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

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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!

You have no credibility because you have no coherent message and you contradict yourself.

Would you like to play the fool? Or state a theory to supersede large jet impact and create a credible argument. Or just be the stereotypical irrational conspiracist that cried wolf one to many times.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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.

No, you originally acted like there was only one disc in an engine. And you stated it was the wrong size.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.

Still Hani this was all new for him if we are honest. Could he got lucky maybe, i just curious why he trouble handling and controlling a simpler plane 3 weeks before 9/11. And seems like Hani was going around using a fake pilot license since 1999..

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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.

No, you originally acted like there was only one disc in an engine. And you stated it was the wrong size.

Again i have not had 15 years to look over every detail, i have had weeks. It's a compressor disk experts know better than me, like you said it was a rotor hub or disk if i remember, it happens you get things wrong.

originally posted by: neutronflux
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?

You seem to know it all, but from where i looking other people are answering the questions, you are just mouthing off.

Where is your picture of the 8 columns broke? Why you waiting for someone else to do the work?

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
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?

You seem to know it all, but from where i looking other people are answering the questions, you are just mouthing off.

Where is your picture of the 8 columns broke? Why you waiting for someone else to do the work?

You claimed the fortified pentagon was hit by what should have been a structurally failing jet, why should there be more broken columns?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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!

You have no credibility because you have no coherent message and you contradict yourself.

Would you like to play the fool? Or state a theory to supersede large jet impact and create a credible argument. Or just be the stereotypical irrational conspiracist that cried wolf one to many times.

I don't know know what crashed at the Pentagon for real, if i did would be discussing this now? Why you so against debate or discussing the subject. Show me were i am wrong instead of preaching? I provided you with photographs hours ago and i still waiting on your evidence i was wrong there?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
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?

You seem to know it all, but from where i looking other people are answering the questions, you are just mouthing off.

Where is your picture of the 8 columns broke? Why you waiting for someone else to do the work?

You claimed the fortified pentagon was hit by what should have been a structurally failing jet, why should there be more broken columns?

It not me saying 8 columns broke, i don't give a # how many broke, but facts have to match the evidence. If a plane smashed 8 columns at the first floor surely that would be noticeable. From the photograph i posted i still see columns standing left side, where they should be broken or missing!

a reply to: Jacobu12


What I find most odd is that you didn't use the columns early on to try to prove a bomb or a warhead detonated at the pentagon. Columns that would have demolitions shrapnel embedded in them if a bomb or missile detonated.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12


What I find most odd is that you didn't use the columns early on to try to prove a bomb or a warhead detonated at the pentagon. Columns that would have demolitions shrapnel embedded in them if a bomb or missile detonated.

Do you notice my join date? How many posts have you made compared to me, you should be more knowledgeable. I just researching as i go along when i posting to you guys..

a reply to: Jacobu12

You don't have to know exactly what engine it's from. The fact that you can rule out some engines means that you can eliminate some of the claims made over the years. Which is exactly what my point was.

Yes, it can come from almost any engine, but only one on an aircraft. It can't be from a UAV or missile.

a reply to: Jacobu12

And all the evidence is that Flight 77 was flown by a poor pilot.

Ill take this one step at a time so you will understand it.


Purple box shows the missing lintel beam. This is what sits on top of the columns. The beam is gone and all the columns underneath it are gone. If you count the spaces between windows you will see this accounts for seven missing columns.





Red arrows are pointing to fallen floor slabs. These are not columns.

Is this part clear ?

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
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?

You seem to know it all, but from where i looking other people are answering the questions, you are just mouthing off.

Where is your picture of the 8 columns broke? Why you waiting for someone else to do the work?

You claimed the fortified pentagon was hit by what should have been a structurally failing jet, why should there be more broken columns?

It not me saying 8 columns broke, i don't give a # how many broke, but facts have to match the evidence. If a plane smashed 8 columns at the first floor surely that would be noticeable. From the photograph i posted i still see columns standing left side, where they should be broken or missing!

You answered it yourself. You claimed the jet should have undergone catastrophic failure from exceeding design limits. So the jet structure became less dense because it was starting to break up. Then the jet under massive energy loss when it broke upon what you labeled a fortified wall. The wreckage started to mushroom, and the jet became increasingly less dense as the jet was parted out. And what chance would the bits between the engines and the fuselage have. And the wing tips. How far was the spacing of the columns. Only the 14 foot diameter fuselage and two 8 foot diameter engines whould have the needed density to take out columns. If the columns were 10 feet a part, that is only 4 columns over 40 foot to be taken out by 30 feet of fuselage and engine diameter. And I assume a fortified building has fortified columns.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

You don't have to know exactly what engine it's from. The fact that you can rule out some engines means that you can eliminate some of the claims made over the years. Which is exactly what my point was.

Yes, it can come from almost any engine, but only one on an aircraft. It can't be from a UAV or missile.

Compression inner disk can be 29 and 41 inches in diameter, that's tiny. I don't if you can rule out any of those realistically.

Globalhawk .
Type: Turbofan
Length: 106.5 in (2,705 mm)
Diameter: 38.5 in (978 mm)
Dry weight: 1,585 lb (719 kg)

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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!

You have no credibility because you have no coherent message and you contradict yourself.

Would you like to play the fool? Or state a theory to supersede large jet impact and create a credible argument. Or just be the stereotypical irrational conspiracist that cried wolf one to many times.

I don't know know what crashed at the Pentagon for real, if i did would be discussing this now? Why you so against debate or discussing the subject. Show me were i am wrong instead of preaching? I provided you with photographs hours ago and i still waiting on your evidence i was wrong there?

So when you said it had to be a missile based on the turbine wheel, that was somebody else?

Sorry, you are the conspiracists that cried wolf one to many times.

Mr the 9/11 missile jet should have crashed on walls dropped clock funny looking footage from a fish eyed lenses the stripe is wrong but the blue tint jet hit ground 8 feet hang under fuselage person

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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!

You have no credibility because you have no coherent message and you contradict yourself.

Would you like to play the fool? Or state a theory to supersede large jet impact and create a credible argument. Or just be the stereotypical irrational conspiracist that cried wolf one to many times.

I don't know know what crashed at the Pentagon for real, if i did would be discussing this now? Why you so against debate or discussing the subject. Show me were i am wrong instead of preaching? I provided you with photographs hours ago and i still waiting on your evidence i was wrong there?

So when you said it had to be a missile based on the turbine wheel, that was somebody else?

Sorry, you are the conspiracists that cried wolf one to many times.

Mr the 9/11 missile jet should have crashed on walls dropped clock funny looking footage from a fish eyed lenses the stripe is wrong but the blue tint jet hit ground 8 feet hang under fuselage person

Compressor disk is not an engine, it's just a tiny part of the engine.

a reply to: Jacobu12

That's the diameter of the entire engine, not the turbine wheel in question. That turbine wheel is at least the size of the AE3700 inlet from the looks of it. When you add in the turbine blades, which you keep ignoring, that turbine is far too large for a Global Hawk.

originally posted by: waypastvne
Ill take this one step at a time so you will understand it.


Purple box shows the missing lintel beam. This is what sits on top of the columns. The beam is gone and all the columns underneath it are gone. If you count the spaces between windows you will see this accounts for seven missing columns.

Red arrows are pointing to fallen floor slabs. These are not columns.

Is this part clear ?

That entire space where you marked red should be clear and open and nothing there, and you are gone too far to the right. Why do you think they are fallen floor slabs, did you read this somewhere?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

That's the diameter of the entire engine, not the turbine wheel in question. That turbine wheel is at least the size of the AE3700 inlet from the looks of it. When you add in the turbine blades, which you keep ignoring, that turbine is far too large for a Global Hawk.

We only looking at a compression inner disk. Lets find out how big a globalhawk compression inner disk is before we throw this out!