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

always wondered why that approach to the building. if the pilot wanted to do more damage, crashing into the building on the roof/from above would have been easier!

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Still? You argument is flight 77, piloted by anyone's account a less than professional pilot fighting the jet to not crash short of the pentagon at the end, didn't crash with enough shock, awe, and flare?

Actually, I found more information. It seems he ended up hitting the building on approximately the same side he would have hit it if he had come in on a direct approach.

The justfication given here is that he knew he was too high, and used the loop to give himself more time to descend.

www.911myths.com...

This video does an excellent job of visualizing it. The approach itself starts at about an hour and 5 minutes in. The pentagon is right by the really big river you see running from left to right (North to South, since the plane is approaching from the West) and right by the airport (which is also right by the river).

It is kind of hard to pick out from the rest of the landscape, but the pilot would know they were getting close the moment they saw the river.


www.youtube.com...


It will play you through the whole maneuver, right up until impact, in 3d. You basically see exactly what the pilot would have seen.

Then you can form a very informed opinion about how hard the maneuver would be to pull of.

I always assumed it was straight forward. If you can land a plane on a runaway, you can bring a plane in to land where there is a big building where the runway would otherwise have been. And the Pentagon was a very big building, so even of you were going to miss the runway, you would still hit it.

(Imagine planes landing at JFK Airport - and then stick the Pentagon in the middle of the runways. How difficult would it be to hit the Pentagon then?)

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
I always assumed it was straight forward. If you can land a plane on a runaway, you can bring a plane in to land where there is a big building where the runway would otherwise have been. And the Pentagon was a very big building, so even of you were going to miss the runway, you would still hit it.

(Imagine planes landing at JFK Airport - and then stick the Pentagon in the middle of the runways. How difficult would it be to hit the Pentagon then?)

Yes even a bad pilot can crash a plane. I could put my 8 yr old daughter in a car and tell her to hit the neighbors house. And even with her lack of skill I'm confident she could pull it off with no driving skills

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

That is a very interesting video, thank you for posting it.

It seems highly unusual that the capital of America had no fighters jets respond in time to this, there were exercises running that had severely confused the pilots, the comment by the air traffic controller send everybody home on exercises, and on top of that they got bad intel. Remember this after the second jet had hit in New York, they knew attacks were ongoing.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

The Washington fighter units stood down from the alert mission when the rest if through alert force was gutted in the 90s. Langley was the alert base for the Washington area.

The "confusion" with the alert fighters had nothing to do with the exercises. They were supposed to be handed over to another controller over Baltimore to steer them to the right area, but it didn't happen. That resulted in them being steered out over the coast before being turned north.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

It seems highly unusual that the capital of America had no fighters jets respond in time to this,

Most people don't have an armed guard outside their door either.
When you are not on a war footing it takes a long time to fuel arm and brief the pilots.

originally posted by: blackthorne
always wondered why that approach to the building. if the pilot wanted to do more damage, crashing into the building on the roof/from above would have been easier!

More damage? You just don't get it, do you? There was no pilot on Flight 77 flying it into the Pentagon. The plane was flown by remote control into the Pentagon. From 1987-2001, Dov Zakheim was CEO of SPC International, a subsidiary of System Planning Corporation, a high-technology analytical firm. One of the products that SPC sells is the Command Transmitter System, a remote control system for planes, boats, missiles and other vehicles. This is the same Zakheim who co-authored an article entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century” which was published by The Project for a New American Century in September 2000, exactly a year before 9/11; in this article, on page 51, it is stated that “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor”!‘ Rabbi Zakheim not only was remote control specialist, he also was very well acquinted with financial affairs of the Pentagon. In march 2001, that is 6 months before 9/11, Zakheim was appointed comptroller at the Pentagon. He was hired to shed some light about some trillions missing in the books. Now is that a coincidence or what! A guy who worked 4 years as CEO for a company specialized in remote control moves to a new job in a new building which gets hit by a plane. Remote controlled as some claim. And where did it hit? At an almost empty, newly renovated part of the Pentagon. So here comes Hanni Hanjour, dedicated to sacrifice his life in his resentment against all those Americans 'enjoying their freedoms' (but not before enjoying those freedoms himself by buying with his government-issued credit card booze and strip clubs a few nights before September 11!); he ignores breathtaking targets like the White House or Capitol Hill; he could have nose-dived in a straight line onto the Pentagon. He does not. Instead he makes an almost impossible 270 degrees turn to park his plane into exactly that spot that solved all of Zakheim's problems. Isn't that considerate of Hanni! Most members of the recently installed team of accountants and controllers get killed and with them goes a lot of records that should have been used to make clear where those missing millions went. It is not difficult to come up with hypothesis about where that money went. Probably not to Norway.

So why was the front of the Pentagon hit, not Rumsfeld's office or the Chiefs of Staff? To eliminate the accountants who were investigating the missing $2.3 trillion announced by Rumsfeld a day earlier. The perps did not want the world finding out who had stolen the dosh.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: blackthorne
always wondered why that approach to the building. if the pilot wanted to do more damage, crashing into the building on the roof/from above would have been easier!

So why was the front of the Pentagon hit, not Rumsfeld's office or the Chiefs of Staff? To eliminate the accountants who were investigating the missing $2.3 trillion announced by Rumsfeld a day earlier. The perps did not want the world finding out who had stolen the dosh.

Now the world will never know about the missing $2.3 trillion that was announced the day before!!

Mwahahahahaha... Oh wait.

a reply to: micpsi

You do know that the pentagon pays filled contracts via the treasury department. How was hitting the pentagon going to destroy audit records conducted by other branches of government, the offsite backups, bank records of money transfers, negotiated contracts, treasury records, and all associated records at the vendor end?

Also, the flight recorder data shows somebody was flying flight 77 from the cockpit.

Hi, old buddy of mine.....what flight recorder.....

The one the boys told the world they discovered......oh

I need definite evidence, and can't discuss hearsay....and I think all should live their life the same way!!a reply to: neutronflux

a reply to: GBP/JPY

The flight recorder found at the pentagon? The flight recorder data backed by radar data and air traffic controllers. The flight recorder data backed by an in air pilot that confirmed the radar position and witnessed a passenger jet hit the pentagon. The jet that hit the pentagon witnessed and attested to by scores of civilians. The Flight Data Recorder referred to by Scientists for 9/11 Truth in their arguments the only credible explanation for the pentagon was a large jet impact. Items you have offered no rebuttals to?

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I think what continues to get lost in this thread is the discussion about what skill the pilot needed. It's in the title.

IMO it's conclusive that he needed a ton of skill to maneuver that size of jet. He had no training with that jet beyond a simulator and according to the last instructors to see him fly, 7 months prior to the incident, his skills were terrible and went beyond not knowing English.

They mention that his skills were so bad that they believe his pilots license may not be genuine.

I've used sports analogies in previous posts. You can say you are a lot of things but ultimately the golf course, the swimming pool, the ice rink, the baseball field, the boxing ring doesn't lie.

This guy could have all the paperwork in the world but he couldn't steer a Cessna let alone control a large plane. For anyone who says he could, I'd love to see your record as a pilot. It's no different than some idiot believing they could knock our Mike Tyson or beat up an MMA fighter.

Right you are. Personally, I am most skeptical that HH ever flew a 757 simulator. That claim arose only after the absurdity of his flying the maneuver in a 757 arose. Early flight records from Huffman said nothing about that. It was floated by those defending the official story and his hero status as a pilot. Funny,

a reply to: AndyMayhew

You've always assumed? That is the most honest statement I've read here perhaps.

We were taught in the Army that ASSUME makes an ass out of U and Me. You've proved it precious true.

Landing a Cessna is vastly different than what the story has Hani The Magnificent doing.

Honest statement #2 ? What sort of pilot license and experience do you have?

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: neutronflux

Point the nose of the jet at a building larger than 24 football fields

Except that his target wasn't a building larger than 24 football fields, it was one wall of the building not much higher than the aircraft itself.

Prove it.

Otherwise you're employing the Sharpshooter Fallacy and your opinion Is baseless.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I think what continues to get lost in this thread is the discussion about what skill the pilot needed. It's in the title.

IMO it's conclusive that he needed a ton of skill to maneuver that size of jet. He had no training with that jet beyond a simulator and according to the last instructors to see him fly, 7 months prior to the incident, his skills were terrible and went beyond not knowing English.

They mention that his skills were so bad that they believe his pilots license may not be genuine.

I've used sports analogies in previous posts. You can say you are a lot of things but ultimately the golf course, the swimming pool, the ice rink, the baseball field, the boxing ring doesn't lie.

This guy could have all the paperwork in the world but he couldn't steer a Cessna let alone control a large plane. For anyone who says he could, I'd love to see your record as a pilot. It's no different than some idiot believing they could knock our Mike Tyson or beat up an MMA fighter.

Right you are. Personally, I am most skeptical that HH ever flew a 757 simulator. That claim arose only after the absurdity of his flying the maneuver in a 757 arose. Early flight records from Huffman said nothing about that. It was floated by those defending the official story and his hero status as a pilot. Funny,

Let's start with the "absurdity of his flying the maneuver" you will not describe or reference.

Flight 77 went into a 300 degree turn with a five mile radius that took over 2 minutes. The sloppy turn was between 200 to 300 knots. Well above stall speed and under cursing speed. Flight 77 lined up on the pentagon, started its bumpy descent, the the throttles were worked to wide open, then the crash into the pentagon. During the descent, hitting an antenna, trees, light poles and a concrete lip along the way with no finesse. Like a bull charging to its target.


What the hell is the "maneuver"? It's like a Jerry Seinfeld episode.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: AndyMayhew

You've always assumed? That is the most honest statement I've read here perhaps.

We were taught in the Army that ASSUME makes an ass out of U and Me. You've proved it precious true.

Landing a Cessna is vastly different than what the story has Hani The Magnificent doing.

Honest statement #2 ? What sort of pilot license and experience do you have?

What do you think should happen with Hanjour in the pilot's seat? That flight 77 should crash?