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

And so did these hijackers have that skill level is the next logical question ?

Some comments

The 767 pilot who talked to the Boston Globe similarly said hitting the Pentagon would have been "extremely difficult." He added, "One degree off and [the pilot] either overshoots it or undershoots it." Gary Eitel, an experienced military pilot, said that "the maneuver performed by Flight 77, as described in official reports, was beyond the capabilities of 90 percent of even the best and most experienced pilots in the world." Eitel said that "he was amazed by the piloting skill used to steer Flight 175 into the second tower. Flight 77 boggled his mind."

This question makes you think, because we know these guys had no experience flying major airline planes and had trained only in tiny planes.

From the point of view flying a plane like cruise missile only a few feet above the ground at such a velocity without hitting the ground and bouncing seems impossible for pilot that has never flown one of these planes.

Thoughts?

I suggest you save your amazement for later, as it was a missile that hit the pentagon

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
And so did these hijackers have that skill level is the next logical question ?

Some comments

The 767 pilot who talked to the Boston Globe similarly said hitting the Pentagon would have been "extremely difficult." He added, "One degree off and [the pilot] either overshoots it or undershoots it." Gary Eitel, an experienced military pilot, said that "the maneuver performed by Flight 77, as described in official reports, was beyond the capabilities of 90 percent of even the best and most experienced pilots in the world." Eitel said that "he was amazed by the piloting skill used to steer Flight 175 into the second tower. Flight 77 boggled his mind."

This question makes you think, because we know these guys had no experience flying major airline planes and had trained only in tiny planes.

From the point of view flying a plane like cruise missile only a few feet above the ground at such a velocity without hitting the ground and bouncing seems impossible for pilot that has never flown one of these planes.

Thoughts?

it wasn't 19 Arabs who did 9/11 ; those men were patsies.

My thoughts are how can people believe this balloney narrative ?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

When Allah is your co-pilot you can pull off some pretty tricky maneuvers, apparently.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

The 767 pilot who talked to the Boston Globe similarly said hitting the Pentagon would have been "extremely difficult." He added, "One degree off and [the pilot] either overshoots it or undershoots it." Gary Eitel, an experienced military pilot, said that "the maneuver performed by Flight 77, as described in official reports, was beyond the capabilities of 90 percent of even the best and most experienced pilots in the world." Eitel said that "he was amazed by the piloting skill used to steer Flight 175 into the second tower. Flight 77 boggled his mind."

This question makes you think, because we know these guys had no experience flying major airline planes and had trained only in tiny planes

If I remember correctly, didn't the flight instructor of the classes the alleged hijackers took, say that they were bumbling idiots that could barely keep up in class?
But yet, they allegedly pulled off some seemingly impossible flight maneuvers in the larger planes?
Who is sh*tting who here?

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

Not one for grammar but I think you spelled missile wrong.

Well this thread isn't to debate if it was a plane or missile, but only to question the official narrative, that is highly illogical from even trained pilots perspectives.

I would think it doesn't take much skill at all to crash...

Unfortunately, 9/11 is such a dead horse now..

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
And so did these hijackers have that skill level is the next logical question ?

Some comments

The 767 pilot who talked to the Boston Globe similarly said hitting the Pentagon would have been "extremely difficult." He added, "One degree off and [the pilot] either overshoots it or undershoots it." Gary Eitel, an experienced military pilot, said that "the maneuver performed by Flight 77, as described in official reports, was beyond the capabilities of 90 percent of even the best and most experienced pilots in the world." Eitel said that "he was amazed by the piloting skill used to steer Flight 175 into the second tower. Flight 77 boggled his mind."

This question makes you think, because we know these guys had no experience flying major airline planes and had trained only in tiny planes.

From the point of view flying a plane like cruise missile only a few feet above the ground at such a velocity without hitting the ground and bouncing seems impossible for pilot that has never flown one of these planes.

Thoughts?

No one knows.

The thing is that this "amazing feat" is only amazing if that was the intended route - and we do not know that.

We do, however, know from the billion videos on the topic that the plane hit pretty much the worst place from the worst possible angle (from the perspective of the hijackers of course), ensuring the least possible destruction and the least possible casualties.

Logic would say that the hijacker would attempt to inflict as much damage as possible, not as little as possible, and logic would also say that the hijacker would take the easiest route possible minimizing the risk of failure.

Therefore, there is a case for the odds being against the "amazing feat" being voluntary.

I would instead argue that odds are that hijacker tried to take another route, failed and ultimately ended up doing what he did not by brilliance but by incompetence.

One of the first things you learn to do as a pilot is to land. When landing, one of the first techniques you learn is to drive the aircraft to your landing point, then flare to land.

Most of the "driving towards your landing point" is akin to homing to a point. You move the airplane in such a way to make that one spot bigger in your windshield.

The turning spiral was the hardest part of that maneuver, the part where he's driving to the Pentagon with his wings mostly level, is actually not that hard.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

One of many questions and impossibilities surrounding the 9/11 attacks. London just had a 24 story building that was fully engulfed in flames, it never collapsed. Yet the Trade Towers fell in under an hour and building 7 collapsed later that day. What does it take for the media to start investigating and asking the hard questions surrounding the 9/11 attacks?

a reply to: WeRpeons

Yeah! And considering a passenger aircraft ploughed into that building in London at a high rate of speed I think there should be an investigation.

Oh, and everyone knows it was a missile that hit the Pentagon ridden by Moishe Pickens from the Mossad.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
And so did these hijackers have that skill level is the next logical question ?

Some comments

The 767 pilot who talked to the Boston Globe similarly said hitting the Pentagon would have been "extremely difficult." He added, "One degree off and [the pilot] either overshoots it or undershoots it." Gary Eitel, an experienced military pilot, said that "the maneuver performed by Flight 77, as described in official reports, was beyond the capabilities of 90 percent of even the best and most experienced pilots in the world." Eitel said that "he was amazed by the piloting skill used to steer Flight 175 into the second tower. Flight 77 boggled his mind."

This question makes you think, because we know these guys had no experience flying major airline planes and had trained only in tiny planes.

From the point of view flying a plane like cruise missile only a few feet above the ground at such a velocity without hitting the ground and bouncing seems impossible for pilot that has never flown one of these planes.

Thoughts?

Looking at the animation of the flight recreated from the flight data recorder the pilot of Flight 77 was really struggling. It was all over the place

hard or not they did ply planes into buildings .
Every one tring to say they were not planes is refuted by Millions of eye witnesses .
Look up in the sky its a bird its a dog no its a plane

Maybe Zaphod can shine more light on this but those SOB's took flying lessons in small aircraft and then took time in Airliner simulators, that's when one of them was reported to the feds (mossaui) and detained, once you have an aircraft trimmed you can fly it into anything you want, it's not rocket science.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
And so did these hijackers have that skill level is the next logical question ?

Some comments

The 767 pilot who talked to the Boston Globe similarly said hitting the Pentagon would have been "extremely difficult." He added, "One degree off and [the pilot] either overshoots it or undershoots it." Gary Eitel, an experienced military pilot, said that "the maneuver performed by Flight 77, as described in official reports, was beyond the capabilities of 90 percent of even the best and most experienced pilots in the world." Eitel said that "he was amazed by the piloting skill used to steer Flight 175 into the second tower. Flight 77 boggled his mind."

This question makes you think, because we know these guys had no experience flying major airline planes and had trained only in tiny planes.

From the point of view flying a plane like cruise missile only a few feet above the ground at such a velocity without hitting the ground and bouncing seems impossible for pilot that has never flown one of these planes.

Thoughts?

Looking at the animation of the flight recreated from the flight data recorder the pilot of Flight 77 was really struggling. It was all over the place

Pilots for 9/11 Truth showed years ago that flight data provided by the US government indicated that the plane was flying too high at the supposed moment of impact when the data stream terminated to have been able to hit the Pentagon. Therefore, a smaller plane or Cruise missile must have caused the observed damage and the data provided by the government must have been faked.

a reply to: mrthumpy

I made this crude chart of control inputs from the FDR data some years ago and yes his piloting was really rough and ragged but he did get the job done. The graphed data is from commencement of the big turn up to impact so the final 4 minutes or thereabouts is represented there.

AAL77

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

No pilot skills required, you just need suitable experience in weapons-guidance systems and other things related to firing missiles.

originally posted by: manuelram16
Maybe Zaphod can shine more light on this but those SOB's took flying lessons in small aircraft and then took time in Airliner simulators, that's when one of them was reported to the feds (mossaui) and detained, once you have an aircraft trimmed you can fly it into anything you want, it's not rocket science.

Some of the alleged hijackers' trainers are on public record as saying that their students were very poor. Experienced pilots are on record as saying that it would have been impossible even for they to have achieved the 270 degree turn and a perfect descent to ground level at the point of impact. People who reject such testimony are in plain denial of the facts because these judgements do not suit their beliefs in the official story.

a reply to: micpsi

The FDR data is recorded in packets 4 seconds wide as I recall and the last packet was corrupted because it wasn't completed prior to impact. With the plane moving at over 200m/sec, the final valid altitude you mention is something like over 1000m from the impact so naturally it's somewhat high as the plane was still descending at that point.