have blown out.

"September 11, 2001: Federal Response," Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, Deputy Asst. Sec. of Def. for Public Affairs, Terry Mitchell, chief, Audiovisual Division, Office of ASD PA, The Pentagon, The Patriot Resource - History: September 11, 2001, 9/15/01


edit on 15-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

More intellectual dishonest by you.

I agree that flight 77 might have started to exhibit early signs of fatigue failure. Momentum would still have carried a fractured jet in to the pentagon.

What you cannot prove that flight 77 would have undergone a total and catastrophic failure that would have caused it to drop straight out of the air on to the ground.

This is only after you failed to push the fake narrative that flight 77 would have hit its engines on the ground before the pentagon by willfully pushing false 757 dimensions, ignoring the entrance hole at the pentagon was 26 feet tall, and the pentagon is on ground higher the lawn on the flight path.

It been proven that Hanjour had enough training to work the autopilot and flight controls.

You will not answer why the interior of the pentagon was not exploded out into the lawn.

Conspiracists claim that flight 77 did not leave any damage on the pentagon concrete floor. Why did a missile or bomb leave no pitting or cratering in the pentagon floor.

Why was there no indication of an over pressure event at the pentagon. Trailers and vegetation pushed towards the pentagon, and not away. Pentagon windows and near by cars windows not blown out.

The damage at the pentagon went from front to back in a line of travel. Go smaller at the end and left smaller holes in the walls. A bomb or missile would have created a spherical or conical blast that would have grown weaker and wider with distance.

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

Even the majority of the 13 witnesses claiming north flight path end with a large jet impacting the pentagon.

Over a hundred plus witnesses confirm the flight path proven by contact evidence and a large jet impacted the pentagon.

Your issues and questions have been addressed and debunked. Other than your willfulness to push false narratives and deminsions, nobody can make you reasonable. Time to address the issues that make or break if a bomb or missile was the cause of the damage.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

More intellectual dishonest by you.

I agree that flight 77 might have started to exhibit early signs of fatigue failure. Momentum would still have carried a fractured jet in to the pentagon.

What you cannot prove that flight 77 would have undergone a total and catastrophic failure that would have caused it to drop straight out of the air on to the ground.

This is only after you failed to push the fake narrative that flight 77 would have hit its engines on the ground before the pentagon by willfully pushing false 757 dimensions, ignoring the entrance hole at the pentagon was 26 feet tall, and the pentagon is on ground higher the lawn on the flight path.

It been proven that Hanjour had enough training to work the autopilot and flight controls.

You will not answer why the interior of the pentagon was not exploded out into the lawn.

Conspiracists claim that flight 77 did not leave any damage on the pentagon concrete floor. Why did a missile or bomb leave no pitting or cratering in the pentagon floor.

Why was there no indication of an over pressure event at the pentagon. Trailers and vegetation pushed towards the pentagon, and not away. Pentagon windows and near by cars windows not blown out.

The damage at the pentagon went from front to back in a line of travel. Go smaller at the end and left smaller holes in the walls. A bomb or missile would have created a spherical or conical blast that would have grown weaker and wider with distance.

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

Even the majority of the 13 witnesses claiming north flight path end with a large jet impacting the pentagon.

Over a hundred plus witnesses confirm the flight path proven by contact evidence and a large jet impacted the pentagon.

Your issues and questions have been addressed and debunked. Other than your willfulness to push false narratives and deminsions, nobody can make you reasonable. Time to address the issues that make or break if a bomb or missile was the cause of the damage.


Wrong the dimensions are correct. What i missed is the twin engines are not parallel to the bottom of the Fuselage. Even when you adjust the calculations, for this, the plane is only still 1 feet (12 inches above ground) or less. Go outside with measure tape or ruler and measure 12 inches up from the ground and imagine an airliner flying that low at 500mph. I have linked you to the specifications of the plane and clearly states 493 mph per hour not 530mph.

I have not reviewed the evidence for the impact hole yet. Like i said i not a truther i only became interested when my friend told me about he's remote viewing sessions of 9/11

The problem is you have not addressed it. Government version is the hole was made by the plane punching through the wall. If that is the case where is the plane wreckage?

Terry Mitchell was there day one at the Pentagon hole and he saw nothing. This is just more evidence of a bomb blast or missile blast inside the building.

!It's more to the right of where we were at. This is the -- this is in a renovated section on the opposite side, if you were facing the opposite side. This is a hole in -- there was a punch-out. They suspect that this was where a part of the aircraft came through this hole, although I didn't see any evidence of the aircraft down there. . . .
This pile here is all Pentagon metal. None of that is aircraft whatsoever. As you can see, they've punched a hole in here. This was punched by the rescue workers to clean it out. You can see this is the -- some of the unrenovated areas where the windows have blown out"
edit on 15-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   
It been proven that Hanjour had enough training to work the autopilot and flight controls.

Autopilot was turned off for last 8 minutes of the journey. And wrong Hani had trouble controlling at Cesna at 140 to 160knots thats only 184mph per hour. He was hit close to 3x that on 9/11

Even the majority of the 13 witnesses claiming north flight path end with a large jet impacting the pentagon.
Wrong again they just saw a big plane flying towards the Pentagon.

crew and passengers of flight 77 end up dead at the pentagon.
Have you a source for that please?
edit on 15-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
www.youtube.com... Doomsday plane taking off after the Pentagon attack?

This is plane spotted flying around Washington. Likely the plane witnessed and the decoy plane to hide the real attack

www.youtube.com... the Decoy?



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12
It been proven that Hanjour had enough training to work the autopilot and flight controls.

Autopilot was turned off for last 8 minutes of the journey. And wrong Hani had trouble controlling at Cesna at 140 to 160knots thats only 184mph per hour. He was hit close to 3x that on 9/11



I stated Hanjour could work the auto pilot. I never claimed he used it for the descent.

You cannot quote an instructor that Hanjour couldn't control a Cesna. Your claim is from a news article that is a paraphrase opinion of a reporter. So the media are legit and all the reports of flight 77 hitting the pentagon by the media are legitimate. In fact, cite were in the news articles that you invoke they claim Hanjour was not flying and that flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon.

Quote an instructor of Hanjour's that stated Hanjour didn't have the skills to crash into the pentagon.




Even the majority of the 13 witnesses claiming north flight path end with a large jet impacting the pentagon.
Wrong again they just saw a big plane flying towards the Pentagon.


Provided this for you to cite that the north witnesseses still claim impact
www.scientistsfor911truth.org...




Category 3: The CIT group of witnesses (about 12) is those whose testimony appears to suggest a plane flight path north of the CITGO station. Such a path, if impact were to follow, could not reasonably create the observed damage trail and could not avoid creating damage inside the Pentagon in its direction of travel. Consequently, the proponents of this theory claim the plane flew over the Pentagon. Drawbacks to this theory include: (a) There is thus far only one questionable witness to a plane flying away. (b) The CIT witnesses appear in some instances to have been led by their interviewer (for example, the interview23 of Albert Hemphill by Craig Ranke). (c) Many CIT witnesses also testify to plane impact24. The theory also suffers from the difficulty in assessing the position of the plane by witnesses not immediately underneath, for example those at the cemetery, and the fact that flyover is inferred rather than observed. Legge and Chandler have further pointed out that the proposed deviation from the established approach path would require a strikingly large plane bank angle, which no witness reported.23




crew and passengers of flight 77 end up dead at the pentagon.
Have you a source for that please?


Oh I don't know? From the evidence photos at the Moussaoui trail you legitimized by using FBI evidence from that trail. From witnesseses at the Moussaoui trial.

Coroners reports and death certificates.

DNA test results.

Public notices of funerals of those from flight 77.
edit on 15-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12
It been proven that Hanjour had enough training to work the autopilot and flight controls.



A quote from you that Hanjour could work the controls of flight 77



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

So according to you, my 62 mph truck will either not surpass 62 mph going downhill, or will fall apart if it goes over a certain speed.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

The E-4B didn't get to the Pentagon until after Flight 77 hit. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37 am. Venus 77, the E-4B seen flying over the Pentagon took off from Andrews at 9:45 am. So how did it witness the attack or be used as a decoy? Which it would never be used for, if you bothered to learn anything about the E-4s.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12
It been proven that Hanjour had enough training to work the autopilot and flight controls.

Autopilot was turned off for last 8 minutes of the journey. And wrong Hani had trouble controlling at Cesna at 140 to 160knots thats only 184mph per hour. He was hit close to 3x that on 9/11



I stated Hanjour could work the auto pilot. I never claimed he used it for the descent.

You cannot quote an instructor that Hanjour couldn't control a Cesna. Your claim is from a news article that is a paraphrase opinion of a reporter. So the media are legit and all the reports of flight 77 hitting the pentagon by the media are legitimate. In fact, cite were in the news articles that you invoke they claim Hanjour was not flying and that flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon.

Quote an instructor of Hanjour's that stated Hanjour didn't have the skills to crash into the pentagon.




Even the majority of the 13 witnesses claiming north flight path end with a large jet impacting the pentagon.
Wrong again they just saw a big plane flying towards the Pentagon.


Provided this for you to cite that the north witnesseses still claim impact
www.scientistsfor911truth.org...




Category 3: The CIT group of witnesses (about 12) is those whose testimony appears to suggest a plane flight path north of the CITGO station. Such a path, if impact were to follow, could not reasonably create the observed damage trail and could not avoid creating damage inside the Pentagon in its direction of travel. Consequently, the proponents of this theory claim the plane flew over the Pentagon. Drawbacks to this theory include: (a) There is thus far only one questionable witness to a plane flying away. (b) The CIT witnesses appear in some instances to have been led by their interviewer (for example, the interview23 of Albert Hemphill by Craig Ranke). (c) Many CIT witnesses also testify to plane impact24. The theory also suffers from the difficulty in assessing the position of the plane by witnesses not immediately underneath, for example those at the cemetery, and the fact that flyover is inferred rather than observed. Legge and Chandler have further pointed out that the proposed deviation from the established approach path would require a strikingly large plane bank angle, which no witness reported.23




crew and passengers of flight 77 end up dead at the pentagon.
Have you a source for that please?


Oh I don't know? From the evidence photos at the Moussaoui trail you legitimized by using FBI evidence from that trail. From witnesseses at the Moussaoui trial.

Coroners reports and death certificates.

DNA test results.

Public notices of funerals of those from flight 77.



You was pushing the auto pilot narrative for the last two days, till i called you on it. Anyway. Reporters have gone and interviewed Hani Hanjour flights instructors and the feedback they'd got back was terrible. If you can't control a small plane at 160 knots, he's not going to be able to fly at close to 450+ knots on 9/11

Avoiding answering the question i see? So i take you have no idea why there is lack of plane wreckage found?

No evidence then you just assuming all this exists without looking?
Coroners reports and death certificates.
DNA test results.
edit on 15-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

So according to you, my 62 mph truck will either not surpass 62 mph going downhill, or will fall apart if it goes over a certain speed.


What is the comparision you trying to make? Car at 64mph is not going to fall apart at that speed, domestic cars are manufactured to go above 120mph in certain situations.
edit on 15-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

The E-4B didn't get to the Pentagon until after Flight 77 hit. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37 am. Venus 77, the E-4B seen flying over the Pentagon took off from Andrews at 9:45 am. So how did it witness the attack or be used as a decoy? Which it would never be used for, if you bothered to learn anything about the E-4s.


How do you know that? Why are witnesses reporting seeing a white plane before the attack?



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

I have always stated he could work autopilot. Quote were I said he used auto pilot. You are Intellectually dishonest.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

I am avoiding items? Let's start with you, and direct evidence that could prove other than a large jet? . If it was not a jet at the pentagon, what caused the damage? If it was a bomb or missile? Why was the interior of the pentagon not exploded out into the lawn. Conspiracists claim no damage to the pentagon concrete were a bomb or missile would pit or crater the concrete.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

And a plane is designed so that for short periods of time it can exceed the maximum operating speed, without magically just exploding into pieces. You would have to do a major inspection and tear it down afterwards, but it's not going to reach 494 mph, and go "Oh, wait, I just exceeded my maximum speed" and explode. They're designed with a significant cushion in the design to allow for situations that exceed their ratings, and still land safely.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

There are tower and radar records. Venus 77 took off at 9:45 am, and headed over the Pentagon. There was an earlier E-4B launch out of Andrews, but it departed out of the Washington DC area, prior to Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. It was tracked on radar, and was nowhere near the Pentagon when Flight 77 hit.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

And a plane is designed so that for short periods of time it can exceed the maximum operating speed, without magically just exploding into pieces. You would have to do a major inspection and tear it down afterwards, but it's not going to reach 494 mph, and go "Oh, wait, I just exceeded my maximum speed" and explode. They're designed with a significant cushion in the design to allow for situations that exceed their ratings, and still land safely.


Sure, but its never has gotten proven the plane would hold up in those conditions. Pilots and people who have tried to do the same turns as Hani, piloting a aircraft simulator, have crashed, toppled, or seen the plane break up before hitting the Pentagon. The plane is set to max 494 mph for a reason. And lets not ignore how tiny the space was between aircraft engines and ground.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

There are tower and radar records. Venus 77 took off at 9:45 am, and headed over the Pentagon. There was an earlier E-4B launch out of Andrews, but it departed out of the Washington DC area, prior to Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. It was tracked on radar, and was nowhere near the Pentagon when Flight 77 hit.


Some of the eyewitnesses saw a white plane near the Pentagon before the attack. One guy said he saw a private jet hit the Pentagon? Reports are not all the same.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Yes, it's set for that for a reason, but that still doesn't mean that it's going to exploded once it hits that.

The DC-8 had a maximum speed of 588 mph. At 52,000 feet, Mach 1 is roughly 659 mph. On August 21st 1961, N9604Z, a stock DC-8 that hadn't been modified in any way, reach Mach 1.01 descending from 52,000 feet. It stayed at just over Mach 1 for 16 seconds, before they were able to recover the aircraft. The aircraft went on to fly for another 19 years before being retired and sold for scrap.

But you're going to tell me that a 757 going over it's maximum speed is going to catastrophically fail and fall out of the sky?



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Which is why eyewitnesses don't decide the cause of plane crashes. If you go to five people, and show them a picture of a 757, and give them five different aircraft types to pick from, at least 4 of the five will get it wrong, if not all five of them. The recent C-130 crash is a good example. One person said that he saw an empty parachute falling after the plane crashed. Another said he saw a person jump from the plane and parachute down. Both were standing almost the same distance away from the crash site at the time they saw it.




top topics



 
41
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join