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

a reply to: Jacobu12

If you look at ground planning documents, the Rolls Royce engine diameter is 8 feet 1 inch. If you look at the Rolls Royce certification document by the EASA, it's 7 feet 4 inches. Either way, it's not possible for an engine to hang down 8 feet 10 inches unless it's hanging completely below the fuselage.

Many of Hani Hanjour's flight instructors, including the ones that flew with him, are on record as saying they were "horrified" that someone they taught performed this attack and crashed the plane into the Pentagon. They didn't have any trouble believing he did it. Actual 757 pilots are also on record saying he could have done it based on their research and the data. Interesting that at one point you said "Actual pilots would know, don't you think" but when actual pilots say he could have done it, you ignore it.

www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...

Both written by pilots with many hours of experience. I think they'd know best, don't you?

a reply to: roadgravel

There is, it's just hard to see, and can only be seen in really closeup pictures. The wings were going to shatter when they hit, because they're hollow shells. You can put your foot through one if you step on it wrong. Once the outer portion of the wing, outside of the engines hit, there was almost nothing heavy enough to go through the wall.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

If you look at ground planning documents, the Rolls Royce engine diameter is 8 feet 1 inch. If you look at the Rolls Royce certification document by the EASA, it's 7 feet 4 inches. Either way, it's not possible for an engine to hang down 8 feet 10 inches unless it's hanging completely below the fuselage.

Many of Hani Hanjour's flight instructors, including the ones that flew with him, are on record as saying they were "horrified" that someone they taught performed this attack and crashed the plane into the Pentagon. They didn't have any trouble believing he did it. Actual 757 pilots are also on record saying he could have done it based on their research and the data. Interesting that at one point you said "Actual pilots would know, don't you think" but when actual pilots say he could have done it, you ignore it.

www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...

Both written by pilots with many hours of experience. I think they'd know best, don't you?

I already said it was not hanging down 8 feet 10 feet.; The government said the plane was 20 feet from the ground to the top Fuselage. Why are people have difficulties with this is just acquires a bit of math to work out. Do you understand the engine extends below the fuselage body? So how many feet difference is there when engine is below the Fuselage. The top to the bottom of the Fuselage size don't change Thats 12 feet 2. from there we have to figure how much of the engine is below the bottom and how close is to the magic number of 20 feet?

Fuselage length and Engine if you took apart and measured the length= 21 feet 2 inches.

At 20 feet the plane engines collide with the ground there is no space.

I have a diagram for 757-223 engines and has it at 8 feet 10 inches for the engine.

You wrote.
Many of Hani Hanjour's flight instructors, including the ones that flew with him, are on record as saying they were "horrified" that someone they taught performed this attack and crashed the plane into the Pentagon.

This just one instructor following and believing the official narrative least seems that way to me. Have a name for this instructor please to i can check what he said about he's flying skills?

That floor where the missile went through has no scratch marks at all,

I have a pic of the front with not much of a hole......early shot up close and plain to see the facade

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

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.

No. If a antenna is not designed to be directional by utilizing shielding and a surface to reflect and focus the radiation, the radiation is transmitted in a spherical pattern.

That's not true. You can read about it here:

www.astronwireless.com...

An "omnidirectional" vertically mounted antenna means it covers the whole 360 degrees of the horizontal plane, but in most cases its receptivity will drop off the further off of horizontal you go.

It's called the "azimuth".

add:


A vertically mounted antenna is implicitly directional to the horizontal plane because most of its surface area faces the horizontal plane. It simply has a smaller cross section when viewed from any other angle than horizontal. Remember that radio waves are the same thing as light. If something has a smaller cross section from the perspective of you looking at it visibly, then it also has a smaller cross section from the perspective of a radio wave.

Same thing as a flashlight? A Light bulb just in a fixture radiates all of a room with light. Not until you put the light bulb in a flashlight that has a mirrored surface does the light become focused.

Is there not shielding, or not something physically bouncing the beam at the ground like a "mirrored surface", the cell phone tower is still broadcasting into the air.


Found this article, and yes. It says many towers are designed to "direct" the signal at the ground. Not all.

But An air plane can be almost 2 miles above the ground, and cell users can still connect to a tower.

www.cnn.com...

Cell phones communicate through cell towers, which are located on the ground but can stretch hundreds of feet into the air. As an airplane rises, it gets further from these towers and eventually moves out of contact range. For efficiency, many towers are designed to direct their signal where its most useful: on the ground, not into the sky above.
The maximum distance at which a phone can still make calls and send texts varies depending on the type of tower and transmitter, but an airplane would have to be no more than 10,000 feet in the air for any cell phones on board to still have a signal, according to Bill Rojas, director of telecom research at IDC Asia Pacific.

Actually the opening line of the article says that "all antennas have directional qualities."

It has nothing to do with shielding. Nothing whatsoever. A vertical antenna resonates with the radio wave in order to receive it.

The radio signal, causes electrons to oscillate in the antenna in a direction perpendicular to the direction the signal originated from. It is most receptive when those electrons are oscillate along the length of the antenna.


That said... it is still possible to be above the ground and connect. For example, if you are two miles above the ground, but the cell tower is 10 miles away, your signal is reaching it from only 19 degrees off of horizontal.

Also if you are very very near the tower, the fact your signal is coming from an upward angle might not be enough to stop it being received. The antenna isn't zero receptive to high angles. It's just much less receptive.

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Just had a look at the FDR data and what I see is the barometric correction being changed from 29.91 to 30.23 at 13:24:21 zulu (13 minutes prior to impact) and altitude of ~18000'. The correction caused a reduction in barometric altimeter reading of 38' (18048' - 18010'). Actually the change doesn't appear to have made any significant difference as the aircraft was descending at ~40'/sec at the time.

You need a huge quantity of salt in order to put any faith in the claims made by PFT

Where did you find that data? If you don't mind my asking?

a reply to: Zaphod58

OK. I give that the picture here doesn't due justice for showing small damage.

The difference in the tower and Pentagon seem to show two different effects of high speed material from the plane. One smashes through and one does little damage.

But then there were two different material structures.

Lets not forget Pilots for truth have already found proof Ted Olson lied. United Airlines have said only cell calls are possible
Are the cell calls fake? 2 cells calls made by a flight attendant and 1 from Barbara Olson that failed to connect, is all we know. This was announced in 2006.

Who created the myth about 4 unknown calls after September 11 and why?

Look at this man and think about the lies

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Jacobu12

We know the engine is 8 feet 10 inches below the wing.

i provided a diagram of 757 for that and the engine does indeed hang down 8 feet 10 inches (fact)

Yes under the wing the Engine does hang down 8 feet 10 inches.

Do I need to find more quotes? Those were from yesterday and today alone.

The 8 feet 10 inches (which is still off a few inches) is the diameter of the engine, not how far it hangs down below the wing.

a reply to: Jacobu12

No, we found answers long ago. We just grow tired of people who act as if everything they find about 9/11 is something new and then insist that their ideas are reality....when those ideas were disproven long ago.

a reply to: Jacobu12

Sweet Lord.....

The four "unknown" calls were from AIRFONES....not cellphones. I am not sure why it is so hard for you to understand that.

And despite your posting of the AA public relations hack that the Airfones had been removed, the maintenance records for that airframe showed that the phones were still installed and still operable on 9/11/01. Unless of course your remote viewer is now going to claim that GTE and American Airlines Maintenance are part of your grand conspiracy.

a reply to: Jacobu12

And I carry two cellphones..one personal and one for work. Both on the same network and yet, there is a five minute difference between them...MUST BE A CONSPIRACY!!!!!

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

And I carry two cellphones..one personal and one for work. Both on the same network and yet, there is a five minute difference between them...MUST BE A CONSPIRACY!!!!!

Of course there is a conspiracy if American Airlines confirm the story is bogus, but no you guys know more.

Zaphod. You claim i got the length wrong for the engine source please and thank you.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

No, we found answers long ago. We just grow tired of people who act as if everything they find about 9/11 is something new and then insist that their ideas are reality....when those ideas were disproven long ago.

They have not disproven anything that's why the 9/11 truth movement is bigger every year. You are guys just debunkers and it so transparent.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

Sweet Lord.....

The four "unknown" calls were from AIRFONES....not cellphones. I am not sure why it is so hard for you to understand that.

And despite your posting of the AA public relations hack that the Airfones had been removed, the maintenance records for that airframe showed that the phones were still installed and still operable on 9/11/01. Unless of course your remote viewer is now going to claim that GTE and American Airlines Maintenance are part of your grand conspiracy.

Are you stupid? American airlines have said this was not possible. There was no airfones connected with that flight, it never happened, it's fake. There is record of correspondence to prove this.

Anything new found on the internet after 2001 manuals and stuff like this is suspect. Conspirators are filling the gaps where they #ed up, they know people like you will fall for it.

cardinalfan0596 Why we got no telephone record for 4 unknown calls? I tell you why the record don't exist.


Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (757 AMM) dated January 28, 2001
his page states that the passenger phone system for the AA 757 fleet had (by that date) been deactivated

How many manuals is there in 2001? What i read is a manual appeared online in 2007, that said no the airphone was connected. I think the people learned of the flaw and they quickly got a manual out to cause confusion. The manual from 2001 is the real thing, the other manual is a phony. And we know it's the truth because United Airlines confirmed the 2001 manual stated was true.

This my last post on 9/11 here. Ted Olson is a liar tell proven otherwise.

As one critic of Ted Olson pointed out
“Ted Olson could give his adherents closure, and shut his critics up,” Morgan pointed out, “by simply producing the Department of Justice’s telephone accounts, showing a couple of hefty reverse-charges entries charged from Flight 77’s Airfone number at around about 9:20 AM on 11th September, 2001.

a reply to: Jacobu12

A practical way to appreciate how close to the ground AA77 had to be is, on any sideview of the aircraft, just extend the landing gear, as most diagrams show the aircraft with gear up.

And so, it means Hani The Magnificent had to be flying as close to the ground as if he were taxiing, in ground effect, at Vmo +90 and that's ridiculous.