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

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

The document I quoted said 50 columns damaged, which your image shows. Yet again, you SEE 4 damaged columns, that doesn't mean only 4 were damaged.

You obviously have not done your research. 50 columns have to do with i asked you? The plane broke 8 columns, first floor. I showed you why that's not possible and you agreed? So is the government version of events not a lie then?

a reply to: Jacobu12

If a jet has a spec for the fuselage to be at 7 feet 9 inches off the runway while at rest on its landing gear, how is there any room for an eight foot diameter engine to hang below the fuselage. Then there has to be room for full travel of the landing gear so the engines don't slam into the runway during landing.

a reply to: Jacobu12

I didn't agree with you. I said repeatedly that just because you see four doesn't mean it's only four.

a reply to: Jacobu12

I would think you would be happy by the fewer number of broken columns? The less columns broke, the more proof flight 77 broke apart for violating speed limits as you argued before hitting the pentagon.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

The problem is the engines don't hang almost 9 feet like you keep claiming.

I agreed with you days ago and you still banging on about this. The engine does hang down 8 feet 10 inches below the wing and i said that is a fact, but that has nothing to do with the question i asked.

Top to bottom of Fuselage is 12 2 inches some say 12 4 inches, we both agree there.

We know part of the engine is level with the bottom of the Fuselage, but most of the engine still hangs down below the Fuselage. So we have to add those feet to the 12 feet number. I thinking is near 19 feet. And thats removing 2 feet,

a reply to: Jacobu12

And yet you keep bringing up 8 feet 10 inches every time you mention the engine hanging below the wing. Which has nothing to do with anything.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

The document I quoted said 50 columns damaged, which your image shows. Yet again, you SEE 4 damaged columns, that doesn't mean only 4 were damaged.

You obviously have not done your research. 50 columns have to do with i asked you? The plane broke 8 columns, first floor. I showed you why that's not possible and you agreed? So is the government version of events not a lie then?

Not possible. I thought you believed flight 77 was breaking apart before hitting the pentagon? Can you predict how many columns wings and a fuselage in structure failure should have broken?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

I would think you would be happy by the fewer number of broken columns? The less columns broke, the more proof flight 77 broke apart for violating speed limits as you argued before hitting the pentagon.

For the government story to work 8 columns had to be broken. I don't know why you blaming me for their mess? I posted a rare photo of the damage area ( plane first hit the wall) only 4 columns maybe 5 are removed.

a reply to: Jacobu12

Columns don't have to be removed to be severely damaged.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

And yet you keep bringing up 8 feet 10 inches every time you mention the engine hanging below the wing. Which has nothing to do with anything.

It has to be mentioned to the overall size. How many feet do we take away? How many feet of the engine is level with the bottom of the fuselage?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Columns don't have to be removed to be severely damaged.

Remember their version they are broken columns missing, missing 8 of them.

www.911tap.org...

It don't match when only got 4 maybe 5.

a reply to: Jacobu12

I am just pointing out that if the wings and fuselage were structural comprised do to exceeding speed limits, the few the broken columns indicates the more correct you were in flight 77 was braking apart...... or did you not argue flight 77 should have structural failure?

a reply to: Jacobu12

I already did the math, but apparently you didn't agree with it or read it.

Once again, the maximum diameter of the RB211 is 8 feet 1 inch. It's 7 feet 9 inches from the ground to the bottom of the fuselage. It's 2 feet 5 inches to 2 feet 10 inches to the bottom of the engine from the ground, depending on load.

Do the math.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

I am just pointing out that if the wings and fuselage were structural comprised do to exceeding speed limits, the few the broken columns indicates the more correct you were in flight 77 was braking apart...... or did you not argue flight 77 should have structural failure?

If a plane crashed there 8 columns would have got smashed and thats what they reported. Only 4 or 5 are broken and missing. So something smaller than a 757 hit the wall or a bomb blast blew from inside the Pentagon.

a reply to: Jacobu12

They are broken, OR missing. The exact quote from that page is : Impacted. Missing, broken, disconnected, or otherwise without remaining function.

So it doesn't say they were all missing, but that they were no longer structurally intact. That means that they may have been there, but were no longer capable of supporting a load.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

I already did the math, but apparently you didn't agree with it or read it.

Once again, the maximum diameter of the RB211 is 8 feet 1 inch. It's 7 feet 9 inches from the ground to the bottom of the fuselage. It's 2 feet 5 inches to 2 feet 10 inches to the bottom of the engine from the ground, depending on load.

Do the math.

Have you diagram for that engine length. I have a diagram that has a line pointing to the top and one line to the bottom and said 8 feet 10 inches. And was a 757-200 series.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

They are broken, OR missing. The exact quote from that page is : Impacted. Missing, broken, disconnected, or otherwise without remaining function.

So it doesn't say they were all missing, but that they were no longer structurally intact. That means that they may have been there, but were no longer capable of supporting a load.

All that means broken still and 8 of them. You seem unwilling to accept this evidence and looking for excuses to dismiss it.

a reply to: Jacobu12

And what do you think a wing impacting the wall and shattering is going to do to the column it hits? Nothing? It won't penetrate the wall but it's still going to damage the column at impact. If only four columns were damaged the wall wouldn't have collapsed the way it did.

a reply to: Jacobu12

Engine length is meaningless. It has nothing to do with ground clearance. I can't link a PDF on my phone. The airport planning document shows 8 feet 1 inch.

a reply to: Jacobu12

Don't get mad at me. Again, why would a jet you claimed should have be in structural failure, and not even made it to the pentagon, brake more than eight columns.