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

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

As opposed to misquoting people, taking things out of context, ignoring physical evidence you mean?

So he couldn't land. When exactly was he going to land Flight 77? He needed enough skill to crash the plane. He didn't need to land it. The evidence all points to a poor pilot that barely managed to hit the building.

The journalist was lying? I think you have an agenda? He quoted what they said and you trying to discredit it. I going to continue believing they know more about him and he's performance handling a Cesna

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

Can you quote a instructor that said Hanjour didn't have the skills to crash a in air jet into the pentagon.

He can't control a Cesna. Why would i believe he could to fly a commercial passenger jet?

Can you cite a source that actually quotes Baxter or Conner that Hanjour couldn't maneuver a Cessna.

Not a news article that states the report's paraphrased opinion?

Let's attack the journalist now because it don't fit with my narrative..

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

You didn't the specific engine. You said if it was a turbofan it proves the Pentagon story wrong. It's already been proven it couldn't be from a missile so it had to come from an aircraft. So how does it prove the story wrong if it's a turbofan.

I said it looked like a Turbofan disk, never said anything about a engine type. The stubby part sticking out just remained me of that.

We have no footage of a plane crashing at a pentagon. You have a security camera still of a blur white object.

You were wrong. Security cameras produced two different views of flight 77 from two different cameras. Not one.

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

Pentagon Security Videos: Recent work on the video from two Pentagon security cameras shows that they captured images of the approaching, low-flying plane. In his paper “The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras,” Ken Jenkins explains the images, how the date error came about, and the likely origins for the trailing white smoke. There is no evidence at this time that the government is withholding other images of the event captured by the surveillance cameras.

Ken Jenkins and David Chandler also recently took pairs of sequential images from the Pentagon surveillance video cameras, putting them together as you would see them in what is called a blink comparator. In this way, the image of the plane “pops out.” If you watch the image cycle a few times, the details of the plane are clearly visible. You can find the blink comparisons on David Chandler’s website, 911SpeakOut.org.

Blink Comparator Views of
the Plane at the Pentagon

By David Chandler, based on prior work by Ken Jenkins
911speakout.org...

Except for the white smoke trail, the presence of a plane was not recognized by most people due to several factors:

The low contrast between the backlit plane and the complex background.
The extreme wide angle lens and low resolution of the video camera/recorder.
Some blurring due to the motion of the fast moving plane.
The small scale, low quality images that have circulated on the internet.

Now the physics of wide angle lenses and how they distort lines and images is a conspiracy along with call forwarding?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

You didn't the specific engine. You said if it was a turbofan it proves the Pentagon story wrong. It's already been proven it couldn't be from a missile so it had to come from an aircraft. So how does it prove the story wrong if it's a turbofan.

I said it looked like a Turbofan disk, never said anything about a engine type. The stubby part sticking out just remained me of that.

We have no footage of a plane crashing at a pentagon. You have a security camera still of a blur white object.

You were wrong. Security cameras produced two different views of flight 77 from two different cameras. Not one.

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

Pentagon Security Videos: Recent work on the video from two Pentagon security cameras shows that they captured images of the approaching, low-flying plane. In his paper “The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras,” Ken Jenkins explains the images, how the date error came about, and the likely origins for the trailing white smoke. There is no evidence at this time that the government is withholding other images of the event captured by the surveillance cameras.

Ken Jenkins and David Chandler also recently took pairs of sequential images from the Pentagon surveillance video cameras, putting them together as you would see them in what is called a blink comparator. In this way, the image of the plane “pops out.” If you watch the image cycle a few times, the details of the plane are clearly visible. You can find the blink comparisons on David Chandler’s website, 911SpeakOut.org.

Blink Comparator Views of
the Plane at the Pentagon

By David Chandler, based on prior work by Ken Jenkins
911speakout.org...

Except for the white smoke trail, the presence of a plane was not recognized by most people due to several factors:

The low contrast between the backlit plane and the complex background.
The extreme wide angle lens and low resolution of the video camera/recorder.
Some blurring due to the motion of the fast moving plane.
The small scale, low quality images that have circulated on the internet.

Now the physics of wide angle lenses and how they distort lines and images is a conspiracy along with call forwarding?

It's same camera footage near the security box. If we got new footage it be lot closer to the impact site. And the traffic footage, in color by the way, is still confiscated not released.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

Can you quote a instructor that said Hanjour didn't have the skills to crash a in air jet into the pentagon.

He can't control a Cesna. Why would i believe he could to fly a commercial passenger jet?

Can you cite a source that actually quotes Baxter or Conner that Hanjour couldn't maneuver a Cessna.

Not a news article that states the report's paraphrased opinion?

Let's attack the journalist now because it don't fit with my narrative..

Can you actually quote Baxter and Conner?

You are implying things you pass off as quotes by Baxter and Conner without knowing their actual statements. The referenced items you presented as quoted from Baxter and Conner are not quotes. It's paraphrasing through a reporter's opinion without knowing the actual statements.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

You didn't the specific engine. You said if it was a turbofan it proves the Pentagon story wrong. It's already been proven it couldn't be from a missile so it had to come from an aircraft. So how does it prove the story wrong if it's a turbofan.

I said it looked like a Turbofan disk, never said anything about a engine type. The stubby part sticking out just remained me of that.

We have no footage of a plane crashing at a pentagon. You have a security camera still of a blur white object.

You were wrong. Security cameras produced two different views of flight 77 from two different cameras. Not one.

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

Pentagon Security Videos: Recent work on the video from two Pentagon security cameras shows that they captured images of the approaching, low-flying plane. In his paper “The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras,” Ken Jenkins explains the images, how the date error came about, and the likely origins for the trailing white smoke. There is no evidence at this time that the government is withholding other images of the event captured by the surveillance cameras.

Ken Jenkins and David Chandler also recently took pairs of sequential images from the Pentagon surveillance video cameras, putting them together as you would see them in what is called a blink comparator. In this way, the image of the plane “pops out.” If you watch the image cycle a few times, the details of the plane are clearly visible. You can find the blink comparisons on David Chandler’s website, 911SpeakOut.org.

Blink Comparator Views of
the Plane at the Pentagon

By David Chandler, based on prior work by Ken Jenkins
911speakout.org...

Except for the white smoke trail, the presence of a plane was not recognized by most people due to several factors:

The low contrast between the backlit plane and the complex background.
The extreme wide angle lens and low resolution of the video camera/recorder.
Some blurring due to the motion of the fast moving plane.
The small scale, low quality images that have circulated on the internet.

Now the physics of wide angle lenses and how they distort lines and images is a conspiracy along with call forwarding?

It's same camera footage near the security box. If we got new footage it be lot closer to the impact site. And the traffic footage, in color by the way, is still confiscated not released.

It was images captured by two different devices. You said there was images from only one device. You were wrong.

a reply to: Jacobu12

No, he reported what they said. You and others are taking a number of quotes out of context, misquoting people and ignoring physical evidence to make it look like what he did was some incredible bit of flying.

I didn't attack the journalist at all. But I can back up, and have, that you and others have consistently misquoted people and ignored other quotes.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

No, he reported what they said. You and others are taking a number of quotes out of context, misquoting people and ignoring physical evidence to make it look like what he did was some incredible bit of flying.

I wrote what the journalist said about Hanjour. What part is out of context? Journalist interviewed the instructors and they gave their feedback. Hanjour could not control or land a Cesna plane! So if true why you believing, same guy, could control a commercial jet after the hijacking? If there was a pilot and a real plane that crashed. Hanjour was not the pilot.

In August 2001, less than one month before 9/11, Hanjour took flight lessons at Freeway Airport in Bowie, Maryland.[64] As the New York Times observed, Hanjour “still seemed to lack proficiency at flying”. When he showed up “asking to rent a single-engine plane”, he attempted three flights with two different instructors, and yet “was unable to prove that he had the necessary skills” to be allowed to rent the plane. “He seemed rusty at everything,” said Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at the school.[65] The Washington Post similarly reported that to “the flight instructors at Freeway Airport in Bowie”, Hanjour “was just a bad pilot.” And “after supervising Hanjour on a series of oblong circles above the airport and Chesapeake Bay, the instructors refused to pass him because his skills were so poor, Bernard said. ‘I feel darn lucky it went the way it did,’ Bernard said, crediting his instructors for their good judgment and high standards.”[66] The London Telegraph also reported that Hanjour claimed to have 600 hours of flight time, “but performed so poorly on test flights that instructors would not let him fly alone.”[67] Newsday reported that when flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner took Hanjour on three check rides, “they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172.”[68] The Los Angeles Times reported, “‘We have a level of standards that we hold all our pilots to, and he couldn’t meet it,” said the manager of the flight school. Hanjour could not handle basic air maneuvers, the manager said.”[69]

Similarly quoted was George Williams, a pilot for Northwest Airlines for 38 years, who said, “I don’t see any merit to those arguments [that Hanjour couldn’t have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon].


Hanjour could not handle basic air maneuvers, the flight school manager said.”[69] ( August) 2001

But Williams was apparently similarly unaware, when he was asked to comment, of the plane’s final descending maneuver; or of the fact that this maneuver put the plane on a path that reduced the margin to a mere 26.5 feet (a few feet lower, the plane crashes into the ground; a few feet higher, the plane overshoots the target); or that the plane wasn’t flying at a constant airspeed, but was rather accelerating rapidly, thus creating more lift that needed compensating for with subtle precision in order to stay within that margin for error; or that the plane wasn’t just ambling along at something near landing speed, but was screaming along at an incredible 530 mph. To put that into perspective, cruising speed for airliners is about 600 mph at 30,000 feet of altitude, where the air is less dense. At sea-level that would be equivalent to about 300 mph hour, about double safe landing speed. A velocity of 530 mph at sea-level would be supersonic speed if it were possible to maintain at cruising altitude.[78]

a reply to: Jacobu12

What's being taken out of context is you and others claiming that the maneuver at the Pentagon was some incredibly precise maneuver that only an incredibly experienced ace pilot could pull off, when all the data points to the exact opposite.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

No, he reported what they said. You and others are taking a number of quotes out of context, misquoting people and ignoring physical evidence to make it look like what he did was some incredible bit of flying.

I wrote what the journalist said about Hanjour. What part is out of context? Journalist interviewed the instructors and they gave their feedback. Hanjour could not control or land a Cesna plane! So if true why you believing, same guy, could control a commercial jet after the hijacking? If there was a pilot and a real plane that crashed. Hanjour was not the pilot.

You were using Baxter and Conner as sources of authority without actually knowing what they said and in what context.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

What's being taken out of context is you and others claiming that the maneuver at the Pentagon was some incredibly precise maneuver that only an incredibly experienced ace pilot could pull off, when all the data points to the exact opposite.

It was a difficult maneuver and just highlighted the difficulty already in my post above. Hanjour never showed the skill he could pull this off. He could not control a small plane, with no passengers, a light load. And never mind we still got no footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon, even though, we know there was at least 3 security cameras facing the direction of the impact that day. Traffic camera footage from that day where is it? Why is the camera footage of this event still hidden till this day? If just middle east hijackers and nothing else, you be releasing all footage with no delay.

originally posted by: Jacobu12
Similarly quoted was George Williams, a pilot for Northwest Airlines for 38 years, who said, “I don’t see any merit to those arguments [that Hanjour couldn’t have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon].


Hanjour could not handle basic air maneuvers, the flight school manager said.”[69] ( August) 2001

But Williams was apparently similarly unaware, when he was asked to comment, of the plane’s final descending maneuver; or of the fact that this maneuver put the plane on a path that reduced the margin to a mere 26.5 feet (a few feet lower, the plane crashes into the ground; a few feet higher, the plane overshoots the target); or that the plane wasn’t flying at a constant airspeed, but was rather accelerating rapidly, thus creating more lift that needed compensating for with subtle precision in order to stay within that margin for error; or that the plane wasn’t just ambling along at something near landing speed, but was screaming along at an incredible 530 mph. To put that into perspective, cruising speed for airliners is about 600 mph at 30,000 feet of altitude, where the air is less dense. At sea-level that would be equivalent to about 300 mph hour, about double safe landing speed. A velocity of 530 mph at sea-level would be supersonic speed if it were possible to maintain at cruising altitude.[78]

Hanjour pointed the jet at the pentagon and started his descent which was bumpy and not precise. Hanjour had the throttles on low power until the jet was lined up and in its descent. He worked the throttles up to full while on the descent to the pentagon. the high rate of speed was obtained while in The descent to the pentagon. The high rate of speed was for a very short duration, eased into, and the only maneuver during the high rate of speed was the descent.


The jet almost crashed short of the pentagon as attested to by the contact evidence in the low concrete wall in front of the pentagon

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

What's being taken out of context is you and others claiming that the maneuver at the Pentagon was some incredibly precise maneuver that only an incredibly experienced ace pilot could pull off, when all the data points to the exact opposite.

It was a difficult maneuver and just highlighted the difficulty already in my post above. Hanjour never showed the skill he could pull this off. He could not control a small plane, with no passengers, a light load. And never mind we still got no footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon, even though, we know there was at least 3 security cameras facing the direction of the impact that day. Traffic camera footage from that day where is it? Why is the camera footage of this event still hidden till this day? If just middle east hijackers and nothing else, you be releasing all footage with no delay.

You are creating a false narrative by using an incorrect description of flight 77's descent.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

What's being taken out of context is you and others claiming that the maneuver at the Pentagon was some incredibly precise maneuver that only an incredibly experienced ace pilot could pull off, when all the data points to the exact opposite.

It was a difficult maneuver and just highlighted the difficulty already in my post above. Hanjour never showed the skill he could pull this off. He could not control a small plane, with no passengers, a light load. And never mind we still got no footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon, even though, we know there was at least 3 security cameras facing the direction of the impact that day. Traffic camera footage from that day where is it? Why is the camera footage of this event still hidden till this day? If just middle east hijackers and nothing else, you be releasing all footage with no delay.

You are creating a false narrative by using an incorrect description of flight 77's descent.

It's not incorrect. What i said is this official account of the flight.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

No, he reported what they said. You and others are taking a number of quotes out of context, misquoting people and ignoring physical evidence to make it look like what he did was some incredible bit of flying.

I wrote what the journalist said about Hanjour. What part is out of context? Journalist interviewed the instructors and they gave their feedback. Hanjour could not control or land a Cesna plane! So if true why you believing, same guy, could control a commercial jet after the hijacking? If there was a pilot and a real plane that crashed. Hanjour was not the pilot.

You were using Baxter and Conner as sources of authority without actually knowing what they said and in what context.

Context to what? Hanjour was a terrible pilot and they said he could not control or land a Cesna. Why would they lie?

a reply to: Jacobu12

Provide the name of the individual and the actual quote Hanjour could not maneuver a Cesna.

a reply to: Jacobu12

No, it wasn't. Look, again, a standard rate turn is known as a two minute turn. It takes two minutes to turn 360 degrees. A decent pilot that knows what he's doing and has halfway decent skills can do this after a few hours of training.

Flight 77 took almost 3 1/2 minutes to turn less than 360 degrees. That means he didn't even have the skills to pull off a standard rate turn.

It took him something like 5 miles to complete the turn. That's a pretty piss poor turn. That's from the primary radar data from the airport.

If you accept the FDR data, during the descent the controls are constantly moving and the aircraft is proposing the entire time. He's all over the place while descending. Everything points to him being a piss poor pilot who could barely fly the plane.

a reply to: Jacobu12

And he was. It's obvious by the data from the Pentagon. Even a poor pilot can crash a plane into a building.