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

a reply to: m1kelowry

Hey welcome to ATS, if an OP of mine gets somebody to sign up I think that is awesome.

His answer to could someone without his experience do it? "Absolutely not."

Pilot after pilot says the same thing, impossible maneuver for a noob pilot.... this should be leading us to the next question but they don't want to go there, denial X 10.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Even as friends we didn't go to the next question. He is an old school guy, dad served in the military, patriotic. So much is unanswered, but even he can't answer "what happened", but he is certain what didn't.

We had a good conversation about Flight 800 that went down a number of years ago. That was an odd one.

a reply to: m1kelowry

Have you read any thing posted and cited? The 300 degree turn was a five mile radius turn under 300 knots and took 3 minutes to complete. Throttle was steadily applied once the jet was lined up and aimed at the pentagon. Full throttle was not achieved until the jet was lined up straight onto the pentagon which is a target the size larger than 24 football ball fields. The building is 70 foot tall, each side is 900 feet long, and just the court yard of the pentagon is greater in size than at least 3 football fields.

So, what part was impossible or improbable?
The aviation world is far from having a consensus that what flight 77 did was spatular, much less impossible. In fact, there is a standard maneuver to overshoot air fields with no air traffic controller, and circle back to land.

The maneuvers of flight 77 are backed by flight recorder data, radar, air traffic controller accounts, an account by an inflight pilot that radioed in the pentagon crash in real time, and numerous eyewitness accounts.

For the record again..
Can you form a rebuttal to this cited work?

Title: Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate. From October 2016
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.

a reply to: m1kelowry

The problem with this is a lot of the public are not aware of what the actual flight path was. All they've seen about it is in conspiracy theory videos and vague descriptions, which usually present outright lies (360 degree turn at 500 mph). Show him the video that's been posted and linked to 30 times in this thread of the actual flight path. I guarantee he changes his mind and says yeah a rookie could've done that.

Here it is. The relevant portion starts around 1 hour and 10 minutes:

a reply to: neutronflux

In our discussion we spoke about the ability to maneuver a plane in anyway to maintain speed while "descending" a large airliner into a building. That's where the difficulty would be, to actually hit the target precisely while maintaining significant speed.

If you choose to ignore the opinions of the flight instructors who taught these guys how to fly, or the fact that they were able to steady a plane after the descent to go STRAIGHT into the side of a relatively short building, that's your choice.

I'm just sharing with you an opinion of a personal friend who flew for 30+ years. He doesn't believe it would be possible.

a reply to: m1kelowry

You have an opinion not supported in large or by a consensus of pilots and aerospace engineers.

One of the terrorists aboard flight 77 had a FAA commercial pilots license.

Can you quote the instructors where they stated the terrorists could not crash an already in flight jet into a target larger than 24 football fields, 70 feet high, and each of the five sides 900 feet wide?

The speed was not steady, and was all over the spectrum. Only once the terrorists drew a bead on the pentagon did they start to throttle up into full throttle.

They sought training, trained, ran repeated simulations, and dedicated their lives to hitting the pentagon.

I am going to take your word when you create a false scenario, ignore an event backed by eyewitnesses, air traffic controllers, radar data, Flight Recorder data, an in flight pilot, and you offer no rebuttal to the work I cited which lays out that a large commercial jet hit the pentagon.

You seem nice and open until cited evidence, witnesses, works, and data refute your conspiracist's views?

It is also your right to ignore the body of evidence and the only cause of damage at the pentagon that fits all the facts and data. That's a large get hitting the pentagon.

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: neutronflux

.... or the fact that they were able to steady a plane after the descent to go STRAIGHT into the side of a relatively short building, that's your choice.

Can you define short? 70 feet is tall to me? Especially for a jet where the cabin width is 14 feet?

a reply to: neutronflux

Not to mention they actually failed to fly it directly into the building. They hit the ground first.

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: neutronflux

Longtime lurker. First time poster. Interesting that this topic has taken the path that it has, and even more so that I just had a conversation with my buddy about this exact topic, and it fits your odds at 2:1.

Background of my buddy, he is 35 years my senior. For the past 2 years we have had lunch together every Saturday shooting the breeze, talking about old stories and talking about real life. He was a commercial pilot for Northwest Airlines for 30 years. He is no conspiracy theorist.

I asked him if he could have hit the side of the the pentagon at the speeds and trajectory mentioned in the reports. We didn't even get into the contents of the pentagon not being on the lawn, the funerals etc etc etc....Simply did he have the skill to do it on his best day.

His answer was a reluctant "maybe" slightly leaning towards yes...but still a lot would have to go perfect.

His answer to could someone without his experience do it? "Absolutely not."

Our conversation didn't have to go any further on any speculation...but if that guy says it, with his actual experience, something is fishy with the official story.

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

The question should be, "Could you hit the Pentagon in ANY fashion?"

Crazy 9/11 was an inside job conspiracy theorists think that Hani was aiming for exactly where he hit, realistically anywhere woulda been the target.

Ask him that instead if you want a pertinent answer.

a reply to: face23785

For you and the others who believe the official story, I would like to further refine my position here. WaypastVne too.

The maneuver itself is NOT impossible when taken out of context. In other words, if I had my Pitts Special from 10 years ago, I could do it all day, and probably not miss it once. Any accomplished aerobatic pilot could perform it in any aerobatic airplane. In such an airplane it would be fairly easy.

But in context--a lousy pilot with 300 hours in cessnas and pipers, first time in a 757 after having just slit the throats of 2 former military pilots and dragged their bodies out of the seats--it's impossible.

Thanks to Mike Lowry for his story, a fairly typical response from an honest and curious poster.

a reply to: Salander

Except you're pretending it happened in a way that didn't happen. It wasn't a high speed turn with a high rate of turn or a high rate of descent. The actual manuever that was performed was a slow, gradually descending, wide radius turn. That's a routine maneuver, it doesn't require an extraordinary amount of skill. And you know that. And he didn't even do it that well! His rate of turn wasn't uniform or even anything approaching uniform, nor was his rate of descent, in fact he gained a significant amount of altitude at one point in the turn. You're literally trying to contend that a poorly trained pilot is incapable of turning a plane. If that were the case no one would ever get past their first flight, because they would crash as soon as they tried to execute a turn.

a reply to: face23785

Judging from that post, English is your second language. Maybe I put it poorly?

The maneuver itself is not difficult in the right sort of airplane.

The maneuver in an airliner such as the 757, under the control of a lousy pilot first time in such an airplane, and as defined by FDR data, is impossible.

Simple English, simple words, 2 sentences. Please consult a dictionary if you must.

a reply to: Salander

If you had a hard time understanding that post you're even dumber than I thought. There's nothing wrong with my English. There were a few places I could've used semicolons instead of commas, that's about it. Convenient excuse to not address anything I said. You believe a fairy tale, and you're so invested in it you can't accept it's false at this point because you'd have to admit you were duped all these years. I pity you.

Watch the flight track. It's clear an amateur was at the controls. If you had even a shred of honesty with yourself you'd see that.

originally posted by: Salander

The maneuver itself is not difficult in the right sort of airplane.

You Need a special airplane to do a 10 mile diameter circle ?

That's funny.

This is why I love the truth movement. The lies they have to tell to, keep the dream alive, is so entertaining.

a reply to: m1kelowry

And yet, Hani Hanjour's flight instructor......the one who would not rent a Cessna to Hani due to landing/takeoff issues....has said that Hani had all the skills necessary to do it. Just as long as he did not have to worry about taking off first.

a reply to: Salander

You still just stated your opinion with no rebuttals referencing actual speed, facts, turn radiuses, g forces, angle, bank, when throttle was and was not applied.


You had you issues addressed over and over again. You still ignore questions asked of you.

Thanks for a straw man argument. The argument is a large commercial jet hit the pentagon. Not the whole official account. Over a hundred civilians wittinessed a commercial jet hitting the pentagon from the road ways. Groups supporting CD at the WTC even state it is beyond reason to deny a large jet hit the pentagon, and have you provided no rebuttals to their cited works.

You still cannot answer how very little of the pentagon interior made it to the pentagon front lawn in a bomb or missile hypotheses.

You cannot answer how the crew and passengers of flight 77 ended up at the pentagon, and what remains were released for burial.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

Pilot after pilot says the same thing, impossible maneuver for a noob pilot....

And pilot after pilot that you give us all use "ground effect" as a reason it can't be done. Any pilot who uses ground effect as an reason it "can't be done" can be considered an idiot.

If you want an accurate description of ground effect by an aeronautical engineer then read this.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

These factors make it clear that ground effect could not have prevented a Boeing 757 from striking the Pentagon in the way that Flight 77 did on September 11.

All of your pilots use the word ground effect, I have never seen one of your pilots give an accurate description of what ground effect is.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Correct me if i'm wrong but I remember watching a news story after 911 happened, and whoever was in charge at the time flat out denied the pentagon was ever hit.

originally posted by: Artemis12
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Correct me if i'm wrong but I remember watching a news story after 911 happened, and whoever was in charge at the time flat out denied the pentagon was ever hit.

Correct,.....two live videos

One is right here on ATS........An ABC reporter at the scene with a cameraman

The second was from a Jet Ranger Turbo Helicopter news crew showing live video.....exclaiming not enough debris to fill a suitcase

Same as at Shanksville....I see a trendditby]edit on 27-6-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)