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: 50
40
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.


Sure i look into it. I not a explosive expert. The lack of plane wreckage at the exit hole is a red flag though. Government can not just say it was the plane that exited out this hole and then we find out the debris is Pentagon stuff only.
edit on 15-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Actually, there was debris from the plane found at the exit hole. That's how the exit hole was made initially, from the debris going through.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Actually, there was debris from the plane found at the exit hole. That's how the exit hole was made initially, from the debris going through.


Can you provide a source for that. Terry Mitchell saw no plane wreckage at the exit hole and he was on site day one.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.


Eyewitnesses saw different planes in the sky, i guess who saw the right plane, and was it plane. Was there a plane and was used a decoy, but a missile came in hit the Pentagon. Did a bomb go off inside the building. Did a private jet smack into it a globalhawk?



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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?


Pilots have said Hani could not have done this and they are experts. When you look at the evidence i agree with them.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Which side are you calling the exit hole? The one on the lawn, or the one inside the courtyard?

Courtyard:





Lawn:





Just a few of the pictures easily found.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

When you look at the evidence from one side you mean. You've ignored all kinds of other evidence.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Which side are you calling the exit hole? The one on the lawn, or the one inside the courtyard?

Courtyard:





Lawn:





Just a few of the pictures easily found.


prnt.sc... this is the hole that day, The one you pictured was made bigger days after the event. You can see the hole has no orange markings. Terry Mitchel pictured the hole that day.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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.
Yep, a737 will lose its wings at 535.......

Lose its wings at 535 is from two decades ago...........idk



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

When you look at the evidence from one side you mean. You've ignored all kinds of other evidence.


Pilots know best don't you think?



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

And yet, you ignore or handwave away all the pilots that said he COULD have done it. You ignore or wave away all the same instructors that said he couldn't fly, saying that they didn't doubt it was him, and they were horrified that they taught him how to fly. You wave away the radar data that shows a poor done descent into the building, because it doesn't fit your narrative of it being an "ace maneuver"....



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

You're kidding, right? Please for the love of god tell me you're kidding. Here's the image you just posted.



That's what you claim was taken immediately after the crash of Flight 77 by a source you claim is gospel.

Here's the image I posted.



You are seriously, with a straight face, claim that the one I posted is larger, and was widened several days later, but they left all that debris laying there in front of it?

Seriously? The two holes are the same size. You can even see the same debris hanging from the wall on the left side of the hole. At least you can if you're honest about it.
edit on 7/15/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY

Then it's a good thing it wasn't a 737, wasn't it.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

And yet, you ignore or handwave away all the pilots that said he COULD have done it. You ignore or wave away all the same instructors that said he couldn't fly, saying that they didn't doubt it was him, and they were horrified that they taught him how to fly. You wave away the radar data that shows a poor done descent into the building, because it doesn't fit your narrative of it being an "ace maneuver"....


Pilots who have by all accounts not looked at the evidence, i do. There is pilots when asked will just agree with the official narrative. I tend to listen to pilots who have researched the flight plan and are experts about the 757 plane. What i don't believe is how this guy just weeks away from hijacking a plane, was unable to pilot a Cesna, and control it at 160 knots. To then believe the same guy on 9/11 expertly flew the plane at max speeds and was handling tricky turns with ease, and then finally approached the Pentagon at 530mph 1 feet off the ground.
edit on 15-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

You're kidding, right? Please for the love of god tell me you're kidding. Here's the image you just posted.



That's what you claim was taken immediately after the crash of Flight 77 by a source you claim is gospel.

Here's the image I posted.



You are seriously, with a straight face, claim that the one I posted is larger, and was widened several days later, but they left all that debris laying there in front of it?

Seriously? The two holes are the same size. You can even see the same debris hanging from the wall on the left side of the hole. At least you can if you're honest about it.


Not your picture, the hole was widened further after got marked in orange. No plane wreckage was seen and you guys still have not told me why that is?
edit on 15-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Oh of course you do, and of course they didn't look at it. They disagree with you, so obviously they don't know what they're talking about.


Patrick took his first flying lesson at age fourteen. His first job with an airline came in 1990, when he was hired as a copilot on 15-passenger turboprops earning $850 a month. He has since flown cargo and passenger jets on both domestic and intercontinental routes. He currently flies the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft.


Even you have to agree that he should know what he's talking about. He currently flies the same type of plane flown into the Pentagon. So what does he have to say about it?


1. The terrorist pilots lacked the skill and training needed to fly jetliners into their targets

This is an especially popular contention with respect to American flight 77. Hijacker pilot Hani Hanjour was a notoriously untalented flier who never piloted anything larger than a four-seater. Yet he is said to have pulled off a remarkable series of aerobatic maneuvers before slamming into the Pentagon. The pilots of American 11 and United 175 also had spotty records and had flown only private planes. They should have had great difficulty navigating to New York City, and even greater difficulty hitting the twin towers squarely. To bolster this idea that the hijackers were Oswaldian pawns, the conspiromongers often invoke impressive-sounding jargon and fluffery about high-tech cockpits, occasionally trundling out testimony from pilots.

Reality: The cabal’s feats did not require in-depth technical knowledge or a high degree of skill. The attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league in the cockpits of those 757s and 767s; however they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category-3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system – or to land at all. They were setting out to steer an already airborne jetliner, in perfect weather, into the side of a building. Though, for good measure, Mohammed Atta and at least one other member of his group did buy several hours of simulator training on a Boeing 727 (this was not the same type of jet used in the attacks, but it didn’t need to be). Additionally they obtained manuals and instructional videos for the 757 and 767, available from aviation supply shops.

Hani Hanjour’s flying was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and spirals above the nation’s capital revealed him to be exactly the #ty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it. Striking a stationary object — even a large one with five beckoning sides — at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon’s lawn. If he’d flown the same profile ten times, seven of them he’d probably have tumbled short of the target or overflown it entirely.
As for those partisan pilots known to chime in on websites, take them with a grain of salt. ]bAs somebody who flies 757 and 767s for a living, I think my testimony carries some weight. Ask around and you’ll discover that the majority of professional pilots feel the way I do.

www.askthepilot.com...

But please, tell me all about how I should ignore him because he doesn't know what he's talking about.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Yep, that's not aircraft at all.....the prior picture has the pallet they forklifted the trash in there with....he...he

The picture of the front impact location shows no plane.....as the General stated......he had a low flyover ordered right away and concluded no airplane.....idk.....what's his name.....Stubblefield.....A Major General......


edit on 15-7-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

There is plane wreckage in that picture. It's from the outer skin of the aircraft, and there were several large pieces.



The arrow for the 1 is a wheel rim, 2 is a piece of tire debris from the plane.



More debris.



More debris.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Great pics.....before the trashout.....makes sense, me being a commercial structures and facility expert....38 years of commercial

So the orange spray paint tagged pics are trashing out the interior......no bodies....
edit on 15-7-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Oh of course you do, and of course they didn't look at it. They disagree with you, so obviously they don't know what they're talking about.


Patrick took his first flying lesson at age fourteen. His first job with an airline came in 1990, when he was hired as a copilot on 15-passenger turboprops earning $850 a month. He has since flown cargo and passenger jets on both domestic and intercontinental routes. He currently flies the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft.


Even you have to agree that he should know what he's talking about. He currently flies the same type of plane flown into the Pentagon. So what does he have to say about it?


1. The terrorist pilots lacked the skill and training needed to fly jetliners into their targets

This is an especially popular contention with respect to American flight 77. Hijacker pilot Hani Hanjour was a notoriously untalented flier who never piloted anything larger than a four-seater. Yet he is said to have pulled off a remarkable series of aerobatic maneuvers before slamming into the Pentagon. The pilots of American 11 and United 175 also had spotty records and had flown only private planes. They should have had great difficulty navigating to New York City, and even greater difficulty hitting the twin towers squarely. To bolster this idea that the hijackers were Oswaldian pawns, the conspiromongers often invoke impressive-sounding jargon and fluffery about high-tech cockpits, occasionally trundling out testimony from pilots.

Reality: The cabal’s feats did not require in-depth technical knowledge or a high degree of skill. The attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league in the cockpits of those 757s and 767s; however they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category-3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system – or to land at all. They were setting out to steer an already airborne jetliner, in perfect weather, into the side of a building. Though, for good measure, Mohammed Atta and at least one other member of his group did buy several hours of simulator training on a Boeing 727 (this was not the same type of jet used in the attacks, but it didn’t need to be). Additionally they obtained manuals and instructional videos for the 757 and 767, available from aviation supply shops.

Hani Hanjour’s flying was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and spirals above the nation’s capital revealed him to be exactly the #ty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it. Striking a stationary object — even a large one with five beckoning sides — at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon’s lawn. If he’d flown the same profile ten times, seven of them he’d probably have tumbled short of the target or overflown it entirely.
As for those partisan pilots known to chime in on websites, take them with a grain of salt. ]bAs somebody who flies 757 and 767s for a living, I think my testimony carries some weight. Ask around and you’ll discover that the majority of professional pilots feel the way I do.

www.askthepilot.com...

But please, tell me all about how I should ignore him because he doesn't know what he's talking about.


"To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it" Says it all really.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join