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

a reply to: m1kelowry

And I quoted the instructor that would not rent a plane to Hanjour that Hanjour had the skills to crash the jet into the pentagon once the jet was in the air.

I also quoted another instructor that knew Hanjour had a hand in 9/11 once facts started being revealed.

Is there a quote from the instructions that a large jet didn't hit the pentagon and that Hanjour was not in the cockpit?

Much of the instructors concerns were based on Hanjour's trouble speaking English.

I am just saying a large jet hit the pentagon.

You were wrong about remaining flight 77 video. Wrong about the bodies from flight 77.

Now discredit the 100 plus eyewitness that give an account of a large jet hitting the pentagon.

Discredit the radar data.

Discredit the in flight pilot that gave a real time account of a large passenger jet hitting the pentagon.

The entrance hole into the pentagon that could only be made by a large jet. Backed by eyewitnesses and radar data.

How does the flight recorder data discredit a large jet hitting the pentagon.

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

The continuous radar data matching the FDR data indicates that assertions of tampering, as well as suggestions that a plane swap took place, are mistaken. There is no reason to doubt that Flight AA 77 traveled from Dulles to its impact at the Pentagon. The radar track of AA 77 is continuous from Dulles to the vicinity of the Sheraton Hotel and is supported by the FDR data. From there, the FDR data and many eyewitnesses tracked the plane all the way to impact at the Pentagon. The eyewitness and physical evidence fully support impact by a large plane with dimensions matching a Boeing 757.

If you know the facts of 9/11, why do you create a dishonest accout of the pentagon by cherry picking facts, data, accounts, and evidence.

Sorry. A large jet hit the pentagon on 9/11.

a reply to: neutronflux

Again, the thread asks about the skill level needed.

You obviously believe it take limited to no skill at all to fly a commercial airliner with limited to possibly ZERO practice at the controls of a Boeing 757.

It truly is no different than a terrible swimmer beating Michael Phelps in the Olympics. You could show me all the pool data you want, but until I see a video of it occurring I will have major doubts. Would you believe that this could occur with just data? Would you believe swimming coaches who said "The guy couldn't even swim" 7 months before, or the would you believe the coaches who said, "Hell of a swimmer."

In this case I am siding with the flight instructors who mentioned his English was poor, but flat out said he couldn't fly.

Yes, I get it. Throw more data at me. Confuse the question of the thread about the skill level needed for a pilot by throwing out data that supports that a plane hit the building. Show some pictures of charred bodies that may or may not have occurred in that accident.

They can simply show the video that certainly exists of the plane hitting the building.

Based on skill alone it is beyond unlikely that the pilot flew that plane.

a reply to: m1kelowry

And what does flight 77 bodies have to do with piloting skills.

You don't understand rational vs irrational? Innuendo vs evidence? Opinion vs cited statements?

Either you are extremely closed minded and heavily invested emotional in the 9/11 truth movement con, or just playing the part to stereotype conspiracists.

People are tired of a "truth movement" that uses innuendo, ignores questions asked of them, misquotes, hides facts, and ignores science to create a false scenario around the fact a large jet crashed into the pentagon.

Tired of the straw man argument if you don't buy into the truth movement con you are all in for the Offical narrative.

a reply to: neutronflux

The straw man argument are you discussing everything but the skill required which is the thread topic.

The odds of someone pulling this off with his skill level are likely 10,000,000:1 maybe even higher.

Going back to the swimming analogy, what odds would you give a rudimentary swimmer to beat Michael Phelps in the Olympics, or even to qualify? Someone a coach describes as being unable to swim 7 months prior? 500,000,000:1? Phelps would have to have a heart attack and drown.

Well you're believing based on data, not visual evidence, that a practically unqualified pilot managed to garner the skills in a 7 month period to do what your data says.

I don't buy it.

The straw man argument you are making is attempting to utilize data and radar to prove a pilot needs limited to no skill to pull off the event. They have nothing to do with each other, thus it is a straw man.

You brought up the skills of the pilot, and have suggested multiple times he was qualified, yet there is a greater account of people who instructed him that he was terrible and literally could not fly a plane. This knowledge was shared prior to any conspiracy issues coming up at all in 2002.

I am not saying it isn't possible, but it is highly unlikely that it was pulled off with his skill. The solution would be showing the video.

What you are not considering, if he didn't have the skill, it makes the official story a conspiracy, including manufactured evidence and data to support the official story since that pilot was incapable of pulling off any flight maneuvers to attack a specific target.

Your mind has chosen to believe he was an ace pilot. My mind has chosen to consider how unlikely it was for his abilities to match the outcome.

originally posted by: face23785
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.

You are trying to tell me what I think, and that is a sure sign of how bankrupt your "argument" is, and how desperate your position is. So far, you come across as a desperate fraud. I know what I think, you don't.

originally posted by: waypastvne

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.

Just as most any well-informed pilot understands what lift is, what drag is, what thrust is, he knows what ground effect is.

How much flight time do you have?

a reply to: 67Camino

The maneuver required for the official narrative to be true, to comply with the FDR data provided by the government, was considerably harder than slowing it down and landing.

If you were actually a pilot with any experience in high performance airplanes, you would know that.

Yep, the pilots don't buy it...too much common sense and observation to say there were bodies in the pentagon or a friggin flight recorder black box....that's what I worked on in the Air Force.

Neutron can abandon the thought process, but the normals are unable

From the legal standpoint, there's not enough evidence...specially primary evidence....number one is wing and tail.....and turbine marks on the telltale structure.....what. Dont have any good common sense?......GET SOME

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Name what pilots and quote what pilots said a large jet didn't hit the pentagon and that Hanjour was not in the cockpit?

a reply to: Salander

The five mile radius turn that took longer than two minutes. Can you even cite when full throttle was applied. For lining up on a building large than 24 football fields.

a reply to: m1kelowry

New low. Rant of opinions with made up statistics. While forming no rebuttals from cited facts. Just sad.

Funny you act like your questions have not been answered over and over again in this thread. So intellectually dishonest.

a reply to: neutronflux

Those are the odds I would give it if I was a betting man.

You ignored everything else I stated, but officially you choose to believe the statistics and ignore the inability of the supposed pilot to fly. You believe that he had the capability of pulling off the maneuvers without the experience to do so.

I choose to disbelieve that based on the opinions of the experts that taught him, and the opinion of my friend who had more than 40,000 of flying a commercial plan under his belt. He said it couldn't have happened with that pilots skills, and unlikely with his.

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: neutronflux

Those are the odds I would give it if I was a betting man.

You ignored everything else I stated, but officially you choose to believe the statistics and ignore the inability of the supposed pilot to fly. You believe that he had the capability of pulling off the maneuvers without the experience to do so.

I choose to disbelieve that based on the opinions of the experts that taught him, and the opinion of my friend who had more than 40,000 of flying a commercial plan under his belt. He said it couldn't have happened with that pilots skills, and unlikely with his.

Because its your opinion and not a consensus among pilots, aerospace engineers, nor Hanjour's instructors.

You cannot provide a quote from Hanjour's instructors that a large jet didn't hit the pentagon and quotes that Hanjour was not in the cockpit from his instructors.

No rebuttals to radar and FRD evidence.

And your posts were wrong concerning evidence photos and flight 77 footage.

a reply to: neutronflux

Scarecrows again.

Start a different thread to talk about all that stuff. The question was what skill is needed to crash into the Pentagon.

I say lots. So does my friend the pilot.

What is your opinion on the amount of skill it takes?

a reply to: m1kelowry

Then state the first maneuver that Hanjour didn't have the skills to conduct. A person with a private pilot's listened, A FAA commercial pilots certificate, flight experience, commercial jet simulator experience, instructor quote that Hanjour had the skills to crash the jet into the pentagon once in the air, and another instructor knew Hanjour was part of 9/11 once details became available.

Just state one maneuver to start the debate.

a reply to: m1kelowry

I do admit the the maneuvers did not have steady speed, the maneuvers were not precise, were not well conducted, were bumpy, and the jet almost crashed in the lawn? But the pentagon is still 70 feet tall and the size of more than 24 football fields. Are you saying he didn't have spotters in the cockpit to help guide him and call out visual landmarks? A flight they practiced with home simulations as much as possible?

a reply to: neutronflux

Yes and his skill level says he could have hit it, but only once bouncing/sliding then hitting and/or crashing in through the ceiling at an angle. Not staying at the perfect height to make a strike that very conveniently tested the newly reinforced section of the Pentagon that was largely empty.
All the hallmarks of a classic flag flag.

Just another huge coincidence among hundreds on 9/11, I guess.



If you want to have some intellectual honesty about 9/11, you should research real false flags events that are known to have happened throughout history, proven after the fact. Germany had theirs, and nobody would have ever known about if they hadn't lost the war.
The American government has run them and tried to run them in the past.
I think people like you need to break the barrier that it is possible, from examining real history and not fake news.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes and his skill level says he could have hit it, but only once bouncing/sliding then hitting and/or crashing in through the ceiling at an angle. Not staying at the perfect height to make a strike that very conveniently tested the newly reinforced section of the Pentagon that was largely empty.
All the hallmarks of a classic flag flag.

Just another huge coincidence among hundreds on 9/11, I guess.

If you want to have some intellectual honesty about 9/11, you should research real false flags events that are known to have happened through out history, proven after the fact. Germany had theirs, and nobody would have ever known about if they hadn't lost the war.
The American government has run them and tried to run them in the past.
I think people like you need to break the barrier that it is possible from examining real history and not fake news.

He did not do anything perfectly! His banking was all over the place. He gained altitude here and there making it harder to hit the pentagon. His speed was never steady until he pushed them into full throttle. I don't even think the rate of descent was steady. He hit light poles, trees, a antenna,and a engine hit a concrete lip before hitting the pentagon. The jet almost crashed on the front lawn.

But thinks for painting a false narrative and not citing actual flight 77 flight data.....

a reply to: neutronflux

The jet almost crashed on the front lawn.

When you are about to crash in seconds at 500 mph and 20 feet off the ground, what you say is correct "from a certain point of view"