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

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
One of the biggest difficulties I have swallowing the official story is that most of the operatives who were supposed to have pulled this off were royal screw ups in so many other aspects of their lives up until that point. While that makes for a great hollywood movie (the unlikely hero narrative), in real life highly competent operatives are usually hard working, and somewhat disciplined in the way they live their lives.

I think that the antidote to that difficulty is to bear in mind that each hijacking was undertaken by a team, rather than an individual, and that they scored two-and-a-half hits out of four.

They scored 4 out of 4 from an operational perspective. Not one of 19 hijackers backing out at the last minute? From a suicide mission? (Although it is possible there was a 20th who did back out.)

Everyone keeping their calm in the airport, even when one of them got flagged for scrutiny?

Each of the four planes was successfully taken, the pilots killed, and control assumed. Just one didn't make it to its target, and we can never be sure it wasn't shot down.

WTC1&2 were successes, the Pentagon barely scored a 'pass' grade, and United 93 was a straight fail. The core competencies weren't huge, either - the only prerequisite was that each team included one person capable of steering an aircraft in flight.

And that that guy show up. Ziad Jarrah had a pretty decent life going. If he opted out, he could have been married, and possibly had a career as an actual pilot.

Attah was one of those bitter failure types, getting in fights with his friends, and always going on about how bad the non-muslims were. The kind of guy who needs to blame someone else for his failures.

No-one had to learn how to make a bomb, or communicate in code, or go undercover to scout defences, or create a 'legend' for themselves to deflect investigators. A determined group of highschoolers could probably have done it.

Getting 4 people to kill themselves on the same day isn't as easy as you think.

Not everyone has the nerve to do it. And these guys had no prior experience in killing or facing death to practice steeling their nerves in the face of it.

Soldiers on their first tour often freeze up. That is after lots and lots of psychological conditioning that is drilled into them at boot camp. These guys were just civilians playing at being soldiers for one day.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

"Soldiers" isn't a useful way of thinking about it. These guys were religious nutcases. They weren't after medals or promotion, they believed they were headed for eternal rewards in paradise.

When the incentive to kill yourself is an alleged reward in the hereafter, killing yourself becomes an extremely attractive prospect. That's why we have a special word for it: "Martyrdom."

I believe that about as much as I believe that Allah literally appeared to Mohammad, or that the metorite at Mecca is some kind of magical orb rather than just a plain old meteorite.

No matter how religious you get, you still have instincts. Your body still objects to being killed, even if your mind logically has deduced otherwise. Even suicidal people who jump off of buildings, typically scream in terror on their way down, once the realization that they are really going to die sets in.

A good suicide attack requires lots of psychological conditioning of the person who will commit it, and careful choosing of the subject, to be sure they are depressed enough (or desperate enough for love) to want to die. It requires a peer group that ensures them they will be remembered, and often the bomber makes a video listing the cool honors or mourning process they want their peers to do for them (which they then do, so the next guy will be easier to convince).

For each success, there will be multiple failures. You wouldn't expect to send 4 students to flight school and end up with 4 suicide bombers. Maybe send 10 and end up with 2.




The other issue is, of course, Middle Eastern tactical thinking. "Shock and Awe" is a purely western idea. Mid East tribal and/or Islamic approach is more about slow attrition. Wearing their opponent out over time, rather than making a big show of force at the outset of a conflict to force a quick surrender.

They wouldn't waste the effort to attack three targets on the same day. Hitting any targets after the first would feel like a waste of resources to them. Once successful attack makes you look strong. Two or more makes it look like you're overextending your resources. Mid Easterners want a stable marathon runner leader who can keep the attack going for 100+ years, not a sprinter who runs out of juice before reaching their first mile.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The simple response to all of which is that you're wrong, and that what happened proves it. Your objections aren't material to the reality of someone else's mind working in a way that you can't imagine.

I think part of your error is to think that 19 perfectly normal people were taken, and were somehow brainwashed into becoming suicidal hijackers. It's more likely, isn't it, that 19 people who were already brainwashed Islamists and were eager to gain an eternity in paradise were chosen to act as hijackers.

ETA: The moment I saw the above posted onscreen, it seemed enormously rude. Apologies if it seems blunt.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Flight 77 didn’t go all the way through the pentagon, it wasn’t going fast enough to maximize damage from one end of the pentagon throughout the entire length of the pentagon.

Another false argument by you.

originally posted by: blackaspirin
a reply to: Salander

Anybody with a curious mind looks for answers instead of making repeated denials without offering alternative explanations - you were asked PAGES AGO what your explanation was for where Flights 93 and 77 went, if they did not crash in Shanksville and the Pentagon, respectively.

Where are the answers your curious mind produced after 16 years?

Understanding that the official story is false, that 93 was not in PA and 77 was not at the pentagon DOES NOT require that I must know where each airplane ended up, assuming it was even flying that day.

Do you understand that? Knowing that one has been tricked by somebody good with card tricks DOES NOT MEAN that one must understand how the card trick works. Is that too difficult to grasp?

I know there was deception involved, lies told, at PA and at the pentagon. I know those planes did not crash at those locations.

That does not require that I know where the planes or the passengers ended up. You cannot prove the airplanes crashed in those locations. It's your bloody story sir, prove it.

a reply to: Salander

I guess your mind is just not very curious - denials are as far as you've gotten in 16 years?

It's not like discussing the beginning of the universe - it isn't potentially beyond human understanding. It's the real world, and there are only so many ways those planes (and people) could have disappeared and wreckage ending up at both sites.

Just kinda thought you might have...gotten a little farther by now.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Suicidal units are nothing new - go back a few decades to Japanese

Banzai charges into teeth of enemy defenses

Kamikazes who crashed bomb laden aircraft into ship

Kaiten (man piloted torpedo) to sink ships

Given the proper culture & conditioning is possible to create suicide warriors - especially if promised some
eternal "reward" - ie Viking berserkers feasting in Valhalla, 72 virgins for jihadists etc

a reply to: Salander

I don’t give a rats bottom what you believe. What can you proof by evidence, science, witnesses, cited fact, cited quotes, and credible accounts.

If the flights that took off as flight 93 and flight 77 didn’t end up at the crash sites, where are they?


Again, start with discrediting the 100 plus eyewitnesses that attest to a large commercial jet impacting the pentagon.

Start by discrediting the 1000 plus individuals that worked the flight 93 recovery.

Believe you that cannot discern science from pseudoscience. How is Thorium a fission product?

a reply to: Salander

Do you understand that eyewitness accounts, radar data, air traffic controllers, DNA analysis, remains released to families, coroner’s reports, recovery crews, the physical damage, wreckage, recovered luggage/personal items, fire balls, collateral damage, photographic evidence all backed up that flight 93 and flight 77 crashed at their respective sites.

Please cite more credible evidence and theories to supersede that a large commercial jet crashed at the pentagon and at Shanksville. What caused the damage?

I am not the one that creates an argument by hiding facts, using misquotes, quotes out of context, ignoring evidence, uses slander by saying individuals are lying without any proof, and resorts to quoting dead philosophers from a time earlier than modern physics.

a reply to: neutronfluxnaw

just nope......primary evidence is a fail.....like the speed and turning....it'll put some moments on ya

the official lyers should have said 280 knots.......that's the normal speed till we slow to 180 indicated and call it 175 when cleared lower

a reply to: GBP/JPY

280 knots in relation to what. You ..... post no..... coherent.... posts with layers.... of no referenced .... cited .... material.

Your posts are a metaphor for the disjointed thought process of the truth movement that can only apply pieces of the truth, while hiding the majority of evidence, to create their false narratives.

Are you saying a jet that had throttles, with no evidence it ever flew slower than stalling speed, flew at various speeds at various periods in the flight? Making up time? Changing flight schedule after the WTC jet impacts? Because of a head or tail wind.

What points in the flight are you referring to?

Post a post that shows you care about the truth. Not some post to stir the the pot of lies.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

the official lyers should have said 280 knots.......that's the normal speed till we slow to 180 indicated and call it 175 when cleared lower

So it's your belief that the hijackers should have flown it like normal pilots would do?
That by itself would seem odd to me.
I doubt the hijackers cared if they over stressed the plane.

Or are in the crowd that believes if you fly a plane 50 knots over spec it's gonna snap in half?

I recommend you YT some vids of boeing bending the wings to the breaking point.
Spec would never get close to the breaking point.

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

"Soldiers" isn't a useful way of thinking about it. These guys were religious nutcases. They weren't after medals or promotion, they believed they were headed for eternal rewards in paradise.

When the incentive to kill yourself is an alleged reward in the hereafter, killing yourself becomes an extremely attractive prospect. That's why we have a special word for it: "Martyrdom."

I hate to tell you, but religious fanaticism does not confer super-human powers. No matter what visions of virgins might dance through their brains, abilities to fly airplanes beyond their abilities is not conferred.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

"Soldiers" isn't a useful way of thinking about it. These guys were religious nutcases. They weren't after medals or promotion, they believed they were headed for eternal rewards in paradise.

When the incentive to kill yourself is an alleged reward in the hereafter, killing yourself becomes an extremely attractive prospect. That's why we have a special word for it: "Martyrdom."

I hate to tell you, but religious fanaticism does not confer super-human powers. No matter what visions of virgins might dance through their brains, abilities to fly airplanes beyond their abilities is not conferred.

Then cite what the impossible maneuver was? Like to post more flight instructor quotes out of context so individuals can continue to expose how you spin false narratives?

a reply to: Salander

By the way, care to answer what caused the damage at the pentagon if it was not a large commercial jet?


If flight 77,the crew, and the passengers did not end up at the pentagon, where did they go? What remains were released for burial?

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John D. Wyndham | Oct 7, 2016 | Editor's Picks, Essays, Science, US | 222

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

The continuous radar data matching the FDR data indicates that assertions of tampering, as well as suggestions that a plane swap took place, are mistaken. There is no reason to doubt that Flight AA 77 traveled from Dulles to its impact at the Pentagon. The radar track of AA 77 is continuous from Dulles to the vicinity of the Sheraton Hotel and is supported by the FDR data. From there, the FDR data and many eyewitnesses tracked the plane all the way to impact at the Pentagon. The eyewitness and physical evidence fully support impact by a large plane with dimensions matching a Boeing 757.

Conclusion
Despite the clear evidence and its analysis using the scientific method of large plane impact, a substantial portion of the 9/11 truth movement, including accepted leaders and those involved in major organizations, continues to publicly endorse, adhere to, or promulgate talks, writings and films on false Pentagon hypotheses. Some simply offer criticisms and reject or ignore evidence that would bring closure to the argument. There is clear evidence by way of disintegrating truth groups that these endorsements and communications are injurious to the movement.

originally posted by: blackaspirin
a reply to: Salander

I guess your mind is just not very curious - denials are as far as you've gotten in 16 years?

It's not like discussing the beginning of the universe - it isn't potentially beyond human understanding. It's the real world, and there are only so many ways those planes (and people) could have disappeared and wreckage ending up at both sites.

Just kinda thought you might have...gotten a little farther by now.

You are right that there was a time when I was not very curious at all. Indeed, for a number of years I actually believed the same absurd story that you still believe today. Yes, it took years for me to realize I had been deceived, but I finally came to my senses.

That's why it's still fascinating to discover people that still believe that bright and shining lie told by government and media.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: blackaspirin
a reply to: Salander

I guess your mind is just not very curious - denials are as far as you've gotten in 16 years?

It's not like discussing the beginning of the universe - it isn't potentially beyond human understanding. It's the real world, and there are only so many ways those planes (and people) could have disappeared and wreckage ending up at both sites.

Just kinda thought you might have...gotten a little farther by now.

You are right that there was a time when I was not very curious at all. Indeed, for a number of years I actually believed the same absurd story that you still believe today. Yes, it took years for me to realize I had been deceived, but I finally came to my senses.

That's why it's still fascinating to discover people that still believe that bright and shining lie told by government and media.

For the thousandth time. List what you consider lies, and provide the evidence for the theories you think are more credible to supersede what you label lies.

Example. If a large commercial jet did not impact the pentagon, then what caused the damage to the pentagon. What remains were released to families for burial.

a reply to: neutronflux


For the 1001th time, prove your claims that the official story is true.

Remember that by the laws of logic, if any given proposal is made up of elements A, B, C and D, if any single element is false, the entire proposal is false.

Yes, the 911 Commission was set up to fail, and there was a reason for that. The guilty parties had to be protected, and the gullible public had to be pacified and indoctrinated.

You are not the Lone Ranger in this regard. Nobody, NIST, the 911 Commission or you can prove your story.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


Remember that by the laws of logic, if any given proposal is made up of elements A, B, C and D, if any single element is false, the entire proposal is false.

WTF? Reference that law from a published text book.

Old falsehood, “The sun sets and rises because the sun circles Earth.” It’s was false, but it doesn’t change the sun sets and rises.

Quote where I said the entire narrative is true. More false arguments by you.

My argument is a large commercial jet hit the pentagon.


I have referenced proof a large jet hit the pentagon. You have not presented any credible evidence to supersede something other than a large jet caused the damage at the pentagon.

Care to refute any of these articles proving a large jet hit the pentagon?

The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact
First Published January, 2011. Version 3, April 2016.
www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.) January 2011
www.journalof911studies.com...

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
911truth.org...

People like you than enable the con artists of the conspiracy world killed the credibility of the truth movement and made it a joke.