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

I think it helps if you remember that the Pentagon is a five-storey building and it covers 236 hectares of land. That's 236 of these.

You'd have to be a miraculously-poor pilot to miss it. And as it happens, the hijacker of that plane nearly did miss it, only managing to miss the front lawn by a smidgin and taking out a relatively small area/volume of one side of the building.

It's probable (although it will never be provable) that the plane was meant to hit the Pentagon's central courtyard, which Pentagon employees had referred to as 'Ground Zero' for years. (There was even a coffee-stall or similar in that courtyard called 'Café Ground Zero' or something of the sort). If it had hit at the centre of the building, the explosion would have been focussed in a confined space and done considerable damage to all five surrounding walls.

The thing about flying a plane is that once you're in the air, you are not, realistically, going to hit anything, and unless you turn off all the engines you're not going to fall out of the sky either. Take-off and landing are the risky bits. And for obvious reasons, the 9/11 crews didn't need to learn either of those skills.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I don't believe any hijackers flew those planes in the WTC. I believe the instruments were hijacked by remote control, locking the pilots out of the system.

The real hijackers where "elsewhere", with a computer system on the ground. The hijackers on the ground, hidden somewhere, reset the on board auto pilot to a new heading, The WTC.

Those planes flew maneuvers to what fighter pilots do in war games. It is laughable to believe unskilled Cessna amateurs flew those planes.

Can you cite your source(s) on the maneuvers of the pentagon jet?

Target Fixation:


www.google.com...


I am a pilot and instructor. On a students first flight, after they get a handle on the controls, I have them focus on something off to the side, then turn the plane and point the nose at it. After a few minuets they stop thinking about flying and they can make the airplane follow there eyes where ever they look.

When I start teaching them to land, I have them keep there eyes on the center of the runway and not on the plane, tree, car, dog, kangaroo, person... on the side of the runway.

I teach them to look at where they want to go, NOT at what they don't want to hit.

If you want to hit something with a plane all you have to do is look at it.

a reply to: waypastvne

What's the curriculum for training pilots to hit a building 10 feet off the ground flying a 155 foot long Boeing 757 at 500 knots while evading over 80 CCTV cameras? Just curious.

originally posted by: waypastvne
Target Fixation:


www.google.com...


I am a pilot and instructor. On a students first flight, after they get a handle on the controls, I have them focus on something off to the side, then turn the plane and point the nose at it. After a few minuets they stop thinking about flying and they can make the airplane follow there eyes where ever they look.

When I start teaching them to land, I have them keep there eyes on the center of the runway and not on the plane, tree, car, dog, kangaroo, person... on the side of the runway.

I teach them to look at where they want to go, NOT at what they don't want to hit.

If you want to hit something with a plane all you have to do is look at it.

Fair enough, but then the pilot should have hit the pentagon at more of an angle 20-45 degrees crashing "into" is not in dispute, it is the angle and speed, to get that plane perfectly level with the ground and travel many hundreds of feet at a speed much faster than any pilot landing a plane. This wasn't a runway either.

Also I want to leave this video here to address all the missile verses plane talk.

This is from 9/11 from CNN no less


Really the rabbit hole is this:

1)No amateur pilot could have hit the pentagon the way it was hit with the plane that was suppose to hit it !
2)Was what hit the pentagon automated ?
3)If it was automated was it a passenger jet or some other device made to fly like a missile?
4)Was it just a very unique one of a kind type of cruise missile emulating the flight of a plane?

All I know for sure is number 1, the rest I don't know, and I don't think anybody else not in on the op knows either, at least not 100% for sure. We just have supposition and conjecture.
But if point 1 is correct the whole OS is bunk.

originally posted by: DClark
a reply to: waypastvne

What's the curriculum for training pilots to hit a building 10 feet off the ground flying a 155 foot long Boeing 757 at 500 knots while evading over 80 CCTV cameras? Just curious.

The terrorists were able to crash jets that were already airborne. What a revelation.

By the way, prove there were 80 security cameras pointed at the sky. Never mind the cameras were pointed at car level, down at main entrances, pointed down at car and foot traffic, ect.....

And that isn't going into how many of the pentagon cameras on 9/11 were new and being tested....

Where do you get the number 80 from?

And you realize freedom of information lawsuits resulted in all flight 77 videos being released?

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

Pentagon Security Videos: Recent work on the video from two Pentagon security cameras shows that they captured images of the approaching, low-flying plane. In his paper “The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras,” Ken Jenkins explains the images, how the date error came about, and the likely origins for the trailing white smoke. There is no evidence at this time that the government is withholding other images of the event captured by the surveillance cameras.

But thanks for the typical false argument rooted only in innuendo that is the hallmark of conspiracists .

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

The individual said there was no evidence a jet crashed near the pentagon.

The individual said it crashed in the pentagon.

Quote were the individual said no jet crashed into the pentagon.

Quote were the individual said there was no wreckage.

The video of the pentagon is after the outer ring collapsed.

Please show the entrance hole into the pentagon before the outer ring collapsed. The entrance hole that looks like an upside down T. The hole being up to 90 feet wide, and two stories tall.

Please state your evidence of a missile. No broken windows or evidence of an over pressure event made by a missile exploding.

How would a 3 foot diameter missile make an entrance hole about 90 feet wide?

How would a missle leave the bodies and human remains of flight 77s crew and passengers at the pentagon.

It was a descent into the ground. There's another term for this, we normally call it landing when done at lower speed on an airfield with the gear down. If you can aim for a specific spot and hit it to land a plane, you can aim for a specific spot and hit it to fly into a building. So literally every pilot who has ever landed a plane has the requisite skills. Even easier, considering he didn't have to worry about passenger comfort and making sure he didn't crash.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

The damage at the pentagon was from the outer ring inward in a linear fashion.

A missle exploding would have indications of a spherical shock wave.

The entrance hole at the pentagon gave every indication of being pushed in. An explosion would have pushed the interior of the pentagon out into the lawn.

a reply to: neutronflux

I am not saying it was missile other people are.


Also according to the 9/11 Commission Report, the final impact speed was 530 mph, what would it take to pull out of dive at that speed without hitting the ground for that type of plane ?

a reply to: neutronflux

Where's the plane?
Video Proving No Airliner Hit Pentagon

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Furthermore, if you review aerial pics of the area shortly after the attack, you'll see multiple light poles in the 'official' path of the alleged Boeing 757. Those light poles are around 30 feet tall. Surely, a plane that big would have at least bent those light poles, right? lol

a reply to: DClark

Inside the pentagon.

Not watching the video. You need to state a clear argument for debate. Or actually go to the work of citing a source and providing a quote...

originally posted by: DClark
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Furthermore, if you review aerial pics of the area shortly after the attack, you'll see multiple light poles in the 'official' path of the alleged Boeing 757. Those light poles are around 30 feet tall. Surely, a plane that big would have at least bent those light poles, right? lol

Like to post and link to the light pole pictures. The light poles that were torn from their bases and had pieces broken off..

Can you actual cite a source?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Flight 77 angled down into the pentagon. A constant loss of altitude?

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
www.journalof911studies.com...

If the position of the aircraft is plotted using latitude and longitude from the fully decoded FDR file, it becomes apparent that the course obtained is over 200 feet from the course defined by the trail of damage. A method for correcting the position reports was devised, which is described below.
The series of position reports, however, provides the track angle with considerable accuracy. Inspection of the last 20 reported positions prior to the Navy Annex, shows a track of about 61.3 degrees. The possible range of track just prior to impact is limited to about 61 to 63 degrees to ensure that all the correct light poles, and only the correct light poles, will be hit, and that the impact with the Pentagon will occur in the right place.
The above image may be a little inaccurate as it appears that the right wing tip may have brushed a VDOT camera pole, shown in the following photograph (Fig. 2).

This pole is close to the light coloured mark near the two blue dots in the lower left corner of the image of the track (Fig. 1), where its position may be located by its shadow. If this contact did occur, the final track angle would be established at about 61.4 degrees, close to the lower end of the range determined by the light poles, and indistinguishable, given the limited accuracy of available measurements, from the track angle prior to the Navy Annex.
The data file shows a bank to the right, reaching about 6 degrees, while the plane is passing the Navy Annex. This apparently was so brief as to have had little effect. After passing the Annex, which occurs at about 4 seconds prior to impact, the bank declines to about 3 degrees. This is held for the last 3 seconds, and then the final recorded bank angle shows a sudden drop to zero. It is therefore surprising to see that the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report includes a sketch (Fig. 3) showing a left bank of about 7 degrees, presumably based on impact damage marks.17

a reply to: DClark

If you support the false pentagon missile narrative? Can you answer

Please show the entrance hole into the pentagon before the outer ring collapsed. The entrance hole that looks like an upside down T. The hole being up to 90 feet wide, and two stories tall.

Please state your evidence of a missile. No broken windows or evidence of an over pressure event made by a missile exploding.

How would a 3 foot diameter missile make an entrance hole about 90 feet wide?

How would a missle leave the bodies and human remains of flight 77s crew and passengers at the pentagon.

The damage at the pentagon was from the outer ring inward in a linear fashion.

A missle exploding would have indications of a spherical shock wave.

The entrance hole at the pentagon gave every indication of being pushed in. An explosion would have pushed the interior of the pentagon out into the lawn.

What human remains were released to the surviving family members of flight 77 for burial?

originally posted by: DClark
a reply to: waypastvne

What's the curriculum for training pilots to hit a building 10 feet off the ground flying a 155 foot long Boeing 757 at 500 knots while evading over 80 CCTV cameras? Just curious.

Keep your eye on the target. Thats all there is to it.

Naw the hole was very small at the pentagon, neutron baby

Not 90 feet at all.....missile I suppose

a reply to: neutronflux

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

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

None if it was taken over by remote control technology. Notice how the "Amature' did an expert job, no wobbly vision, no failure to flim of the crital point, the crash into the building that rammed the fear element into the American People.

Funny how when the cameras were focused on the building before the planes arrived, was focused on the exact right point, as if they knew where it was going to to strike the building.

For one 'amature' camerman, had to be either lying on his back under a parked car with only is head and shoulders sticking out past the bumber, or, he had to have been standing in a hole in the gound up to his chest in order to get the right elevation to catch the plane some distance from the tower and follow it from almost behind his head and on into the tower.

funny how amature cameramen do things like that intit?