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

a reply to: m1kelowry

By someone cited as an ex-employee not listed as an instructor. Provide a quote from the article where Hanjour's instructors knocked his flight skills.

And English in America is a basic and required skill for pilots.

a reply to: neutronflux

All of your evidence can be produced or doctored. What cannot be doctored are the skills Hanjour was lacking. What cannot be doctored is the inability for seasoned pilots to reproduce the supposed voyage on a simulator.

However, Hanjour did it on his first try with bogus skills.

Want proof, search for it yourself.

If you believe Hanjour could have done it you believe the data.

If you understand how impossible it would for him to accomplish the feat with his skill set you don't even need to see the data.

a reply to: m1kelowry

And I have proven whatever evidence you have offered is not based on fact, items out of context, based on a truth movement con, poor research on you behalf, or the suppression of facts.

Authorities question criteria for access to flight simulators
www.publicintegrity.org...

Federal authorities have established that at least nine of the 19 suicide hijackers attended U.S. flight schools, and that at least three Mohamed Atta, Marwan Al-Shehhi and Hani Hanjour — also rented flight time at simulator centers across the country.

Aviation experts say these men could have practiced crashing into the World Trade Center and other landmarks without detection.

You have no understanding Hanjour's problems with piloting stemmed mostly from poor English skills, you were wrong on Flight 77 video, wrong on no trial evidence of flight 77 remains, wrong on missile defense systems at the pentagon, you could not quote instructors that Hanjour had no ability to maneuver a plane, and wrong on ground effects.

And you cannot cite what was the impossible maneuvers from the referenced flight 77 flight path.

You are not really scoring many points...

a reply to: neutronflux

Who is scoring points?

Just had a coffee with my pilot friend and discussed some of the things you brought up.

He concluded that anyone to pull off 530 MPH in a commercial airline 6 feet off the ground would have to be an absolute expert pilot with hours of trial in that maneuver alone to pull it off.

He also stated that the pilot would have to have a full understanding of the plane he was flying and the maneuverability.

If the glove doesn't fit...

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: neutronflux

Who is scoring points?

Just had a coffee with my pilot friend and discussed some of the things you brought up.

He concluded that anyone to pull off 530 MPH in a commercial airline 6 feet off the ground would have to be an absolute expert pilot with hours of trial in that maneuver alone to pull it off.

He also stated that the pilot would have to have a full understanding of the plane he was flying and the maneuverability.

If the glove doesn't fit...

All a jet has to do is fly 530 MPH and it cannot crash. You and ground effects...

Ha ha ha ha ha

Cite where flight 77 flew a static 6 ft off the ground.

It was a decent to the crash site....

Prove me wrong.

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: neutronflux

All of your evidence can be produced or doctored. What cannot be doctored are the skills Hanjour was lacking. What cannot be doctored is the inability for seasoned pilots to reproduce the supposed voyage on a simulator.

However, Hanjour did it on his first try with bogus skills.

Want proof, search for it yourself.

If you believe Hanjour could have done it you believe the data.

If you understand how impossible it would for him to accomplish the feat with his skill set you don't even need to see the data.

Funny when conspiracists get caught up in the cons of the truth movement, a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon accounted by a 100 plus eyewitnesses, the FRD data, the Radar data, coroner's reports, cited works, and the flight 77 remains released to families for burial are the lies.

It's never unnamed friends nor the truth movement making money off exploiting 9/11.

a reply to: m1kelowry

You have no understanding Hanjour's problems with piloting stemmed mostly from poor English skills, you were wrong on Flight 77 video, wrong on no trial evidence of flight 77 remains, wrong on missile defense systems at the pentagon, you could not quote instructors that Hanjour had no ability to maneuver a plane, wrong on ground effects, and now......

Wrong that flight 77 flew a static 6 above the ground, and does not understanding the descent into the pentagon...

a reply to: m1kelowry

Which is it? Ground Effects would of forced a jet to clear the pentagon? Or it's impossible to fly 6 feet of the ground? During a decent?

a reply to: neutronflux

It's all of the above. I'm sticking with the the skill needed, as the title of the thread suggests. He didn't have it and pilots with more experience and familiarity with a commercial airliner couldn't reproduce the said data.

Cloud the message all you want, but you can't have any of your evidence if the pilot was incapable of performing.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: m1kelowry

Which is it? Ground Effects would of forced a jet to clear the pentagon? Or it's impossible to fly 6 feet of the ground? During a decent?

Don't you know, it's impossible for a plane to fly six feet above the ground? Thats why they can never land right? Passengers hop out into nets when they are above that 'ground effect' zone.

Geesh people are so stupid.
A select few pilots want their moment of fame by talking nonsense and conspiracists latch onto them.

a reply to: neutronflux

If you do an honest assessment of the dimensions of the 757 with the gear retracted, and an honest assessment of the dimensions of the building it supposedly struck, and an honest assessment that no part of the vertical stabilizer was found out past the building, you will discover just how precisely ol' Hani The Magnificent had to thread the needle.

With every post you make, you demonstrate your absolute ignorance of the real world of flying, and your ignorance of the requirements of the official story that make it impossible.

a reply to: Salander

It crashed precisely where it crashed yes.

There was no bullseye painted on the building.

Explain all the aircraft wreckage.

Explain the FDR.

a reply to: snuffie

Haha. Except my buddy who was a 30+ year commercial pilot and has no skin in the game. The official story and supporting data have been put forward despite the most important detail: The difficulty of the execution of the flight being incompatible with the named pilot.

a reply to: m1kelowry

And I used to work with two dozen commercial pilots with no skin in the game.......they label his flight as sloppy, on the edge of being out of control , but ultimately....achievable.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

If you do an honest assessment of the dimensions of the 757 with the gear retracted, and an honest assessment of the dimensions of the building it supposedly struck, and an honest assessment that no part of the vertical stabilizer was found out past the building, you will discover just how precisely ol' Hani The Magnificent had to thread the needle.

With every post you make, you demonstrate your absolute ignorance of the real world of flying, and your ignorance of the requirements of the official story that make it impossible.

One, your comments are not based any data, evidence, or referring the flight path. So you have no rebuttal with facts. Just your opinions?

Two, what was the argument with the FDR being bogus for the actual jet that hit the pentagon.


Three, Can you form a rebuttal to at least this one article out of all the works I have cited?

Five, when is the last time you quoted or cited anything?

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate

www.911truth.org...

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. Public feedback shows that the false Pentagon hypotheses undermine public acceptance of other highly credible scientific findings, such as the demolitions of the Twin Towers and Building 7 (WTC7) in New York City.

Most rank and file members of the 9/11 truth movement take their cues on the Pentagon from well-known speakers, writers, and acknowledged leaders of the movement. The quickest way to end the ongoing damage to the movement’s credibility and bring closure would be for these prominent individuals to publicly repudiate their former endorsements, views, and statements on the Pentagon event and acknowledge the scientific method and its conclusion of large plane impact. In the absence of public repudiations, the damage caused by false Pentagon hypotheses is likely to continue indefinitely, even if those who fueled their spread cease to promote them. Consequently, the surest way to end the debate and enhance the credibility of the movement is for each individual to study, without bias or prejudice, the evidence for themselves.

The recent papers by scientists, engineers and others showing large plane impact at the Pentagon have been collected together on a website....

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: snuffie

Haha. Except my buddy who was a 30+ year commercial pilot and has no skin in the game. The official story and supporting data have been put forward despite the most important detail: The difficulty of the execution of the flight being incompatible with the named pilot.

Can you prove flight 77 flew at a constant 6 ft? Or was the crash into the pentagon from a descent? Which is it?

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: neutronflux



Was he also an expert at avoiding the missile defense systems surrounding the restricted air space? That guy is magic I guess.

Lol. I'm calling Poe on this poster cuz no one is still this clueless.

originally posted by: neutronflux


Two, what was the argument with the FDR being bogus for the actual jet that hit the pentagon.

He's a follower of Dennis Cimino. Dennis was PF911T's... FDR specialist.


All of Dennis's evidence for a fake FDR fell apart in 2011 when the missing 4 seconds was decoded.

After it was discovered that his FLEET IDENT and A/C NUMBER parameters claim was a total lie, he blew a fuse, refused to answer any questions that would back up his claims, called everyone a mossad agent, and disappeared. I haven't herd anything new from him in since.

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: neutronflux



Was he also an expert at avoiding the missile defense systems surrounding the restricted air space? That guy is magic I guess.

Lol. I'm calling Poe on this poster cuz no one is still this clueless.

Someone from AE truth in a desperate bid to draw attention to their website no doubt.

a reply to: m1kelowry

If you understand how impossible it would for him to accomplish the feat with his skill set you don't even need to see the data.

So you are saying ignore facts and take it on blind faith that he couldn't do it.

That is precisely what the truth movement has been doing all this time.
They ignore any facts/evidence that contradicts their faith.

As to your pilot friend:
Have you ever showed him the graphical pictures of the actual flight path?