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: 74
40
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12




Where is the security tape for this area

You really have an aversion to looking things up yourself.
The wing wasn't yet completed.
You don't replace/upgrade camera systems until the end.

P.S. Not all the cameras were hooked to recording devices.




posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

Got to hand it to you, you stick to your guns when you are dead wrong. You offer up a photo of a complete engine and cowling as it would look under the wing and ignore that the pieces at the Pentagon had smashed through a wall.


The plane at the Pentagon hit at fortified wall (allegedly). Twin Towers had glass windows, it's the reason the planes went straight in.

Crash a car against a wall, will the car be sucked in by the wall? The plane is going to explode apart upon impact.


So you went from the jet should be stuck in the wall to flight 77 didn't break columns to your liking.

Get out of here........



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jacobu12




Where is the security tape for this area

You really have an aversion to looking things up yourself.
The wing wasn't yet completed.
You don't replace/upgrade camera systems until the end.

P.S. Not all the cameras were hooked to recording devices.


You are told, with no way to confirm this. Why would they just stop watching this side of the building?



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   

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



I have the same photo on my computer only larger. I can count 8 missing and 1 badly damaged columns in that photo.

Some of what you are marking as columns are actually fallen floor slabs that are still hanging on by the rebar on one end.


Here is a hint If it isn't vertical it isn't a column.

I also see a good 20 meters of lintel beam missing.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

Got to hand it to you, you stick to your guns when you are dead wrong. You offer up a photo of a complete engine and cowling as it would look under the wing and ignore that the pieces at the Pentagon had smashed through a wall.


The plane at the Pentagon hit at fortified wall (allegedly). Twin Towers had glass windows, it's the reason the planes went straight in.

Crash a car against a wall, will the car be sucked in by the wall? The plane is going to explode apart upon impact.


So you went from the jet should be stuck in the wall to flight 77 didn't break columns to your liking.

Get out of here........


It's not my liking at all, the government version is 8 columns broke and only 4 maybe 5 did. So they got it wrong not me.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne

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



I have the same photo on my computer only larger. I can count 8 missing and 1 badly damaged columns in that photo.

Some of what you are marking as columns are actually fallen floor slabs that are still hanging on by the rebar on one end.


Here is a hint If it isn't vertical it isn't a column.

I also see a good 20 meters of lintel beam missing.


The impact point, is the first floor. Left side you can see the column is still standing.

Provide a photo show me what you see!
edit on 19-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

No, they didn't, and Boeing workers wouldn't know the interior of an engine. Boeing doesn't make it, Rolls Royce does. When Boeing gets it, they're already assembled, and all they do is attach it. A spokesperson from Rolls Royce said he didn't think it was from an RB211, but he was a public affairs guy, who didn't work on engines. You can clearly see however, from the drawing that it matches nicely with a high pressure turbine.


I'm fairly certain i read something online that had quotes and workers denied this part belonged to the engine. I will look it up later and post, have to look for it.


Ever complete your research?



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

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?


Days ago. And Hani experience was flying 747 using a flight simulator, he actually never flew a 757 virtually or real life till Sep 11



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

You are told, with no way to confirm this. Why would they just stop watching this side of the building?


There's an official statement from the firm that was installing the security system as part of the renovations much earlier in this thread (I think). It explains what was and wasn't operational on the day as the system was still being commissioned at that time - the 2 gate cameras were operating and recording 1 frame/sec as part of the testing but little, if anything, else.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

No, they didn't, and Boeing workers wouldn't know the interior of an engine. Boeing doesn't make it, Rolls Royce does. When Boeing gets it, they're already assembled, and all they do is attach it. A spokesperson from Rolls Royce said he didn't think it was from an RB211, but he was a public affairs guy, who didn't work on engines. You can clearly see however, from the drawing that it matches nicely with a high pressure turbine.


I'm fairly certain i read something online that had quotes and workers denied this part belonged to the engine. I will look it up later and post, have to look for it.


Ever complete your research?


I could not find the website again. I found out it's a compressor disk. A German aviation expert claimed online it can come from any engine. You have to measure the size of the disk to be sure, of the engine.
edit on 19-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

He was never flying a 747. At any point. He was doing his type rating in a 737.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

You said the jet should have exploded against the wall.

Then you claim the jet should have undergone catastrophic structural failure before hitting the pentagon.

No you think a jet that was undergoing catastrophic failure which should have exploded on the wall didn't break enough columns to your liking.
edit on 19-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

He was never flying a 747. At any point. He was doing his type rating in a 737.


It was not a 757 either way.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum

originally posted by: Jacobu12

You are told, with no way to confirm this. Why would they just stop watching this side of the building?


There's an official statement from the firm that was installing the security system as part of the renovations much earlier in this thread (I think). It explains what was and wasn't operational on the day as the system was still being commissioned at that time - the 2 gate cameras were operating and recording 1 frame/sec as part of the testing but little, if anything, else.


Can i see that official statement?



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

As for your claims of the turbine wheel being from a cruise missile, you couldn't be more wrong.

This is the turbine wheel, next to a person for perspective.



You can clearly see that it comes up to about his knee.

This is a Slam missile(the one on the bottom).



It's clearly far smaller than the turbine found at the Pentagon. Cruise missiles are designed to be small, and carried either by aircraft or ships. That turbine wheel is far too small to have come from any missile.

As for the Global Hawk claim, again, the engine is too small.



The entire engine might come up to someone's knee. You have to account for blade length, so the turbine wheel in that engine is going to be far too small. The turbine wheel at the Pentagon was either a low or high pressure turbine from inside the engine, with the blades snapped off.


Somebody getting schooled



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

And there's a huge difference. Again, it goes to getting basic facts right.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

You said the jet should have exploded against the wall.

Then you claim the jet should have undergone catastrophic structural failure before hitting the pentagon.

No you think a jet that was undergoing catastrophic failure which should have exploded on the wall didn't break enough columns to your liking.


I dont claim anything the government narrative is 8 columns broke. I wait for waypastvne he said he sees 8 broken columns along the first floor.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

And there's a huge difference. Again, it goes to getting basic facts right.


Hani never flew a 757 virtually or real life you mean?



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

The picture of the engine part you went on and on about. What wheel of the numerous turbines wheels in a jet engine was it wrong for. Inlet fan, compression stage, or the expansion stage?



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join