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: 59
40
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12




When the plane collides with the wall it should have made a hole for the engines on both sides?


as someone asked you before which you didn't answer but seeing as you are asking I think you really do expect there be a paper cut out of plane entering the pentagon.

Let me ask you what you so nicely ask others




Are you stupid?


It certainly looks that way, everything you post displays pure ignorance or some wicked trolling.





And exit hole with no plane wreckage.



Yes, stupid is a clear definition of what you are doing.

Why?

you actually posted a photo of the exit hole with wreckage and so did Zaphod, you claimed it was bigger or smaller when it was clearly the same size and the same exit hole.




Well if the engines broke why we not find parts?


what, you mean like the parts that you were arguing weren't part of an airplane engine and then shown over and over again it is.




posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   
There comes a point when you see that you are making no progress you have to ask yourself where is my time better spent.
A conspiracy junkie is going to mainline until he decides to quit.
My recommendation is to allow this one poster to go about his uneducated way.
The world is a much broader place than he is able to comprehend at this time in his life.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale




as someone asked you before which you didn't answer but seeing as you are asking I think you really do expect there be a paper cut out of plane entering the pentagon.


He makes a good point. Watch this computer sim from Perdue University and pay particular attention to the engines


The engines just vanish completely as though they didn't know how to incorporate them into the sim accounting for the damage to the building. Odd considering they are the strongest and heaviest components of the aircraft.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat

No they aren't. I've had aircraft lose engines because a chunk of ice went through them. I had four B-1s parked on the ramp, after making an emergency landing because of engine vibrations caused by chunks of ice coming off their intake. Three of them had to pull the engine and replace at least five fan blades, the fourth shelled the engine out.

Engines are extremely fragile, partly because they're designed to be light and partly because of the temperatures and RPMs they run at.

On a commercial plane, the engines are also much smaller than people think they are. The core of the engine is much smaller than the fan section. The fan is designed to pull in and compress as much air as possible.

They're the heaviest component, but by far the strongest portion of the plane is the keel beam.
edit on 7/17/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Jacobu12




When the plane collides with the wall it should have made a hole for the engines on both sides?


as someone asked you before which you didn't answer but seeing as you are asking I think you really do expect there be a paper cut out of plane entering the pentagon.

Let me ask you what you so nicely ask others




Are you stupid?


It certainly looks that way, everything you post displays pure ignorance or some wicked trolling.





And exit hole with no plane wreckage.



Yes, stupid is a clear definition of what you are doing.

Why?

you actually posted a photo of the exit hole with wreckage and so did Zaphod, you claimed it was bigger or smaller when it was clearly the same size and the same exit hole.




Well if the engines broke why we not find parts?


what, you mean like the parts that you were arguing weren't part of an airplane engine and then shown over and over again it is.






You are another one on here who has not researched, the evidence. The plane impacted at the first floor. Before the roof caved in, pictures of the damage got taken, and we can see 4 maybe 5 column struts are broken. Meaning whatever hit that building was not the American airlines plane with a 125 feet wing span. Government says 8 total columns got destroyed.

Photo evidence that don't back the government version.. Screenshot prnt.sc...

If the hole is only 50 feet what happened to the rest of the plane? 50+75=125 feet. The twin engines either way are made of titanium and steel? All they pictured at the Pentagon is a Turbofan disk and that's not proof a plane crashing there, it only is proof the object had a engine I have yet to see the hole where the engines pierced through E and D & C ring. Is it really believe engines would just vaporize to nothingness?

I posted a picture of the exit hole just after the attack on the Pentagon, big difference. Zaphod posted a picture of the exit hole when workers got to the scene and started clearing up. Did you miss the part where i pointed it out to him, the wall was marked in orange. The wall was later enlarged when the workers came on scene, you find pictures of that online. Zaphod posted pictures when the workers arrived, and has stuff seen, that he thinking is are plane parts? The original hole does not show plane parts at all and the picture confirms Terry Mitchell testimony
edit on 17-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12




You are another one on here who has not researched, the evidence.


Well since you wrote it, your type of research, yes, I have done NO research that resembles your version of research.




Before the roof caved in, pictures of the damage got taken, and we can see 4 maybe 5 column struts are broken. Meaning whatever hit that building was not the American airlines plane with a 125 feet wing span. Government says 8 total columns got destroyed.


I have said now at least 2 times, you don't understand what kinetic energy is, its no wonder you say such things when you don't understand what you talking about.




I posted a picture of the exit hole just after the attack on the Pentagon, big difference. Zaphod posted a picture of the exit hole when workers got to the scene and started clearing up. Did you miss the part where i pointed it out to him, the wall was marked in orange. The wall was later enlarged when the workers came on scene, you find pictures of that online.


No I didn't miss anything.

The 2 pics show the exact same size hole.

If you cant see that then its OK because you can actually use both pictures to work out a scale and measure the holes in both pics to find........

wait for it.....

that both are the same size.




The original hole does not show plane parts at all



Both show the same wreckage and one can make out a few part of plane wreckage as was pointed out in the photos.




edit on 17-7-2017 by InhaleExhale because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Nvm. Someone already posted it.
edit on 7/17/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Jacobu12




You are another one on here who has not researched, the evidence.


Well since you wrote it, your type of research, yes, I have done NO research that resembles your version of research.




Before the roof caved in, pictures of the damage got taken, and we can see 4 maybe 5 column struts are broken. Meaning whatever hit that building was not the American airlines plane with a 125 feet wing span. Government says 8 total columns got destroyed.


I have said now at least 2 times, you don't understand what kinetic energy is, its no wonder you say such things when you don't understand what you talking about.




I posted a picture of the exit hole just after the attack on the Pentagon, big difference. Zaphod posted a picture of the exit hole when workers got to the scene and started clearing up. Did you miss the part where i pointed it out to him, the wall was marked in orange. The wall was later enlarged when the workers came on scene, you find pictures of that online.


No I didn't miss anything.

The 2 pics show the exact same size hole.

If you cant see that then its OK because you can actually use both pictures work and out a scale and measure the hols in both pics to find........

wait for it.....

that both are the same size.




The original hole does not show plane parts at all



Both show the same wreckage and one can make out a few part of plane wreckage as was pointed out in the photos.





Another debunker who never answers anything. From now on i just going to ignore people like you and talk to people who have real questions and answers.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

You mean we never answer anything that you want to hear.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

You mean we never answer anything that you want to hear.


[SNIP]

I wrote this
"You are another one on here who has not researched, the evidence. The plane impacted at the first floor. Before the roof caved in, pictures of the damage got taken, and we can see 4 maybe 5 column struts are broken. Meaning whatever hit that building was not the American airlines plane with a 125 feet wing span. Government says 8 total columns got destroyed.

Photo evidence that don't back the government version.. Screenshot prnt.sc...

InhaleExhale: have said now at least 2 times, you don't understand what kinetic energy is ( just rubbish and nonsense)

Do you guys not understand the significance of only 4 columns broken? It does not seem like you guys do, at every turn you guys seem to not have the basic understanding to what happened.

If the Plane crashed there 8 columns or more would be broken, however we got photographs that disprove that!!
edit on 17-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7.17.2017 by Zarniwoop because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Except for the really minor fact that once you got out past the fuselage, most of the plane wasn't going to punch through the wall. You weren't going to get a cartoon cutout of a plane on the wall.

The engines weren't going to go through the wall because they are actually quite small behind the fan section. And despite a few parts being titanium and steel (a very few parts) they'll come apart in a heartbeat. Every engine I ever saw, unless it was brand new or freshly overhauled had bent fan blades (which are a titanium mix) from small pebbles, ice, or something going through them.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Except for the really minor fact that once you got out past the fuselage, most of the plane wasn't going to punch through the wall. You weren't going to get a cartoon cutout of a plane on the wall.

The engines weren't going to go through the wall because they are actually quite small behind the fan section. And despite a few parts being titanium and steel (a very few parts) they'll come apart in a heartbeat. Every engine I ever saw, unless it was brand new or freshly overhauled had bent fan blades (which are a titanium mix) from small pebbles, ice, or something going through them.


What you saying the wings or twin engines never impacted the Pentagon wall? Come on this theory is not backed by anyone but you.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Read what I actually said, as opposed to your interpretation of what I said.


most of the plane wasn't going to punch through the wall.


That didn't say a damn thing about them not hitting the wall, now did it.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Read what I actually said, as opposed to your interpretation of what I said.


most of the plane wasn't going to punch through the wall.


That didn't say a damn thing about them not hitting the wall, now did it.


Pentagon building performance report says 8 columns got broken. But i posted a rare photo of the impact site that disproves the theory, look at the screenshot i posted. Count the broken column there is only 4 maybe 5.. How did the government miss this i wonder?



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Ah yes, the "if there's not a picture of it, it didn't happen" argument. We SEE 4-5 in one picture. There are more than just those columns in the building, you know. We didn't see pictures of every single thing that day.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Jacobu12

Non-pilots cannot appreciate the other factor in the equation, ground effect. Hani The Magnificent was 90knots or move over Vne, and in ground effect, and if he had been just a few feet off he would have missed the building completely.

It's a ridiculous story told about Hani The Magnificent, but humans and especially Americans today love to engage in a willing suspension of disbelief, as long as their government tells them to, time after time after time. For some, endless repetition of a falsehood will have them believe the falsehood.



An object crashed at the Pentagon we know that for sure.. Lets not forget about the security camera footage released. Why did they remove the timestamp and date of the video? This would show the time of the attack to the minute?


They removed the time stamp (I don't know that, but will take your word for it) so that people would be deceived. Everything they do is to deceive the people and prop up a nonsense story.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrBig2430

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.....


A handful of guys who fly that airplane for a living are on record as saying they would have a difficult time flying the maneuver Hani is alleged to have flown.

But my government and a fair number of posters would have me believe Hani The Magnificent was so damn good he had no problems.

The government wants me to believe all sorts of nonsense, so what's new?



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


You prove 77 was there.

All the other facts and evidence show it was not there. You claim it was, so prove it.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Jacobu12

Non-pilots cannot appreciate the other factor in the equation, ground effect. Hani The Magnificent was 90knots or move over Vne, and in ground effect, and if he had been just a few feet off he would have missed the building completely.

It's a ridiculous story told about Hani The Magnificent, but humans and especially Americans today love to engage in a willing suspension of disbelief, as long as their government tells them to, time after time after time. For some, endless repetition of a falsehood will have them believe the falsehood.



An object crashed at the Pentagon we know that for sure.. Lets not forget about the security camera footage released. Why did they remove the timestamp and date of the video? This would show the time of the attack to the minute?


They removed the time stamp (I don't know that, but will take your word for it) so that people would be deceived. Everything they do is to deceive the people and prop up a nonsense story.


Without a time stamp and date, the video would not be considered evidence. It just another one of the flaws that keep happening with this event. Lets not forget the so called blob (people claim is a plane) is radiating white color when enters the frame.

Flight 77 is silver/bluey shell. The color don't match and this could easily be verified with a hands on experiment.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

How many times have I specifically asked you how the crew and passengers of flight 77 ended up dead at the pentagon. What remains were released to families for burial.

You first......,




top topics



 
40
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join