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

a reply to: waypastvne

You must have missed my earlier reply to you.

Do you understand the differences between a transport category aircraft and an acrobatic aircraft? Do you understand the differences and limitations between those 2 categories of aircraft? Handling characteristics are vastly different, in case you don't know.

Transport aircraft are very different than aerobatic aircraft, and they cannot perform aerobatic maneuvers.

The official fantasy regarding AA77 is only a fantasy. It did not happen. You are attempting to defend a fantasy, and that is very difficult, and embarrassing to do.

You are in way over your head, yes, WAY past Vne.

a reply to: Salander

Transport aircraft are very different than aerobatic aircraft, and they cannot perform aerobatic maneuvers.

You are so misinformed.

and

And they can do loops too.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne

You must have missed my earlier reply to you.

Do you understand the differences between a transport category aircraft and an acrobatic aircraft? Do you understand the differences and limitations between those 2 categories of aircraft? Handling characteristics are vastly different, in case you don't know.

Transport aircraft are very different than aerobatic aircraft, and they cannot perform aerobatic maneuvers.

The official fantasy regarding AA77 is only a fantasy. It did not happen. You are attempting to defend a fantasy, and that is very difficult, and embarrassing to do.

You are in way over your head, yes, WAY past Vne.

Transport aircraft are not rated for aerobatics. That does not mean the are incapable of it.

There many examples of passenger planes being inverted accidentally and still landing safely.

The myths of the conspiracy crowd never seem to end.

a reply to: Salander

You cannot say which maneuvers were impossible?

You cannot discredit the FRD, the radar data, and the real time account by an inflight pilot and crew by radio that a large commercial jet hit the pentagon.

And you cannot discredit the 100 plus eyewitness accounts of a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon.

And you have not offered any explanation how the crew and passengers of flight 77 ended dead at the pentagon.

I have cited sources that proves the FDR data in not "bogus" that you ignore.

I have cited sources that use the science method that proves the best explanation for what happen at the pentagon was being hit by a large jet. Items not disputed by you.

This thread references two? Three pilots that hold views not the consensus amoung pilots and engineers. FRD, radar data, and an in air pilot that radioed in the crash at the pentagon shows their opinions are false.

I have cited sources that shows flight 77 was not under stresses long enough to prevent it from crashing into a building the size of 25 football fields and 70 feet tall.

I have linked to a debunking thread with other pilots saying the flight 77 maneuvers where very much possible.

a reply to: Salander

Are you the person that believes the fantasy nuclear bombs where used at the WTC?

You offer no rebuttal to the flight 77 DNA evidence, in flight account, eyewitnesses, radar data, physical evidence, FRD...... so on....

Not proving your judged is rational.....

Or that that you are capable of creating rebuttals based on facts, science, evidence, data,and eyewitness accounts....

What concerns me more is that "Gary Eitel, an experienced military and 747 pilot", believes hitting a building the size of the pentagon would be extremely difficult.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
What concerns me more is that "Gary Eitel, an experienced military and 747 pilot", believes hitting a building the size of the pentagon would be extremely difficult.

Perhaps he has never really thought about it before he made that statement.
Most things are difficult until you do them the first time.

What bothers me is that most of the conspiracy crowd accepts that 2 planes hit WTC.
But cannot accept a third hit the pentagon.
To me it makes sense.
Hijack as many as you can and hit as many targets as you can.
If you think about it from their point of view only two hit their intended targets.
One hit an alternate target and the forth failed altogether.

originally posted by: ZaneDog

After what happened in Crimea, I really don't put anything past them.

Nobody has benefitted more than Russia from the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. Nobody had more reason to want us in Afghanistan than them. Afghanistan is how we broke the Soviet Union. It's where world super powers go to die. Or get weak enough so the #2 superpower can have more influence.


Furthermore, with the country's wealth mostly concentrated on a few oligarchs, they definitely have the money to fund an attack like this. The FSB is just as good as our CIA. Their agents can get to places Talilban sleeper agents can't easily get to (such as smuggling box cutters onto a plane.)


And if we discuss nano-thermite, it would actually be much easier for Russia to get that in place than for a US government conspiracy to get it in place. Because the US government would have to cover up the paper trail. A foreign power carrying out an op, could just plain use it.

More to the point:


A US government conspiracy would have to hide what it is doing from its own self. (The honest government agents who would likely not go along.)


A foreign government conspiracy would have to keep the op classified, but otherwise runs no risk of "getting caught" by its own government workers. The ones who carried out the op would not be committing any crime against their own country.

originally posted by: samkent

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
What concerns me more is that "Gary Eitel, an experienced military and 747 pilot", believes hitting a building the size of the pentagon would be extremely difficult.

Perhaps he has never really thought about it before he made that statement.
Most things are difficult until you do them the first time.

What bothers me is that most of the conspiracy crowd accepts that 2 planes hit WTC.
But cannot accept a third hit the pentagon.
To me it makes sense.
Hijack as many as you can and hit as many targets as you can.
If you think about it from their point of view only two hit their intended targets.
One hit an alternate target and the forth failed altogether.

And there is no evidence at the pentagon to support being hit by a missile or the use of a bomb.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: firerescue

Any police officer or homicide detective knows when there's a crime committed, the crime scene is not to be disturbed until there's a thorough investigation of any evidence left at the scene.

This meme is a perfect display of the stupidity of
Truthers.

When the towers collapsed, the debris pile was what, 100' high when you factor in the amount in the basement?

How in the hell do you propose examining what's 10' down, or 50' down without FIRST removing what's on top?

Do these crazy "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy believers ever give any thought to what they're saying? Or do they just repeat whatever sounds like will give them more peer approval?

This is equally as stupid as say, asking for the release of " the rest " of the videos from the Pentagon cuz they presumably believe that by asking, the guv will willfully provide evidence that they have been lying all along.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne

You must have missed my earlier reply to you.


Transport aircraft are very different than aerobatic aircraft, and they cannot perform aerobatic maneuvers.

Did I also miss your reply where you pointed out the aerobatic maneuvers AA77 did, that can't be done.



An aerobatic maneuver is any flight that exceeds 60 deg of bank or 30 deg of pitch positive or negative. Every thing else is just normal flying. AA77 never did any aerobatics.

The only limits AA77 exceeded was speed and it happened in the last 12 seconds of flight.

a reply to: MrBig2430

At this point the Truther movement has become a cult. I mean, nobody in their right mind could possibly read this thread and the evidence linked in it and still doubt a plane hit the Pentagon. Anyone who can read this thread and still think there was no plane at the Pentagon are not just gullible but bordering on dangerous. These people are a danger to themselves and those around them. I honestly hope none of them are even licensed to drive. I don't want to take the chance of being on the road around someone whose logic and reasoning skills are so compromised.

At best, the guy supposedly flying it could have nose dived it through the roof. Obviously a missile.

a reply to: korath

Diving straight down is actually harder than what he did.

a reply to: waypastvne

Yes, I guessed we missed each others posts.

What you are failing to account for is the context of the official story. It is old and common knowledge that the Boeing test pilot rolled an early 707 one afternoon near Seattle.

You want me to believe that because an experienced Boeing pilot could do it, so could numbnutz Hanjour, a student pilot with a bad reputation amongst the several instructors who flew with him at Huffman in Venice. You might be gullible enough to believe that, but I am not.

You are desperate enough trying to get this square peg into the round hole that you expect me to believe that a fresh "commercial pilot" with a bad reputation has the same flying skills as a Boeing test pilot/demo pilot. Either you are incredibly naïve, or you are really faking it here with your statements regarding teaching landings on the third lesson, etc, etc.

It doesn't work that way. Moreover, we don't know what airspeed the Boeing pilot used when rolling the 707, but I promise you it was not Vmo +90.

As an individual who has never flown a Boeing model at all, my choice is to believe you with your statements and lack of credentials, or to believe the handful of men who are line pilots in the 757 who have gone on the record at Pilots For 911 Truth, some of whom have been quoted on this thread.

It is not a difficult choice for me to make. The most I've ever exceeded Vmo, then only accidentally 2 or 3 times, is 10 or 20 knots. You or line pilots, not a tough choice.

Such absurd and desperate statements you have made in this short time period reflect the desperation of your chosen position. Even though it has been shown easily that the FDR for AA77 was forged and faked, you buy into it.

Yessir, you are indeed WAY PAST Vne, in water way over your head.

a reply to: korath

This story we discuss is the result of "analyzing" a spoofed radar system that day. As the FDR data shows, it was all bogus.

If it had really happened that a 300 hour pilot flying a 757 for the first time in his life attempted that overhead approach to the pentagon, and came streaking in at Vmo + 90 whist in ground effect, the actual result would have been his missing the building entirely, ending up 3 counties over, way beyond his target.

a reply to: Salander

Read the thread neutronflux referred to in this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It answers all of your questions. Stop forcing yourself to stay ignorant and misinformed. The information you seek is out there, you just have to read it, watch it, and stop pretending it doesn't exist.