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

originally posted by: neutronflux

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

Compressor disk, it not evidence of the engine type haha. Did anyone measure the disk to find out? It just means the object had a turbofan jet engine most likely..

originally posted by: Jacobu12

Can i see that official statement?

You'll need to sift through the thread to find it - it was some time back but got discussed at length back then.

a reply to: Jacobu12

I guess any number of broken columns would seem to many if your original claim was the 757 should have exploded on the wall. So are you saying the kinetic damage at the pentagon was from something bigger than a 757?

originally posted by: Pilgrum

originally posted by: Jacobu12

Can i see that official statement?

You'll need to sift through the thread to find it - it was some time back but got discussed at length back then.

Why, you'll just say it's a lie. Unless it's FBI statements that suit you? What was the FBI's stance on the pentagon?

originally posted by: neutronflux
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?

Karl Schwarz, a technical editor at the Bonn-based publication,
examined the photo and technical drawings of the RB211-535 for AFP


“I think only an engineer who is involved in the design of the engine could identify the part,” Schwarz said.While the front fan of the RB211-535 has a 74.5-inch diameter, compression discs inside the engine are much smaller.” Schwarz said.

AFP asked Schwarz if this could be a disc from a smaller engine,
such as the Global Hawk’s AE 3007H.
“It could come from any jet engine,” Schwarz said.

Compressor disk, it not evidence of the engine type haha. Did anyone measure the disk to find out? It just means the object had a turbofan jet engine most likely..

Answered

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

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

Compressor disk, it not evidence of the engine type haha. Did anyone measure the disk to find out? It just means the object had a turbofan jet engine most likely..

You were trying to prove it was from a missile. Post after post. Is that false.

a reply to: Jacobu12

It proves a large aircraft. You don't have to prove what kind of engine to prove that it is from a large aircraft. It's too large to be from a UAV, and far too large to be from any kind of missile. The only thing it could have come from is a large aircraft.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

Provide a photo show me what you see!

I am using photobucket to host photos. They are currently holding my photos for ransom. I'm not paying.


All of my photos i post look like this:



I don't know if you can see it but i can't.

Need to set up another account with some one else.

a reply to: Jacobu12

He flew on their simulator that they had. He didn't fly on an official 757 simulator, no.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

I guess any number of broken columns would seem to many if your original claim was the 757 should have exploded on the wall. So are you saying the kinetic damage at the pentagon was from something bigger than a 757?

If there is 8 visible broken columns, we should see that, as they are all broken at the first floor. One poster said he sees 8 columns broken, waiting on that!

a reply to: waypastvne

I switched to Imgur. It works.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

He flew on their simulator that they had. He didn't fly on an official 757 simulator, no.

How different is the cockpit and controls?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

It proves a large aircraft. You don't have to prove what kind of engine to prove that it is from a large aircraft. It's too large to be from a UAV, and far too large to be from any kind of missile. The only thing it could have come from is a large aircraft.

He's an expert opinion. Who's right?
AFP asked Schwarz if this could be a disc from a smaller engine,
such as the Global Hawk’s AE 3007H.
“It could come from any jet engine,” Schwarz said

a reply to: waypastvne

Don't you have copies saved from before the upload there? If so, you can load them here.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

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

Compressor disk, it not evidence of the engine type haha. Did anyone measure the disk to find out? It just means the object had a turbofan jet engine most likely..

You were trying to prove it was from a missile. Post after post. Is that false.

Missile was my friends story, try again. I open to be wrong on everything i said i not a die hard truther, i just want to see what the facts are!

a reply to: Jacobu12

When you ask any expert an open question like that they're going to say something similar. They're not going to open themselves up by saying conclusively that it could or couldn't be from something specific.

There is no way that came from a Global Hawk. I showed how large that engine is, and that spool is almost the same size as the inlet. There's no room for fan blades if it was in an engine that size.

a reply to: Jacobu12

Why would you care when you thought a missile system should have shot down flight 77.

Then you thought flight 77 should have exploded on the "fortified" pentagon wall.

By the way, how did the four wall and three concrete ring argument work out? I am just to take your word for what it's worth?

Then based on you wrong calculations for 757 demissions and the slope of the pentagon lawn, you thought flight 77 should have crashed on the lawn.

Then you claimed flight 77 should have undergone catastrophic failure and fell straight out of the air to crash on the ground.

And now you argue there was not enough broken columns to your liking in a building you referred to as fortified? Or was it fortress?

a reply to: Jacobu12

It depends on the version in question. There are differences, but it's not like going from a C150 to a 757.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

When you ask any expert an open question like that they're going to say something similar. They're not going to open themselves up by saying conclusively that it could or couldn't be from something specific.

There is no way that came from a Global Hawk. I showed how large that engine is, and that spool is almost the same size as the inlet. There's no room for fan blades if it was in an engine that size.

I not going to claim to know what engine it is that compressor disk belongs to, it's a mystery we leave at that.