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

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Yep Jacobu12... you dont need a eye test........it's sealed polished aluminum and has grain that will do tricks in daylight depending on sun angle......

That litter on the lawn isn't actual.......''twas placed so it just doesn't even count

And did "they" pick up all the interior of the pentagon that should have been exploded on to the front lawn form a detonating warhead or bomb. Did they pick that up while placing wreckage?

And if it was not a bomb or warhead, why would you claim there was no wreckage? You would think whatever hit the pentagon should have left wreckage. Especially if the entrance hole was 90 feet wide and over 18 feet tall. You seem to think there should be wreckage if something sizable hit the pentagon? Yet you claim no wreckage.

And didn't you say there was no damage to the pentagon concrete floors from 9/11. Wouldn't an exploding bomb or missile that punched holes through what conspiracists described as fortress walls pit or crater the concrete?

I guess you don't worry about contradicting yourself, just keep the faith in conspiracy.

Can you please clarify? What is your theory for what happened at the pentagon?

And when are you going to post or link to what you believe was the entrance hole to the pentagon to add greater credibility to your arguments?

originally posted by: Jacobu12
3 rings of concrete

This your problem. There were only 2 brick walls breached. The outside one was three layers of brick kevlar reinforced for blast protection. The C ring wall was two layers of brick. No other structural walls in between.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Jacobu12
3 rings of concrete

This your problem. There were only 2 brick walls breached. The outside one was three layers of brick kevlar reinforced for blast protection. The C ring wall was two layers of brick. No other structural walls in between.

There is the Pentagon first floor wall, E ring, the two story section, then the D ring and the two story section, then the C section and then it exited a hole. Was this area not reinforced recently before the attack?

Is that not 4 walls?

a reply to: Jacobu12

The individual talked about two brick walls and structural walls. Not all walls are brick. Not all walls are concrete. Not all walls are structural in that they are load supporting.

Stop trying to imply something that is not there from what was actually written.

originally posted by: Jacobu12


Is that not 4 walls?

This is a cross section view of the pentagon.

4.bp.blogspot.com...

There were no structural walls between the entrance and exit hole.

a reply to: Jacobu12

After your in depth posting on pentagon columns and their conditions, you couldn't be bothered looking up the actual wall construction and how it may relate? Maybe more study and less posting for you?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

After your in depth posting on pentagon columns and their conditions, you couldn't be bothered looking up the actual wall construction and how it may relate? Maybe more study and less posting for you?

a reply to: Jacobu12

If you think your right, then create a written argument. My kid can make arrows on pictures too.

Strange you will not form a rational argument..... by the way, what is your theory to supersede large jet impact and the supporting arguments? Clocks that drop have a blue tint?

originally posted by: Jacobu12

Count the windows between ground and roof for each ring.

Only the c ring goes all the way to the ground.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

If you think your right, then create a written argument. My kid can make arrows on pictures too.

Strange you will not form a rational argument..... by the way, what is your theory to supersede large jet impact and the supporting arguments? Clocks that drop have a blue tint?

Did you not notice where the damage is mostly at? Exit hole is untouched with fires and any sign of real damage. How much of the plane survived the first impact, cone of the plane will smash easily.

neutronflux How many columns are broken when the plane crashed?

a reply to: Jacobu12

People tend to obsess over the strength of the plane's nose, forgetting that there was an entire plane behind it. That is over 100000kg of mass moving at over 200m/sec which amounts to something like 2.5 gigajoules of kinetic energy needing to be absorbed by the stationary building in order to arrest all of that mass and it didn't go down peacefully.
Only one wall of the building had been reinforced, the outer wall and it obviously wasn't up to this huge challenge. The inside walls were nowhere near as tough.

originally posted by: Jacobu12
neutronflux How many columns are broken when the plane crashed?

Is that after the missile system you implied was at the pentagon on 9/11 missed, and before the scientific law of dropped clocks alsways falling stright to the ground to break to record the time was invoked.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12
neutronflux How many columns are broken when the plane crashed?

Is that after the missile system you implied was at the pentagon on 9/11 missed, and before the scientific law of dropped clocks alsways falling stright to the ground to break to record the time was invoked.

Explain this please?

missile system you implied was at the pentagon on 9/11 missed? What explain?

a reply to: Jacobu12

Evidently somebody with a red writing device made red lines and circles.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

Evidently somebody with a red writing device made red lines and circles.

You claim to know more then me, well please enlighten me what you see. I'm here to learn!

Where is the security tape for this area

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

Evidently somebody with a red writing device made red lines and circles.

The impact point is where the nose of the plane hit and went in!

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I've read the statements of Hanjour's instructors, many years ago. What you said in you last post is not accurate. They (only 2 as I recall) described him as a poor student and an awful pilot. Your attempt to rewrite history in that regard is fascinating.

Rewrite the history? The claims were mostly based on his English skills witch is a requirement for an American pilot's license. Funny you are the one ignorant of facts, hiding the whole truth, and being intellectually dishonest. While hiding Hanjour had the ability and training to maneuver a jet to crash into a building larger than 24 football fields. A slow turn, aim, descent, ramp up throttles, contact evidence along the descent, and your bad pilot almost crashed short of the pentagon.

Pilot claim they could not pull this maneuver off, why are you accepting the narrative an inexperienced 747 pilot could?

Did you mean 757?