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

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I am not sure, all I know is, that maneuver could not have been pulled off by an amateur pilot, another question is that plane even capable of making that maneuver, as that is in further question given the rules of "ground effect" and the perfect side strike.

Isn't this (i.e., the bolded phrase) a jet-engined version of the "Texas Sharpshooter" fallacy?

That is, you fire bullets randomly into a barn door, go up to it and find the bullet holes that are nearest to each other, then draw a target around them and claim you have a high accuracy rate.

The plane hit the Pentagon, so it appears miraculous - until you consider how big the Pentagon is and how the plane very nearly missed the building and crashed on the front lawn instead.

In terms of actually hitting the Pentagon, yes, it was "perfect" because it hit the Pentagon. But in terms of hitting the Pentagon squarely enough (er, you see what I mean) to cause maximum damage/fatalities - and it's a fairly (!) safe bet that this was the pilot's intention - it was very far indeed from being perfect.

a reply to: proteus33

The towers collapsed all the way down to its foundation. The foundation surely wasn't compromised. Building seven wasn't even hit by a plane, so you can't blame that collapse on jet fuel. It wasn't even built the same way as the Trade Towers! The fire in building 7 wasn't even hot enough to melt steel and it's structural foundation wasn't compromised.

The amount of kinetic energy of falling debris was not enough to flatten 60 or more floors of structural supports that still had their structural integrity intact. If it happened the way they described it, it would not have continued to collapse straight down like a building demolition, but be partially deflected to the side when it hit the resistance of the lower floors. The pancake theory holds no water.

It amazes me how new people come around every 6 weeks and bring up the same old lines.

It's been 16 years and the conspiracy crowd have not gained an inch.

For the longest time they would say 'the world is waking up to 911'.

what is this guy talking about the world trade center towers were over a 1000 feet tall and close to the harbor i could have hit them. and the one that hit the pentagon was orginally supposed to hit white house they missed so they looked for something to hit they saw the pentagon and aimed for it is easily spotted from the sky being a giant 5 sided ring and yes it too would have been fairly easy to hit if you knew how to turn the plane and ascend and descend. they really got extremely lucky that the guys who hit trade center were not on later flight say around 10 am casualties would have been in the tens of thousands per tower

a reply to: proteus33

The Pentagon was one of the targets designated by Bin Laden - he called it "THE TOWER OF WAR"

Pentagon is one of the largest buildings in world - each side is over 900 feet and easily visible from air

The WTC buildings were designated "The Towers of the Jews" representing money

The missing plane. United 93, was targeted at the Capitol building designated "The Tower of Law"

As for timing - the hijackers were on tight schedule Needed large aircraft on transcontinental routes, ie carrying
maximum fuel. Needed Boeing aircraft, the type trained on in flight simulators.

Transcontinental flights leave early in the morning as to arrive early afternoon (local time) . Also want early morning
times because as days goes on delays begin to accumulate in the system do to weather and mechanical/air traffic
problems.

Hijackers needed flights close together in time to avoid any response to shut down air traffic or shoot down the
aircraft

As it was delays in takeoff by United 93 (it was 40 minutes late in leaving Newark) allowed passengers to learn of
earlier hijackers ( and their fate ) . Were able to formulate plan to attack hijackers and regain control of plane

originally posted by: cosmania
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.

As one who has been instructing in airplanes for more than 30 years, your statement is horribly wrong.

In fact, landing is the last thing taught to a student. The first things taught are straight & level flight, turns, climbs, glides, ground reference maneuvers, stalls and slow flight.

Landing is the combination of all other elements and is taught last.

The maneuver required to make the official story right is impossible. Hanjour had a horrible reputation amongst the flight instructors in Venice, FL and Huffman Aviation.

a reply to: Salander

How is crashing landing? Your argument makes no sense.

Plus. I like how the conspiracists totally ignore the facts. The terrorists totally detected themselves to flying those jets into very large structures. Note: you do understand the pentagon is so vast that being hit by a jet only destroyed 10% of the building?

You do understand the court yard alone is 5 acres? Almost 4 football fields.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The Pentagon building spans 28.7 acres (116,000 m2), and includes an additional 5.1 acres (21,000 m2) as a central courtyard.[5

So, you are saying it was impossible for individuals fueled faith religious zeal, training and totally dedicating their lives to crashing a plane into something the size of 26 football fields?

Thanks for another straw man argument.

a reply to: Salander

THIS....answers my OP question.

As one who has been instructing in airplanes for more than 30 years,...
The maneuver required to make the official story right is impossible...

a reply to: Salander

I guess you will be saying it was impossible for a group of 19 year old inexperienced British pilots to take on the experienced and vast Luftwaffe to win the Battle of Britain.......

So, it was impossible for a group that trained in every way possible to crash a jet with powered, computer assisted, and automated controls into a building the size of 26 football buildings, 70 feet tall?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

But not backed by a consensus of pilots, not backed by a majority of the aerospace industry, not backed by the works I have cited from Scientists for 9/11 Truth, not backed by flight recorder data, not backed by radar, not backed by 100 plus eyewitnesses, not backed by physical evidence, not by human remains, not backed by DNA analysis, not backed by trial testimony, and not backed by the coroner's reports.

Please answer the issues addressed to you.

Please stop falling for individuals that only tell you what you want to hear while ignoring a sick group of individuals trained and dedicated their lives to crash a jet into a building the size of 26 football fields....

You provide an example why a majority of people stay away from the irrational views of conspiracists.

The topic makes me think of the simulator attempts done on J. Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory". It may be a crappy show but it still makes a point on just how difficult of a maneuver it is/was to perform.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33


Without reading any of the thread, only the OP title...I'm going to say, the only skill they need is to know how and be pretty handy with an X Box control pad!...ha...I've said it...It was controlled remotely as it was a drone/cruise missile!


Now...I shall return to page 1 and read the thread!



Ha...after reading page 1 I get the feeling I'm on the right track as the piloting skills needed are out of reach to these fools who didn't give the instructor's any confidence ...and that's with a small training craft not an airliner


Well, after reading the thread I have seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever to say it was any different to my 1st reaction on the day itself when I saw a US reporter ( may of been Dan Rather ) say it was a missile, a few eye witnesses back then were heard to of said the same...this thread just confirms it for me!...Thanks all!

a reply to: threepwood

Difficult is not impossible. The video is not the consensus of pilots and the aerospace industry. And Hanjour did have a FAA commercial pilots certificate. Finally, the terrorists were not worried about safety limits. Just getting the jet on target.... he may had a knack for flying.... just not for aviation regulations, procedures, safety rules, check lists, radio communications, ect...

a reply to: neutronflux

I'm by no means saying it's impossible, I actually think there's a good chance the terrorists pulled it off. Drones and all that stuff just sounds too far out to me personally. I guess it's the scope of the whole operation of 9/11 that gets me thinking that they had some sort of inside help, whatever that may be.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Salander


THIS....answers my OP question.

As one who has been instructing in airplanes for more than 30 years,...
The maneuver required to make the official story right is impossible...

But I have also been training people how to fly for over 30 years. The last thing I teach students is spin training how to put a plane into a spin and get it back out again without over speeding the airplane. I normally start teaching landings in the 3rd hour of training.

I'm also an aerobatic pilot and have flown in airshows around the world. There is nothing in the flight path of AA77 that impresses me at all. Maybe someone would like to point out the impossible part of the flight to me because I don't see it.




On the other hand what UA93 did was impressive.

originally posted by: Salander

The maneuver required to make the official story right is impossible.

So tell me. Wich maneuver is impossible?




Point it out.

a reply to: WeRpeons

The Fire Department of New York, disagrees with you.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Some fire fighters of the New York Fire Department also testified they heard explosions on the lower floors before the collapse. There's video evidence showing molten metal being spewed out of the lower floors of the towers. In addition, the Fire Department surely doesn't have the credentials or the amount of knowledge to understand structural engineering as compared to many architectural engineers who have come out publicly stating the pancake theory wasn't plausible. They also questioned the collapse of building 7.

a reply to: WeRpeons

What part of the FDNY disagrees .....

Attended seminar 5 months after 9/11 - was able to listen to and ask questions of the FDNY incident
commanders at WTC that day

None of them report explosions or other things truthers like to harp on

As for WTC 7 heard the incident commander describe step by step the operations there leading up to building
being abandoned and collapse zone set up around the area