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

originally posted by: Salander
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.

Show from the flight data that flight 77 stayed a static and constant distance off the ground. Why do you not get that flight 77 had a bumpy descent into the pentagon over ground that is lower than the pentagon. Only conspiracists can create a conspiracy by over looking the ground is sloped down and away from the pentagon. Is there a scientific law lawns are always flat?

Again, prove flight 77 was not in early stages of failure.

Even if flight 77 was in an early stage of breaking up, why would it lose all forward momentum and fall straight to the ground. It would have to have an acting force to push it out of the air in the split seconds before hitting the pentagon.

Sitting on a run way, the lowest part of 757 fuselage has a minimum spec of 7 feet 9 inches provided by the landing gear. Sitting on a run way, the engines still clear by over 2 foot. I would think you would want a bit of fudge room for the engines when the landing gear are shoved up into the fuselage on landing.

a reply to: Jacobu12

The directive was issued around that time. Do you really think American Airlines stopped all flights for several months so they could remove the phones? No, they schedule them for removal on their next overhaul...which, for the Flight 77 airframe was going to be early 2002. Do you have any idea how ridiculous your ideas end up being in practice?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

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

Found it in the FDR data of course. I downloaded the data and software etc when it was made available around 08-09 or thereabouts mainly because I had extreme doubts in outrageous PFT claims and needed to verify these things independently.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Here is a quote from my original post

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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.

This was to a response making it seem cell phone calls from flight 77 were not probable.

What I was conveying was the fact: The only way to ensure broadcasting from a tower was not transmitted to the sky would be shielding the sky from cell phone radiation or a device that reflected all tower broadcasting to the ground. You can "focus" most of the radiation, but you still get leakage into all directions. Which is evidence if you can get a cell phone signal almost two miles into the sky. Or almost 6 miles above a tower.

It's against myself too, but none of us stated the speed a cell phone is moving while transmitting also plays a role how well the call is handed from tower to tower.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Jacobu12


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.

Yeah that's nuts.

Fly like that and you're gonna crash.

Oh, wait.....

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.

That's what happens when "open minded people" with little science, technology, and industrial backgrounds spend all their time on conspiracy sites that rely on sensational innuendo and the hiding of facts to create foot traffic.

I would think to present the best arguments, a conspiracist would visit debunking sites to hone their skills. I guess it better to stay in conspiracy safe spaces. It's sad how "open minded people" act on ATS when their fantasy narratives are questioned.

They always try to make it about pushing "the official narrative." Not seeing conspiracists are pushing pseudoscience and rely on the suppression of facts.

originally posted by: Jacobu12
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.

Because the trusted FBI said so? From the Moussaoui trial that you are legitimizing by using FBI statements from that trial. A trial were the documented evidence of the human remains and evidence proves they were from flight 77. Where people testified under oath the wreckage and destruction caused by flight 77 hitting the pentagon.

Then I guess we can conclude flight 77 hit the pentagon. Or can you cite were the offical stance of the FBI you evoked as credible states that flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon?

Then file a freedom of information request to have the information released. I like how conspiracists think the world should bend backwards to every implication of conspiracy. I guess everone is guilty until proven innocent. A founding principal..... oh, wait....

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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.

If the truth move gets bigger every year, why would Scientists for 9/11 write documents on how pentagon large jet deniers are hurting the credibility of the truth movement and causing the public to turn away from the truth movement. That coming to the realization a large jet hit the pentagon might help the truth movement's image. If their donations were up, I don't think the would be worried about the truth movement's public image.

And yet another contraction. I thought you stated you were not part of the truth movement. But excited of the fake narrative its growing larger. You seem very emotional attached to a group you claim you are not part of.

a reply to: Jacobu12

By the way, George W. Bush, one of the most hated president perhaps, Facebook profile has over 4 million likes.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Facebook profile seems to be stalled under 500,000 likes.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

By the way, George W. Bush, one of the most hated president perhaps, Facebook profile has over 4 million likes.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Facebook profile seems to be stalled under 500,000 likes.

In all fairness, that not a very good comparison.

Lots of average people would identify with an ex president, even if it is only just over 1% of the country. Most people would most likely not be looking at profiles for science type persons.

a reply to: MrBig2430

Well let's suppose the plane did glance off the lawn as some witnesses suggested. Can anyone seriously suggest that the building would have been saved if it did actually touch the grass on the way in?

It's just arguments for the sake of arguing the way I see it

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

By the way, George W. Bush, one of the most hated president perhaps, Facebook profile has over 4 million likes.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Facebook profile seems to be stalled under 500,000 likes.

In all fairness, that not a very good comparison.

Lots of average people would identify with an ex president, even if it is only just over 1% of the country. Most people would most likely not be looking at profiles for science type persons.

And If it's just to talk about debunking 9/11 conspiracies, a majority of people role their eye at the mention of the truth movement. It takes a special kind of person to try to "debunk" the explicit evidence of damage at the pentagon caused by jet impact with phone records and jet shedules.

For the missile and/or bomb theories at the pentagon, why was the interior of the pentagon not exploded out into the lawn. Why did the last few holes punched out in the pentagon walls get smaller and smaller when a blast shock wave radius spreads out and grows weaker.

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: MrBig2430

Well let's suppose the plane did glance off the lawn as some witnesses suggested. Can anyone seriously suggest that the building would have been saved if it did actually touch the grass on the way in?

It's just arguments for the sake of arguing the way I see it

Evidently catastrophic failure causes all forward movement to cease, the wreckage to stop mid air, and fall straight to the ground?

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: MrBig2430

Well let's suppose the plane did glance off the lawn as some witnesses suggested. Can anyone seriously suggest that the building would have been saved if it did actually touch the grass on the way in?

It's just arguments for the sake of arguing the way I see it

Who knows what point these nut jobs are trying to make?

So flying like that will result in a crash? Well no # Sherlock.

And on top of it, they use the Sharpshooter Fallacy to proclaim their incredulity at how he hit that exact spot. News flash dumb asses, he wasn't trying to hit that exact spot. If anything, evidence shows that he was pulling positive g's and THAT suggests that his plan might have been to come in fast at a shallow angle and crash across the roof, starting fires over a large area.

a reply to: neutronflux

I was just commenting on the FB comparison.

Anyway,

There will always be people questioning the reporting of something such as this event. Weaknesses can be perceived in both sides of the argument but that doesn't make then all false does it.

I find some of the "facts" to be a bit odd but it doesn't mean those facts are not true, hence not facts. I wonder how much truth has been left out of public view though.

The point about the missile/explosion outward damage makes sense unless it wasn't designed to end in an explosion.

Given the witness debate about flight path, the likelihood of a plane seems to be well supported.

a reply to: MrBig2430

Something we can be reasonably certain of is there'd be pretty much the same arguments regardless of where the plane hit the building. It's obvious that the planners of the attack had a better grip on physics, kinetic energy in particular, than most CT people are demonstrating. They specifically chose cross-country flights to maximise the mass of these planes re-purposed for use as projectile weapons.

If a person is planning on crashing an airplane then that difficult part of flying that is not crashing can generally be overlooked. The skills then move to crashing in the desired manner. And I do understand hitting the "spot" isn't necessarily easy. And in this case we don't know it the desired spot was actually hit.

One thing I remember from that morning was the news on TV stating a bomb had gone of near the helicopter pad at the Pentagon. So much for reporting live news.

originally posted by: neutronflux

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.

That's what happens when "open minded people" with little science, technology, and industrial backgrounds spend all their time on conspiracy sites that rely on sensational innuendo and the hiding of facts to create foot traffic.

I would think to present the best arguments, a conspiracist would visit debunking sites to hone their skills. I guess it better to stay in conspiracy safe spaces. It's sad how "open minded people" act on ATS when their fantasy narratives are questioned.

They always try to make it about pushing "the official narrative." Not seeing conspiracists are pushing pseudoscience and rely on the suppression of facts.

You're a debunker. People like you is the reason the conspiracy continues.

For those people interested in real investigative work.

Ted Olson why he is a liar.
Chad Kinder, who, in response to the question whether it was true that there were no “seatback satellite phones on any [American] Boeing 757 on September 11, 2001,” said: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”95

dated January 28, 2001, purportedly from the Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (757 AMM), which states: “The passenger telephone system was deactivated by ECO [Engineering Change Order] FO878.”96

American Airlines Public Relations Representative John Hotard: “An Engineering Change Order to deactivate the seatback phone system on the 757 fleet had been issued by that time [9/11/2001].”

Captain Ralph Kolstad, who flew Boeing 757s (as well as 767s) as captain from 1993 until he retired in 2005: “[T]he ‘air phones,’ as they were called, were . . . deactivated in early or mid 2001.