Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Hi everyone. Please forgive me if I bring up a topic which has already been mentioned in this thread as I have not taken the time to read it fully yet.

I only have 4 posts so am not allowed to start a new topic so I chose a relevant one to discuss my thoughts on this matter.

I am an aviation professional. I am not a pilot, however I am a professional in airline operations and aircraft operations.

First, I will fully concede that I can not answer the question of how American Airlines and United Airlines lost 4 commercial , Part 121 aircraft that day with no explanation as to their whereabouts.

However, my common sense and knowledge of aviation cannot and will not ever believe that these supposed "terrorists" who've received minimal flight training in small general aviation aircraft could pull off the events which have been attributed to them that day on September 11, 2001.

For example the Pentagon. To believe that someone with minimal GA (general aviation) training could pull off maneuvers so precise, so perfect as to what the official story would like us to believe, to me is ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous. I fail to see how this could be accomplished with such precision with someone with basic GA experience. Let alone the attacks on the WTC.

Again, apologize if this has been mentioned in this thread previously. I will go back and read through it. And I also conceded, as an aviation professional, I don't know what could have happened in AA's and UA's operations department that morning. I do know that within my airlines operations department, we do keep track of our Aircraft and ( as do AA and UA) so what could have happened to the real AA and UA flights, I do have to question.

However, it just does not make common sense to me that these so called terrorists could perform this precise maneuvers just from GA training on Cessnas, etc.

Ends my rant.

reply to post by prumplymromblex


Well, it is known that the terrorists (should say educated men with ill intent, really. Terrorist is such a loaded word nowadays) did not have to have knowledge about taking off or landing. Only a basic understanding of piloting the plane, and they did use autopilot a lot according to the data recorders. Also, I'm not really sure what was so precise about it, considering how many lamp poles the guy hit on his way in. I've seen Boeing 767 airshows on Youtube, and it shows that those planes are quite maneuverable. Maybe I'm just being an inexperienced layman, but it doesn't seem far-fetched to have basic training and some time in-transit to get used to the 767 controls. I don't remember exactly where I saw it, but a Swiss guy with no training, got on a simulator and managed to make almost the exact same flight path into the pentagon. (It was a video about the Pentagon on 9/11. Cannot remember, but it was most likely Swiss.)

reply to post by Varemia


I recall you saying in the past, "I'm about fifty/fifty on this..." What a bold faced liar you are! Why don't you give up this charade? You have not seen fit to agree with one single post questioning the OS in this entire thread. How is that possible? Why don't you run along to 'class'.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia

 

I recall you saying in the past, "I'm about fifty/fifty on this..." What a bold faced liar you are! Why don't you give up this charade? You have not seen fit to agree with one single post questioning the OS in this entire thread. How is that possible? Why don't you run along to 'class'.

No evidence. I think it's possible that something else happened, but so far all the evidence supports the official story. Does that make me evil or stupid? No, it means I have a higher standard of proof than you. All you need is doubt fueled by a few people who agree with you. I need actual information and data that doesn't contradict real life and applicable methods.

Now quit being such a paranoid weirdo. You never contribute anything anymore, just telling off other members for perceived transgressions. This is not a court of law, nor is it a place where everything you say is perfect. We are not politicians. We are people. Treat us like people.

reply to post by Varemia


Do you want some cheese with that whine? I've read every single word you've written in the past year at least, and have come to the conclusion that you have zero interest in finding an alternative explanation for who was responsible for, or what caused the destruction that day. That's not open for debate, because your own words speak for you. You are not what you say you are, and we all know it. So, grow a pair and quit acting like your feelings are hurt. You have offered nothing to date that would change my opinion of you, or what you continue to prop up. You are hiding behind your desire for the truth, but we can see you plain as day.

reply to post by Varemia


It was a Dutch TV documentary:

I don't remember exactly where I saw it, but a Swiss guy with no training, got on a simulator and managed to make almost the exact same flight path into the pentagon. (It was a video about the Pentagon on 9/11. Cannot remember, but it was most likely Swiss.)

Search for 'Zembla' - - that was the title of the program.

On YouTube are videos, Google too. Some versions posted are subtitled in English, some aren't.

The show also tears apart that crap film "Loose Change", and exposes many of their lies and deceits.

reply to post by prumplymromblex

However, my common sense and knowledge of aviation cannot and will not ever believe that these supposed "terrorists" who've received minimal flight training in small general aviation aircraft could pull off the events which have been attributed to them that day on September 11, 2001.

For example the Pentagon. To believe that someone with minimal GA (general aviation) training could pull off maneuvers so precise, so perfect as to what the official story would like us to believe, to me is ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous. I fail to see how this could be accomplished with such precision with someone with basic GA experience. Let alone the attacks on the WTC.

Well, I actually am a pilot, with many hours in the 757 and 767.

Firstly, the guys who flew had several hundred hours total time. Yes, in GA..... but airplanes all behave about the same....when simply "steering" then in flight. Also, they DID have some airliner simulator experience and had studied how to use "the box" (that's the FMC, or Flight Management Computer) as well as how to operate the autopilot. In the case of American 77 (and United 93) the FDRs survived, and they show the extensive use of the autopilot on each airplane, until the last few minutes prior to impact.

The Pentagon flying was NOT "precise" at all. And, as to the WTC it was a big, tall skyscraper (two of them). Rather easy to aim, you just fly so as to put the building in your view through the windshield.

The relationship of a "target" in our windshield, and how to "aim" at it is very, very basic in flying. Even for a student pilot, he learns soon how to do it, because it is essential for landings!! After a few hours' practice, it is quite intuitive.

For American 77, I am going to post the NTSB video derived from the FDR. This is the full 90 minutes, and begins as the airplane taxis for takeoff at Dulles. You see the entire flight, up to just a few seconds prior to impact.

(The last bits in the computer memory were garbled, and it took some work to decipher them properly....this was put out by the NTSB as a preliminary version, because people were anxious to see it).

If you want, you can fast-forward to near the end. You will see that Hani Hanjour (the one flying) uses the autopilot to find the Pentagon, and fly over.....then, he makes a very, very easy and normal right descending turn, to come all the way around and line up for the final run at the building. In fact, there are times when pilots use this exact technique as a way to locate an airport they are unfamiliar with...fly over it, then circle back to land.

Watching the video, you see how imprecise he is...he is sloppy, not a very good pilot, but he didn't have to be.....he didn't have to have finesse, nor be smooth on the controls. He didn't care about that, only his "goal".....

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia

 

Do you want some cheese with that whine? I've read every single word you've written in the past year at least, and have come to the conclusion that you have zero interest in finding an alternative explanation for who was responsible for, or what caused the destruction that day. That's not open for debate, because your own words speak for you. You are not what you say you are, and we all know it. So, grow a pair and quit acting like your feelings are hurt. You have offered nothing to date that would change my opinion of you, or what you continue to prop up. You are hiding behind your desire for the truth, but we can see you plain as day.

Now, see? What have you added to discussion here? Absolutely nothing. You've just badgered me, personally, because you don't actually have any points to make. You just seem to think that everyone is against you. I'm here to learn and to correct incorrect facts. If you can show me information that would challenge my view, then I welcome it, I really do, but every time I ask, I just get told "blah, you won't believe it anyway."

Kind of hard to get convinced of something if you refuse to even try!

Originally posted by seism
I personally know someone who watched the plane fly over the highway and it hit some lamp posts as it was coming through. We talked about 2 days after the event and he was sure it was an airliner.

well.. if you remember the pentagon film that was released, NO ONE could tell what that was .. because it was going so fast.. all you see is the explosion, how could the person even see what it was if you can't even tell what 'it' was that hit the pentagon ???

Here's what I think what happened, Low flying airliner, but loaded with military ammo load out, flown just low enough to release it's load.. and then bank out of sight .. why because no one ever looks up all the time.. and since they don't' want to release ALL the films from ALL the buildings which are directed at the Pentagon..

only one video I saw had NO planes in the air at the time.. ZERO.. all you see is black smoke rising ..immediately 1 frame before the black smoke ..

also, air traffic control tower need to release their findings as well.. THAT in itself is a HUGE rabbit hole....someone in that tower KNOWS.....

reply to post by Komodo


Pretty simple. The pentagon footage was from a lousy security camera focused on the immediate area in front of it. It was not intended or designed to capture high resolution shots of distant objects.

Human eyes, on the other hand, have less trouble identifying a fast moving jet flying nearby.

Originally posted by Komodo
Here's what I think what happened, Low flying airliner, but loaded with military ammo load out, flown just low enough to release it's load.. and then bank out of sight ..

Just how does a airliner release a load of "military ammo"? what sort of ammo? Small arms ammo, mg or HMG ammo, ?

reply to post by Varemia


Hi, by "precise" I meant taking a jetliner and somehow maneuvering it in such a way that it would hit its target. A relatively small target compared with a screaming jetliner barreling down at 500 plus mph. It just seems hard for my mind to wrap around that idea. Heck, I've "flown" a 737 sim and I just can't imagine doing what those guys did.

I'm just throwing thoughts out here. Thanks for responding.

reply to post by ProudBird


Hi Proudbird, I appreciate your comments. Not a pilot but just trying to wrap my head around what happened that day. Plus the fact that AA and UA would know where their planes are so the whole "no plane" scenario just doesn't compute in my head.

Maybe they had more training that I previously thought. And again, as far as being "precise" about the pentagon, all I meant was how they managed to maneuver a airliner going at (I'm guessing) near 500 mph and make the adjustments needed so quickly as to hit the pentagon like they did.

I will watch your videos. Thank you for posting them.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

There are some great resources discussing the flightpath and damage to the poles. This video shows that the flight path, based on numerous credible witnesses, and that it would have defied the laws of physics for a plane to perform as the media alleges. Over an hour but VERY worth your time if you're interested in the Pentagon truth.

Here's a short video on the missing footage in the released video footage supplied by the Pentagon.

I didn't watch the first clip, however, the guy who made the second video is retarded. Does he not understand that the cameras weren't recording at 60 frames per second? More like 2 frames per second. Most security cameras record at low FPS. I assume it's because they usually don't need a high FPS, and so they can save on storage space.

I mean, it's such a simple concept. It doesn't seem plausible that he could actually have overlooked that, but he apparently has. Wow.

It's funny because he's all like "how is it just sitting there for 39 frames and then disappears as it cuts to a huge explosion?". There should be an IQ test before you're allowed to post on a forum or upload youtube videos.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by JohnnySasaki

 

Having read hundreds of debunker posts, I can assure you that there is no minimum IQ requirement. In fact, I'm pretty sure you don't have to be able to see as well. That last one's just a hunch, though.

Ok, then I would like you to explain why the poster of the video overlooked the fact that the frame rate of the security footage did not match the frame rate of which it was played back on. Even when viewing a frame rate so low, it still plays it back in real time, therefor it just looks like a bunch of still images. It doesn't mean that because the camera only picked up 2 frames worth of plane and explosion, that it actually happened that way. If you watch the video, that is exactly what he is insinuating, and it's borderline hilarious.

And my IQ score is over 140, so that puts me above 99.5% of the world.

reply to post by prumplymromblex

And yet, just such a flight has been accomplished numerous times in 757 simulators.......

So while you cannot wrap your head around it, many, many other fully qualified pilots have.

reply to post by vipertech0596


reply to post by vipertech0596

I understand what you are saying. However, my whole problem with this is the guys who normally fly those flight sims are fully professionally trained pilots with most likely very extensive training in the aircraft they fly.

My issue is that these dudes with apparently maybe a few hundred hours in a GA aircraft can suddenly take the control of a large airliner and pull off those manuevers, those tight turns at low altitude and high bank angles and still keep control of that airplane. Still keep in on course to hit that pentagon perfectly.

I'm not arguing or trying to start a fight or anything. I'm just posting my thoughts on this. I don't buy the "no plane theory" because I work in an airline ops center and we know where are planes are at all times. Something obviously happened to those planes. But I am not fully convinced at all that a plane did hit the pentagon. Just my opinion.

Again, please don't think I'm arguing or whatever. Just my .2

reply to post by vipertech0596


double post

Originally posted by prumplymromblex
pull off those manuevers, those tight turns at low altitude and high bank angles

When and where did this happen ?

Exactly how tight were the turns ?

Exactly how steep were the bank angles ?

At what altitude were these turns made ?

You made the claim, now give us some numbers Truther.