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

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Have you ever flown in a plane in business class?? Use of cell phones happens all the time partly because they don't want to pay the minute charges on calls. A tower will have a range of about 22 miles the only bad thing of these calls is they can drop but it doesn't happen that often.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

A jet crashs by descending into the ground, and that is what flight 77 did. Sorry that individuals try to spin flight 77 stayed this magic hieght off the ground when in fact:

One: the ground leading to the pentagon on the flight path was lower than what the pentagon sits on. Do to uneven terrain alone, there was not this magic constant hieght above ground that flight 77 flew at.

Two: sorry the descent was not a rapid crash into the ground. It was a constant and progressive, but bumpy descent into the pentagon.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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.

For the bomb....


Then why was everything pushed in? The entrance hole was pushed in. The items in the construction yard were pushed in towards the pentagon? Why was there no interior of the pentagon exploded out. Why were windows in the pentagon not exploded out. Why no crater or pitting in the concrete floors conspiracists say were undamaged. Why were the columns not broken in a patten of a sphere or cone. A blast wave gets wider and less intense with distance. How was a smaller and smaller hole knocked through the sequence of walls. Why was there no indication of an over pressure event caused by a bomb as in no near by car windows blown out or near by vegetation blown over.

Almost all eyewitnesses agree to a large jet impact.....

prnt.sc... the front area was damaged a lot, it's a myth it wasn't.

Your being intellectually dishonest again. Quote where I ever posted there was no damage.

No you cite the evidence of a bomb or missile detonating?


Or refute the works by Scientists for 9/11 that states and proves virtually all other theories besides large jet impact are impossible.

All theory involving anything but a big jetliner....impossible.....really now my bud

That's whack.....I have this picture you see, of the front right after the occurrence.......there's no damage at all........windows intact where the wing should hit

originally posted by: GBP/JPY

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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.

For the bomb....


Then why was everything pushed in? The entrance hole was pushed in. The items in the construction yard were pushed in towards the pentagon? Why was there no interior of the pentagon exploded out. Why were windows in the pentagon not exploded out. Why no crater or pitting in the concrete floors conspiracists say were undamaged. Why were the columns not broken in a patten of a sphere or cone. A blast wave gets wider and less intense with distance. How was a smaller and smaller hole knocked through the sequence of walls. Why was there no indication of an over pressure event caused by a bomb as in no near by car windows blown out or near by vegetation blown over.

Almost all eyewitnesses agree to a large jet impact.....

prnt.sc... the front area was damaged a lot, it's a myth it wasn't.

Your being intellectually dishonest again. Quote where I ever posted there was no damage.

No you cite the evidence of a bomb or missile detonating?


Or refute the works by Scientists for 9/11 that states and proves virtually all other theories besides large jet impact are impossible.

All theory involving anything but a big jetliner....impossible.....really now my bud

That's whack.....I have this picture you see, of the front right after the occurrence.......there's no damage at all........windows intact where the wing should hit

How would I know what you are looking at, you never linked or posted a picture of the entrance hole at the pentagon to my knowledge.

You yourself said no marks in the pentagon concrete floors, but a bomb or missile detonating left no pitting or craters? Yet blew out wall after wall that conspiracists imply were built like a fortress.

If the walls were built like a fortress, wouldn't the detonation of a bomb or missile follow the path of least resistance, and be directed up through the roof.

The windows were not blown out by shrapnel created by a missile or bomb detonating.

No demolition shrapnel in human remains, walls, out side the pentagon, or no damage to nearby objects.

Trailer in the construction yard pushed towards the pentagon, not away.

No interior of the pentagon exploded out in to the lawn.

Let's talk about dropped clocks and 85 videos some more instead of there being no evidence of a missile or bomb setting off.

a reply to: Jacobu12

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.

What engine length?

No one has given a measurement for the length of any engine.

The image you say you have doesn't give you the engine length, you are telling us its giving you its diameter.

originally posted by: Jacobu12
Is anyone going to address why the so called plane has a white color?

Paint?

Plane dropped to just 20 feet- ground to the top of the plane. 20 feet that's it. It's the amount space Hani have to fly the plane. The top of the plane to the bottom is going to minus 12 feet taken from 20 feet. The engine extend even further down so that eats up the 20 feet of space had to fly very fast..

yes and why is length of any concern?

It has nothing to do with what you are saying.

a reply to: Jacobu12

This easily be tested at the Pentagon. Use a camera like it the one used 2001, summer day, and place object with similar metal at the same distance and record the object. If the body is silver, and it shines white you got a point. If it just looks silver and blue game over.

You don't think motion has a part to play?

especially when the movement is at very high speed.

How come if have a circle piece of paper that was divided into 7 sections and each section colored with a color of the rainbow.

I attach the circle to a stick where I can spin the circle, why when I spin the circle do the all the colors turn white and it just looks like a white circle when its spinning fast?

It seems you need things explained to you in as most basic ways possible, only to completely ignore what was explained because your understanding seems to be way off about simple things.

You display so much ignorance of very basic concepts, not sure if you just have a learning disability and are really serious or if you are just trolling.

It really points to the second if one was to follow the conversations you have had with a few members

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: GBP/JPY

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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.

For the bomb....


Then why was everything pushed in? The entrance hole was pushed in. The items in the construction yard were pushed in towards the pentagon? Why was there no interior of the pentagon exploded out. Why were windows in the pentagon not exploded out. Why no crater or pitting in the concrete floors conspiracists say were undamaged. Why were the columns not broken in a patten of a sphere or cone. A blast wave gets wider and less intense with distance. How was a smaller and smaller hole knocked through the sequence of walls. Why was there no indication of an over pressure event caused by a bomb as in no near by car windows blown out or near by vegetation blown over.

Almost all eyewitnesses agree to a large jet impact.....

prnt.sc... the front area was damaged a lot, it's a myth it wasn't.

Your being intellectually dishonest again. Quote where I ever posted there was no damage.

No you cite the evidence of a bomb or missile detonating?


Or refute the works by Scientists for 9/11 that states and proves virtually all other theories besides large jet impact are impossible.

All theory involving anything but a big jetliner....impossible.....really now my bud

That's whack.....I have this picture you see, of the front right after the occurrence.......there's no damage at all........windows intact where the wing should hit

How would I know what you are looking at, you never linked or posted a picture of the entrance hole at the pentagon to my knowledge.

You yourself said no marks in the pentagon concrete floors, but a bomb or missile detonating left no pitting or craters? Yet blew out wall after wall that conspiracists imply were built like a fortress.

If the walls were built like a fortress, wouldn't the detonation of a bomb or missile follow the path of least resistance, and be directed up through the roof.

The windows were not blown out by shrapnel created by a missile or bomb detonating.

No demolition shrapnel in human remains, walls, out side the pentagon, or no damage to nearby objects.

Trailer in the construction yard pushed towards the pentagon, not away.

No interior of the pentagon exploded out in to the lawn.

Hey neutron......what is the possibility of a missile as a kinetic weapon........fuel blows at impact then kinetics all the way through the walls

It was a missile, stolen from the sunken russian nuke sub the kursk fired from an Israeli sub.

If a missile with a large amount of explosives didn't blow up then there needs to be a large object with lots of kinetic energy to cause the damage. Maybe a large aircraft with much of it's of fuel load.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: GBP/JPY

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

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.

For the bomb....


Then why was everything pushed in? The entrance hole was pushed in. The items in the construction yard were pushed in towards the pentagon? Why was there no interior of the pentagon exploded out. Why were windows in the pentagon not exploded out. Why no crater or pitting in the concrete floors conspiracists say were undamaged. Why were the columns not broken in a patten of a sphere or cone. A blast wave gets wider and less intense with distance. How was a smaller and smaller hole knocked through the sequence of walls. Why was there no indication of an over pressure event caused by a bomb as in no near by car windows blown out or near by vegetation blown over.

Almost all eyewitnesses agree to a large jet impact.....

prnt.sc... the front area was damaged a lot, it's a myth it wasn't.

Your being intellectually dishonest again. Quote where I ever posted there was no damage.

No you cite the evidence of a bomb or missile detonating?


Or refute the works by Scientists for 9/11 that states and proves virtually all other theories besides large jet impact are impossible.

All theory involving anything but a big jetliner....impossible.....really now my bud

That's whack.....I have this picture you see, of the front right after the occurrence.......there's no damage at all........windows intact where the wing should hit

How would I know what you are looking at, you never linked or posted a picture of the entrance hole at the pentagon to my knowledge.

You yourself said no marks in the pentagon concrete floors, but a bomb or missile detonating left no pitting or craters? Yet blew out wall after wall that conspiracists imply were built like a fortress.

If the walls were built like a fortress, wouldn't the detonation of a bomb or missile follow the path of least resistance, and be directed up through the roof.

The windows were not blown out by shrapnel created by a missile or bomb detonating.

No demolition shrapnel in human remains, walls, out side the pentagon, or no damage to nearby objects.

Trailer in the construction yard pushed towards the pentagon, not away.

No interior of the pentagon exploded out in to the lawn.

Hey neutron......what is the possibility of a missile as a kinetic weapon........fuel blows at impact then kinetics all the way through the walls

Fuel has its energy stored and released through a chemical reaction.

Kinetic energy is do to motion, like a large jet hitting the pentagon.

A Russian missile from the Kursk is what conspiracists by in far push as the most "plausible" missile which has a diameter of less than 4 Feet.

Four foot diameter hole vs a hole shaped like an upside down T. At least 70 feet across and 26 feet tall at it's tallest point.

This is what Scientists for 9/11 Truth cite for the deminsions of the entrance hole. At the end of the quote is a paragraph in the context of alternate theories.

www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

The Building Façade Damage
The overall damage to the Pentagon West wall, a hole at the first and second floors of 18 ft diameter, roughly centered above a 96 ft gash in the first floor, indicates impact and penetration of the building by an airplane- shaped object46. The body of a Boeing 757 is roughly a cylinder 13 ft in diameter, and the wingspan is almost 125 ft. The 96 ft gash is more than wide enough to accommodate both engines and the wing tip damage is approximately correct for a Boeing 757.

The building façade damage is roughly in the shape of a Boeing 757 and weighs against the flyover theories and missile only theory. The bomb theory would imply a complicated group of simultaneous explosions.
Requirement: Those who hold to any of the above alternative theories must produce a credible alternative explanation for the façade damage, in order to still claim that these theories are viable. If no credible evidence or explanation can be produced, these theories must be discarded.

a reply to: neutronflux

Fuel has its energy stored and released through a chemical reaction.

It also adds to the mass of the plane at impact.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Hey neutron......what is the possibility of a missile as a kinetic weapon........fuel blows at impact then kinetics all the way through the walls

The hole wound be the size of the kinetic weapon.
You then have to explain why all those witnesses are lying for decades.

How would the government know for sure that random tourist/citizens would not be filming in the area at the exact instant their weapon passed by?
Yes our government is filled with self centered idiots. But they are smart enough to know people are filming the DC sights.

a reply to: dragonridr

I have no idea what happened to "those people", but the case that AA77 struck the pentagon is weak to non-existent.

What happened to those people has no bearing on what was observed at the pentagon, and what information has come out since regarding flight data and more.

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Jacobu12


And so, it means Hani The Magnificent had to be flying as close to the ground as if he were taxiing, in ground effect, at Vmo +90 and that's ridiculous.

Yeah that's nuts.

Fly like that and you're gonna crash.

Oh, wait.....

A handful of guys who fly that airplane for a living are on record as saying they would have a difficult time flying the maneuver Hani is alleged to have flown.

?

And again, the Sharpshooter Fallacy. First, you need to prove that THAT EXACT SPOT is what he was trying to hit. I suspect that you can't. No I know you can't.

I agree that most would find it hard to replicate Hanis exact flight path. Especially the last few seconds. But that's irrelevant.

The real question that you nutjobs never consider is that his target was a 24 acre building that he just needed to hit anywhere.

No, not really did he need to hit it just anywhere. In fact, if he had been just 20 feet higher, the upper half of the fuselage would have ended up somewhere way beyond the building. If he had been just 50 feet higher out by the road and antennae, at that speed he would have missed the building in the bowl completely.

His target might have been a 24 acre building, but for the story to be true, his target was less than 70 feet above the ground. 24 acres looks really big looking straight down, but he was hitting a very small part of a very very low profile building. We know James Bond can fly a BD-5 through a barn, but that was a BD-5 microjet with Bond at the controls, not a 757 90 knots over Vmo with a really lousy pilot at the controls.

originally posted by: Salander

If he had been just 50 feet higher out by the road and antennae, at that speed he would have missed the building in the bowl completely.

Did you know: If you push the yoke of a 757 forward, the nose of the plane points in a downward direction.

a reply to: waypastvne

Why no, I never knew that! Wow, such profound information you have. It's amazing what knowledge, and sometimes what unadulterated ignorance, one can see on display on the internet! Fabulous info.