“I can Prove That It Was Not An Airplane” That Hit The Pentagon : Retd. Major General

reply to post by Alfie1

So it had nothing to do with GWB, Cheney or Rumsfeld other than they inherited it.

GW bush and Cheney are both innocent and now i also agree he was right to invade in Iraq in fact maybe we should stayed for 100 years then to.

Do check your source its defense.gov. Our gov wouldn't would it? of course not.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Because the only other aircraft that I know of that hit a light pole and crashed was a Gulfstream III in Houston. It's a much lighter aircraft, hitting a much larger pole (they hit the pole at 198 feet). There is nothing to compare it to, as it hadn't happened before, with a large airliner.

But by all means, prove to me that a plane that size can't possibly sever a light pole.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

Because the only other aircraft that I know of that hit a light pole and crashed was a Gulfstream III in Houston. It's a much lighter aircraft, hitting a much larger pole (they hit the pole at 198 feet). There is nothing to compare it to, as it hadn't happened before, with a large airliner.

But by all means, prove to me that a plane that size can't possibly sever a light pole.

edit on 8/12/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

Ah yes your comparing an Gulfstream III a private elitist airliner to an Boeing commercial airliner you do realize there are major differences between the two?

Not to mention the supposed terrorists couldn't even fly an trainer craft and now you expect me and everyone else here they actually have accomplished the impossible of flying.

There is nothing to compare it to, as it hadn't happened before, with a large airliner.

There is and thats called physics.



An airliner of that size would crashed on the highway killing everyone including the pilot yet the 2006
(new and only supposed vid of that time) didn't even show the Boeing airline.

By the current images we could still argue that it was an Boeing. Yet for some to compare to an small business air liner to an commercial airliner its like comparing an apple to an apple.

It's a much lighter aircraft, hitting a much larger pole (they hit the pole at 198 feet). There is nothing to compare it to, as it hadn't happened before, with a large airliner.

And the car that was hit ironic its driver had an book by David ick?


to much of an coincidence if you ask me.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Ah yes your comparing an Gulfstream III a private elitist airliner to an Boeing commercial airliner you do realize there are major differences between the two?

No, I'm not. That would be why I DIDN'T cite the Gulfstream III crash in Houston when I made the first comment. If I was going to compare them, I would have used it then.

Not to mention the supposed terrorists couldn't even fly an trainer craft and now you expect me and everyone else here they actually have accomplished the impossible of flying.

Really? They couldn't land and take off according to the flight school instructor, but what you and every other truther overlook is the fact that Hani Hanjour was an FAA certified commercial pilot, and had applied for a type rating in 737s. You don't have to land or take off to do what they did, so why does that matter? And please, what was so impossible about it?

There is nothing to compare it to, as it hadn't happened before, with a large airliner.

There is and thats called physics



An airliner of that size would crashed on the highway killing everyone including the pilot

So again, a car weighing about 2000 pounds can snap a light pole off at the base, but a plane weighing over 200,000 is going to clip the pole, and slam into the ground? That's amazing physics you have there.

By the current images we could still argue that it was an Boeing. Yet for some to compare to an small business air liner to an commercial airliner its like comparing an apple to an apple.

Show me where I compared the two.

reply to post by Zaphod58


That was a fast reply and already you made points with the official version believers but as usual thats not surprising.

Show me where I compared the two.

You were comparing the supposed Boeing airliner hitting the light poles to an small elitist airliner, and here's what you said.

Because the only other aircraft that I know of that hit a light pole and crashed was a Gulfstream III in Houston. It's a much lighter aircraft, hitting a much larger pole (they hit the pole at 198 feet). There is nothing to compare it to, as it hadn't happened before, with a large airliner.

Because the only other aircraft that I know of that hit a light pole and crashed was a Gulfstream III in Houston.
Thats comparing.

So again, a car weighing about 2000 pounds can snap a light pole off at the base, but a plane weighing over 200,000 is going to clip the pole, and slam into the ground? That's amazing physics you have there.

For an supposed Boeing airliner i am surprised it didn't just destroyed or the airliner crashed and burnt out on the highway thats great physics to you now.

You don't have to land or take off to do what they did, so why does that matter? And please, what was so impossible about it?

So what your suggesting is that newbies can fly 737s and other Boeing without having either a year or years of experience to actual fly it? oh it matters a lot indeed.

Really? They couldn't land and take off according to the flight school instructor, but what you and every other truther overlook is the fact that Hani Hanjour was an FAA certified commercial pilot,

Ah yes the bad bad terrorist was an FAA certified commercial pilot for which he apparently had paid off license. And had no training experience.

lets all ignore the facts and believe whatever our Mainstream News outlets says this is what your basically suggesting.


Maybe this something you should its the driver from 9/11. Since i noticed you had no comments on the book in the car or the driver himself.


Of course your going to try and disprove it.



(Seems there are still some people believing the official 9/11 version)

Well then maybe then i also believe that GW bush was right about Iraq then to.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

Because the only other aircraft that I know of that hit a light pole and crashed was a Gulfstream III in Houston. It's a much lighter aircraft, hitting a much larger pole (they hit the pole at 198 feet). There is nothing to compare it to, as it hadn't happened before, with a large airliner.

But by all means, prove to me that a plane that size can't possibly sever a light pole.

edit on 8/12/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

Ah yes your comparing an Gulfstream III a private elitist airliner to an Boeing commercial airliner you do realize there are major differences between the two?

Yes, the Boeing is much bigger and heavier.

Not to mention the supposed terrorists couldn't even fly an trainer craft and now you expect me and everyone else here they actually have accomplished the impossible of flying.

Take off and landing (in one piece) are the difficult parts, the terrorists didn't have to bother with either of those.

reply to post by mbkennel


I amuse your defending the official version? rather then questioning 9/11 official version i am noticing a few people still believe the official version?


You might as well believe in GW bush claims that Iraq had WMDs and were actually moved in Syria and Iran but why bother? were going to invade anyway,

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Show me where I compared the two.

Because the only other aircraft that I know of that hit a light pole and crashed was a Gulfstream III in Houston. It's a much lighter aircraft, hitting a much larger pole (they hit the pole at 198 feet). There is nothing to compare it to, as it hadn't happened before, with a large airliner.

Because the only other aircraft that I know of that hit a light pole and crashed was a Gulfstream III in Houston.
Thats comparing.

Your post:

Here's more defending the official version, by not even challenging the image which i had provided. In which you claim that planes can actually do this.

edit on 12-8-2013 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

My post was in response to that. If I was comparing, I would have gone into a lot more detail than I did. I was attempting to answer you in response to what you said, as to why I didn't give any evidence. But apparently comprehension isn't your strong point.

So again, a car weighing about 2000 pounds can snap a light pole off at the base, but a plane weighing over 200,000 is going to clip the pole, and slam into the ground? That's amazing physics you have there.

For an supposed Boeing airliner i am surprised it didn't just destroyed or the airliner crashed and burnt out on the highway thats great physics to you now.

You have GOT to be kidding me. You seriously think that a Boeing 757, that weighs 127,000 pounds empty is going to hit a light pole and just explode? Or suddenly go "Oh, crap! I just hit that 400 pound light pole!" and stop flying? Have you ever seen the amount of damage a plane can land with? It's a hell of a lot more than it's going to get from hitting a light pole.






This is probably similar to what the light pole would have done if it hit out by the wingtip of the 757.

So what your suggesting is that newbies can fly 737s and other Boeing without having either a year or years of experience to actual fly it? oh it matters a lot indeed.

ANA 61

He flew a 747 down to 300 meters with no problems, and not on autopilot, and was going to fly under a bridge. Never flew anything but Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Ah yes the bad bad terrorist was an FAA certified commercial pilot for which he apparently had paid off license. And had no training experience.

Prove it.

In 1996, Hanjour returned to the United States to pursue flight training,after being rejected by a Saudi flight school. He checked out flight schools in Florida, California, and Arizona; and he briefly started at a couple of them before returning to Saudi Arabia. In 1997, he returned to Florida and then, along with two friends, went back to Arizona and began his flight training there in earnest. After about three months, Hanjour was able to obtain his private pilot's license. Several more months of training yielded him a commercial pilot certificate, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in April 1999... Settling in Mesa, Hanjour began refresher training at his old school,Arizona Aviation. He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough.The instructor advised him to discontinue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training. In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa.An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing.Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001.

www.911myths.com...

reply to post by Zaphod58


Ah yes 9/11 Myths almost as reliable and credible as popular mechanics version of debunking 9/11 which i may add FOX and CNN used agaisnt the truthers.

He flew a 747 down to 300 meters with no problems, and not on autopilot, and was going to fly under a bridge. Never flew anything but Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Lets all blame Microsoft Flight Simulator. As it was Microsoft Flight Simulator fault right? Microsoft Flight Simulator doesn't make you an pilot. If this your way of defending the official version of the suspected Saudi.

Then i had seen before it.

You have GOT to be kidding me. You seriously think that a Boeing 757, that weighs 127,000 pounds empty is going to hit a light pole and just explode? Or suddenly go "Oh, crap! I just hit that 400 pound light pole!" and stop flying? Have you ever seen the amount of damage a plane can land with? It's a hell of a lot more than it's going to get from hitting a light pole.

Did you even read my post carefully? i was also mentioning how the 757 would crashed onto the highway as it was an highway surprising closed off in the early morning.

Have you ever seen the amount of damage a plane can land with? It's a hell of a lot more than it's going to get from hitting a light pole.

And the supposed car was slightly damaged by an Boeing airliner that weights 127,000 pounds.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


So anything that doesn't fit your view is unreliable. So basically you're putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALA" and ignoring anything that might show you're wrong.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

So anything that doesn't fit your view is unreliable. So basically you're putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALA" and ignoring anything that might show you're wrong.

I edited it do read it again. By the way i wasn't ignoring.

Just a question would you be defending the BBC on why they actually leaked out early that the WTC 7 would fall early?


Fires dont melts and large airliners that weights around 126,000 or so can only sightly damage an civilian vehicle?

So anything that doesn't fit your view is unreliable.

Its like the MSM telling and expecting to believe the rebels are innocent and are Democratic basically the link you posted is nothing new since 9/11.

They defend the official version. Just as the NIST report did.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Lets all blame Microsoft Flight Simulator. As it was Microsoft Flight Simulator fault right? Microsoft Flight Simulator doesn't make you an pilot. If this your way of defending the official version of the suspected Saudi.

Then i had seen before it.

Did I say blame Microsoft? I was simply pointing out that a person with zero training, as you claim Hani Hanjour had flew a 747, a much larger aircraft than a 757, with no problems, based on a flight simulator (which Hanjour had plenty of experience in, as well as flying real planes).

Did you even read my post carefully? i was also mentioning how the 757 would crashed onto the highway as it was an highway surprising closed off in the early morning.

And my response is the same. A light pole is designed to sheer off at the bottom if something (a two thousand pound car) hits it, but it's somehow going to not only stay intact, and not sheer, but it's going to cause a 120,000+ pound plane (closer to 250,000 probably at that time with fuel, cargo, and passengers), to stop flying, and slam into the highway?

Even if it somehow miraculously ripped the wing off and caused it to crash, the impact would have been far closer to the Pentagon than on the highway.

I saw a plane slam into a light pole at the end of the runway, bend it into a 45 degree angle, and the pilots weren't even aware of hitting it. They thought the plane ahead of them had left some debris on the runway from a blown tire or something.

And the supposed car was slightly damaged by an Boeing airliner that weights 127,000 pounds.

edit on 12-8-2013 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

No, the car was damaged by the light pole, not the plane. Nice try though.

reply to post by Zaphod58


By the way i may add the 9/11 Myths also tries to disprove the claim that Brzezinski had being seen with bin laden in an photo.

This isn't a leaked photo from some secretive sessions with bin Laden, then - it came from a photo opportunity that hit the papers the very next day. And given that the bearded man appears to be the wrong height to be bin Laden, and there's no reason to believe bin Laden was ever in the Pakistani army, and it makes no sense that this soldier would be having important discussions with Brzezinski, and bin Laden wasn't significant at this time anyway, we'd suggest the most likely alternative is the one presented here: the bearded man was just another Pakistani soldier.

Brzezinski has being seen in Afghan. In the 80 praising the Islamists including Bin Laden. Either the connections with the Islamists had being running since the 60s as we are seeing it now in Syria.

Come on guys, be more productive with your time than to argue as to whether or not it was an aircraft.

www.youtube.com...

Case closed, find something PRODUCTIVE to do with all of your time.

My niece personally witnessed the plane flying into the pentagon, there are TONS of witnesses and oh yeah, you know all of those dead people with FAMILIES.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Lets all blame Microsoft Flight Simulator. As it was Microsoft Flight Simulator fault right? Microsoft Flight Simulator doesn't make you an pilot. If this your way of defending the official version of the suspected Saudi.

Then i had seen before it.

Did I say blame Microsoft? I was simply pointing out that a person with zero training, as you claim Hani Hanjour had flew a 747, a much larger aircraft than a 757, with no problems, based on a flight simulator (which Hanjour had plenty of experience in, as well as flying real planes).

Did you even read my post carefully? i was also mentioning how the 757 would crashed onto the highway as it was an highway surprising closed off in the early morning.

And my response is the same. A light pole is designed to sheer off at the bottom if something (a two thousand pound car) hits it, but it's somehow going to not only stay intact, and not sheer, but it's going to cause a 120,000+ pound plane (closer to 250,000 probably at that time with fuel, cargo, and passengers), to stop flying, and slam into the highway?

Even if it somehow miraculously ripped the wing off and caused it to crash, the impact would have been far closer to the Pentagon than on the highway.

I saw a plane slam into a light pole at the end of the runway, bend it into a 45 degree angle, and the pilots weren't even aware of hitting it. They thought the plane ahead of them had left some debris on the runway from a blown tire or something.

And the supposed car was slightly damaged by an Boeing airliner that weights 127,000 pounds.

edit on 12-8-2013 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

No, the car was damaged by the light pole, not the plane. Nice try though.

edit on 8/12/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/12/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

No, the car was damaged by the light pole, not the plane. Nice try though.

One single light pole supposedly hitting the car then the car gets damaged and airliner hits Pentagon without even stopping or crashing onto the highway?

Did I say blame Microsoft? I was simply pointing out that a person with zero training, as you claim Hani Hanjour had flew a 747, a much larger aircraft than a 757, with no problems, based on a flight simulator (which Hanjour had plenty of experience in, as well as flying real planes).

No. If this was true and that he has been playing the basic version of Flight Sim, he would had no idea where are the switches are in real life, what sequences to perform to make changes. Unless he had bought actual piloting system then that would be different. But still would need experience to fly in an airliner of an 757.

reply to post by matadoor


From the user comments.

10/2010--Due to the offensive nature of the comments being posted, video commenting has been disabled on my videos.
TheTruthAbout9/11-Proving theories wrong one at a time

Just providing whats on the YT.

Oh and the whole "light pole would sheer off a wing" comment, here is how Boeing tests their wings, I can lay to rest any doubt or wonder as to whether or not the wing would stay put.

www.youtube.com...

Case closed, move on, nothing to see here.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


And?

I'm sorry, you posted your comment and could not have had time to even WATCH the video.

reply to post by matadoor


And did i see the Boeing airliner? no i didn't. No wonder why the was disliked.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
one single light pole supposedly hitting the car then the car gets damaged and airliner hits Pentagon without even stopping or crashing onto the highway?

The Pentagon light poles had breakaway bases to minimise injuries if struck by a 1 ton car.

i14.photobucket.com...

The idea that a 100 ton plus plane at several hundred miles an hour should have "stopped " ???? or " crashed " is absurd.