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: 53
40
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Then prove it. Prove that BTS statistics are 100% unalterable and prove that Flight 77 wasn't scheduled. And "Because it wasn't listed" isn't proof of anything. You're such an expert in these things suddenly, it should be easy to prove.




posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Which when matched with the physical evidence, and the FDR, matches Flight 77. The radar isn't conclusive, but when taken in context with the other evidence is just another nail in the coffin.


For you it is, not for me.



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

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
And still no answer to if it was not a jet...

How the hole on the front of the pentagon got there.

How there was no interior of the pentagon blown out into the lawn.

Why were the trailers outside the pentagon pushed towards the pentagon, not away.

If conspiracists claim the concrete floors of the pentagon went undamaged and posted pictures of bare undamaged concrete floors, then how did a missile, or bomb, detonation leave the floors undamaged.

Why windows in the pentagon were not blown out into the lawn.

Why was there no indications of an over pressure event from a detonation like blown out car windows or blown over vegitation.

Why the last holes punched our grew smaller from an explosion that the pressure wave would have spread out and grew weaker.

How the human remains of passengers and crew of flight 77 ended up at the pentagon.


I said commercial jet, not a jet of another type. A globalhawk with united airlines marking would look like a passenger jet to an untrained eye. I have not had time yet to explore the front lawn damage. The evidence we have so far i think is powerful enough to question the official narrative.



F'n question what? You will not even state a theory contrary to large jet impact. One moment you are pushing no jet, then pushing there was a jet? One post you state the engines would have hit the ground, but then its the jet would have fell straight down to the ground because it violated a conservatively low limit.

So, what are you trying to prove. Any large event has loose ends.

You lose all credibility by chasing items that have been debunked over and over again, and things you see as "smoking guns" that have been argued and already discredited. That is why the supposed "smoking guns" fizzled out. Claiming conspiracy when it can be explained by call forwarding, fish eyed lenses, or the lawn being lower than the pentagon. Not everything is a conspiracy.

To totally ignore a hundred plus witnesses that are backed by evidence to push one or two accounts with no context shows your irrational bias.

If you want to make progress, pick one theory, champion that theory, and create a credible argument for that theory.

Jumping and swinging from theory to theory is killing your image, credibility, rationality, and makes you seem disingenuous and desperate.

Blowing off items cited from sources to have you brush them off with just your opinion is condescending. It's obvious you are here for you, not the truth.

Do yourself a favor. Spend a day or two studying metabunk and international skeptics. Pick a single theory to champion, use those sites to better anticipate rebuttals, and comeback with a coherent argument and a single message.


Most of the 9/11 theories have not got debunked, they still stand up to scrutiny. Is there smoking gun evidence no, but the official narrative is hard to break if the media and government are not willing to investigate 9/11 correctly.


Maybe not on conspiracy sites, but yes in the real world of science and fact. You really need to spend some time on debunking sites to regain some balance and perspective.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Which when matched with the physical evidence, and the FDR, matches Flight 77. The radar isn't conclusive, but when taken in context with the other evidence is just another nail in the coffin.


For you it is, not for me.


Then why not pick a theory to champion and argue that theory. You just post random stuff hopping it's the smoking gun.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Then prove it. Prove that BTS statistics are 100% unalterable and prove that Flight 77 wasn't scheduled. And "Because it wasn't listed" isn't proof of anything. You're such an expert in these things suddenly, it should be easy to prove.


It not down to me to prove anything, the excuse you made has to proved? The only thing we got right now is flight 77 was not scheduled to fly on Sep 11 2001. We got a conspiracy theory no plane crashing at the Pentagon.
edit on 15-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Which when matched with the physical evidence, and the FDR, matches Flight 77. The radar isn't conclusive, but when taken in context with the other evidence is just another nail in the coffin.


For you it is, not for me.


Then why not pick a theory to champion and argue that theory. You just post random stuff hopping it's the smoking gun.


All the pieces together is suspicious. This does not look like a simple case of guys hijacking a plane and flying it to the Pentagon.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Then prove it. Prove that BTS statistics are 100% unalterable and prove that Flight 77 wasn't scheduled. And "Because it wasn't listed" isn't proof of anything. You're such an expert in these things suddenly, it should be easy to prove.


It not down to me to prove anything, the excuse you made has to proved? The only thing we got right now is flight 77 was not scheduled to fly on Sep 11 2001. We got a conspiracy theory no plane crashing at the Pentagon.


Then what caused the damage at the pentagon. Your chance to prove your credibility and put it on the line. Or you just going to keep being random hoping something sticks.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

YOU are the one claiming that BTS data can't be altered in any way, and a flight not listed means absolutely that it wasn't scheduled to fly. YOU are the one making the claim, so yes, it is on you to prove it. You make the claim, you have to prove it.

So prove it.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Which when matched with the physical evidence, and the FDR, matches Flight 77. The radar isn't conclusive, but when taken in context with the other evidence is just another nail in the coffin.


For you it is, not for me.


Then why not pick a theory to champion and argue that theory. You just post random stuff hopping it's the smoking gun.


All the pieces together is suspicious. This does not look like a simple case of guys hijacking a plane and flying it to the Pentagon.


Probably because national governments that funnel money into cults of jihad used political ties to work individuals through our immigration system to get the 19 hijackers into the country.

Probably because people were covering their butts to prevent being pinned with the USA military and intelligence response failures on 9/11.

But you think the USA government was the mastermind of 9/11?
edit on 15-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

YOU are the one claiming that BTS data can't be altered in any way, and a flight not listed means absolutely that it wasn't scheduled to fly. YOU are the one making the claim, so yes, it is on you to prove it. You make the claim, you have to prove it.

So prove it.


Of course people who believe the official narrative never try to investigate things themselves. Well i don't know how easy it be to prove your theory is correct, it 16 years later and i not a conspiracy researcher. You're a moderator on here? Why are all the people on here Skeptics?
edit on 15-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Then prove it. Prove that BTS statistics are 100% unalterable and prove that Flight 77 wasn't scheduled. And "Because it wasn't listed" isn't proof of anything. You're such an expert in these things suddenly, it should be easy to prove.


It not down to me to prove anything, the excuse you made has to proved? The only thing we got right now is flight 77 was not scheduled to fly on Sep 11 2001. We got a conspiracy theory no plane crashing at the Pentagon.


Then what caused the damage at the pentagon. Your chance to prove your credibility and put it on the line. Or you just going to keep being random hoping something sticks.


I don't have to prove my credibility to anyone on here. I debated this 9/11 stuff too much as it is, and you guys are just not open minded enough to bother anymore. It best to come back to this topic when something new leaks, because disagreeing endlessly and getting nowhere is pointless.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:30 PM
link   
The airlines are responsible for reporting the on-time statistics for inclusion into the BTS stats. Gee, I wonder why American Airlines would not have reported Flight 77 after the fact.....................................



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

And yeah, it would be great if you joined the rest of us in reality and started actually realizing that you have been listening to the wrong people when it comes to the facts. Still waiting on your friend to remote view what I was doing on 9/11.....



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12


The Air Carrier Statistics database, also known as the T-100 data bank, contains domestic and international airline market and segment data. Certificated U.S. air carriers report monthly air carrier traffic information using Form T-100. The data is collected by the Office of Airline Information, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Research and Innovative Technology Administration.

The tables in this database provide domestic market, domestic segment, international market, international segment, combined table for domestic and international market, combined table for domestic and international segment data by certificated U.S. air carriers.

This database is frequently used by the aviation industry, the press, and the legislature to produce reports and analyses on air traffic patterns, carrier market shares, as well as passenger, freight, and mail cargo flow within the aviation mode. The data is conducive to producing carrier load-factors, but does not contain carrier financial information.

BTS statistics

I've done my research. Apparently a lot more than you have.

That's between the member, and themselves.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Nooooo. Radiation is transmitted as a point source. To "focus" radiation in a direction it needs to be built like a flashlight, radar gun, or those funny cones on a microwave tower. Then it still radiates in a cone with "weak" leakage in all directions.

What the hell directs or shields cell phone tower signals to restrict the radiation to ground coverage.

The antennas on cell phones transmit in a spherical shape as a point source.

I think science just died a little.....


It's not a question of anything being focused. A radio wave is just very low frequency light.

A vertical antenna is designed to be able "see" light/radio waves coming at it from the horizontal direction. It can't "see" it when it is coming from directly above, or even a very high angle.


Imagine if you had a visor or something on your head that prevents you from being able to see light coming your direction from high angles. I hold up a lamp (which emits light in a somewhat spherical direction), but I am standing above your horizon. You won't be able to see the lamp.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12


The Air Carrier Statistics database, also known as the T-100 data bank, contains domestic and international airline market and segment data. Certificated U.S. air carriers report monthly air carrier traffic information using Form T-100. The data is collected by the Office of Airline Information, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Research and Innovative Technology Administration.

The tables in this database provide domestic market, domestic segment, international market, international segment, combined table for domestic and international market, combined table for domestic and international segment data by certificated U.S. air carriers.

This database is frequently used by the aviation industry, the press, and the legislature to produce reports and analyses on air traffic patterns, carrier market shares, as well as passenger, freight, and mail cargo flow within the aviation mode. The data is conducive to producing carrier load-factors, but does not contain carrier financial information.

BTS statistics

I've done my research. Apparently a lot more than you have.

That's between the member, and themselves.


So you found nothing, of value, got it. I return to tomo to see if you proved Sept 11 flight 77 was not listed for the reasons you stated.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Yes, that's right, get proven wrong and ignore it, as usual. I just proved that the statistics are provided by the airlines to BTS. That means that if the airline doesn't list a flight, then that doesn't prove that it wasn't scheduled.

What have YOU proven lately? Nothing? I didn't think so.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

YOU are the one claiming that BTS data can't be altered in any way, and a flight not listed means absolutely that it wasn't scheduled to fly. YOU are the one making the claim, so yes, it is on you to prove it. You make the claim, you have to prove it.

So prove it.


Of course people who believe the official narrative never try to investigate things themselves. Well i don't know how easy it be to prove your theory is correct, it 16 years later and i not a conspiracy researcher. You're a moderator on here? Why are all the people on here Skeptics?


You are stereotyping again. I was really interested in what 9/11 was all about. Then people like you showed me the light on the truth of conspiracists.

You, the government cannot be trusted. Then you use FBI evidence to claim Ted Olson didn't get a call from his wife Barbara from flight 77. Your justification was only citing AT&T network records. While you totally hid:

At least one other person called out to report the hijacking of flight 77 to three people.

There were at least four unknown records of calls from flight 77. Calls not pursued by the FBI.

That operators and Ted Olson's security talked to Barbara.

The only additional information the 9/11 commission got from Ted was box cutters.

Conspiracists like to hide facts, use misquotes, use pseudoscience, use false authority, and use pictures out of context.

Has nothing with the "Offical Narrative."

I liked how you had two to three people correcting you on how far the engines hang down off a 757, and you kept blowing it off like they were stupid. Then you blew it off as if it was a simple mistake on your part. Or was it you buying into a conspiracy site and didn't verify the actual deminsions......
edit on 15-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording

edit on 16-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

And yeah, it would be great if you joined the rest of us in reality and started actually realizing that you have been listening to the wrong people when it comes to the facts. Still waiting on your friend to remote view what I was doing on 9/11.....


No thanks. If you believed in facts you be laughing at the official story, How can you be living in reality when you think Hani Hanjour is a super pilot. Night guys.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Once again, you try to twist things into him being an ace pilot when EVERY bit of data shows he was barely a marginal pilot. You've been proven wrong on that every time.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join