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

a reply to: Jacobu12

Not, it's not. Reference the flight data from radar and the flight recorder, and what speeds were reached when. The descent was bumpy but steady downward into the pentagon. The descent started at low speed and ended at high speed do to the throttles being worked from low power to high power during the descent.

neutronflux? Can you say sorry now? All official sources

For velocity we turn to the official account that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at "530 miles per hour" (The 9/11 Commission Report, p10).

This should be an eye opener for you. How did the plane strike the Pentagon then?
Neither Hani Hanjour -- the alleged pilot trainee "noted for incompetence", nor the Boeing 757, would have been in any condition to fly with "the top of the fuselage of the aircraft no more than 20 ft above the ground" (Pentagon Building Performance Report, p14).

a reply to: Jacobu12

There is no magic speed that makes planes suddenly fall apart. The aircraft accelerated during the descent. If they had continued at low altitude it would have begun decelerating pretty quickly.

a reply to: Jacobu12

It was a clear sunny day with unlimited visibility so no instrument flying required. All it took was to visually ID the target, line the plane up and keep the building in the cockpit window while maxing out the throttles, no miracles required. It's assumed that HH was in the pilot's seat because the hijack teams consisted of a trained pilot with a crew of muscle to get him into the cockpit, just a logical conclusion made in that regard.

Your point about the traffic camera is interesting though and I'd like to find out a bit more more about that (like was it recording that morning?)

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

There is no magic speed that makes planes suddenly fall apart. The aircraft accelerated during the descent. If they had continued at low altitude it would have begun decelerating pretty quickly.

They fooled a nation the conspirators that's just the reality if you look at the evidence. Missing camera footage, no luggage , no wing parts, bad pilot who can't control a Cesna, but 3 weeks later can pilot a commercial airliner 20feet from the ground at 530mph. Is a joke this conpiracy has lasted as long it has. We got blame the media or the conspirators are doing a job to cover their tracks and keep this narrative going.

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: Jacobu12

It was a clear sunny day with unlimited visibility so no instrument flying required. All it took was to visually ID the target, line the plane up and keep the building in the cockpit window while maxing out the throttles, no miracles required. It's assumed that HH was in the pilot's seat because the hijack teams consisted of a trained pilot with a crew of muscle to get him into the cockpit, just a logical conclusion made in that regard.

Your point about the traffic camera is interesting though and I'd like to find out a bit more more about that (like was it recording that morning?)

He's a terrible pilot that's the double whammy. He could not control this plane at that speed and at 20 feet above the ground. It just fantasy when you think about it. Nobody has ever tried to do this with commercial passenger jet? You probably kill the pilot trying it.

a reply to: Jacobu12

There you go again, trying to make it seem like he flew 20 feet off the ground for miles, when the reality is that it was less than 10 seconds just prior to impact. Once again you try to make it into something it wasn't.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

There you go again, trying to make it seem like he flew 20 feet off the ground for miles, when the reality is that it was less than 10 seconds just prior to impact. Once again you try to make it into something it wasn't.

He had to descent the plane and then keep it from nosediving to the ground or going off course. An inexperienced pilot is not going pull this off. I wait for conclusive proof ( video footage) to see this to believe. Anyway i leaving for now i reply again if i find something interesting about 9/11.

a reply to: Jacobu12

A descending spiral is not that hard of a maneuver. He was in more danger of leveling off too late than he was nose diving into the ground. And all he had to do to prevent that was level off early and descend the rest of the way in level flight.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

A descending spiral is not that hard of a maneuver. He was in more danger of leveling off too late than he was nose diving into the ground. And all he had to do to prevent that was level off early and descend the rest of the way in level flight.

More evidence of a cover up. This guy has video of eyewitnesses accounts. This mans channel is very important

They saw a plane northward not southward. The plane has to hit southward for the official narrative to be believable.

We know there was another 747 in the area before the Pentagon got hit. They maybe is a decoy.
www.youtube.com...

Guys channel, smoking gun evidence if they are correct?
www.youtube.com...

Pilotsfor911truth has been able to demonstrate the fdr data has a few errors of detail. The kinds of details a forgery would get wrong. Especially if the forgery were prepared in advance, prior to the attack.

1 - The plane leaves from the wrong gate at takeoff.

(Perhaps the data is showing it leaving from the gate it was expected to leave from, but later it got changed? So the forger had set it to the gate they thought it would leave from?)

2 - The plane is about 300 meters too high when it approaches the pentagon.

(This is based on the pressure reader showing 29.92 inHg. While local ground level pressure was at 30.22 inHG. Perhaps the person making the forgery had been relying on a weather report that predicted a ground level pressure of 29.92 inHg? )

a reply to: Jacobu12

James Fetzer, is a moron. As is Craig Ranke, Dylan Avery and the assorted other idiots they worked with to badger/edit witness accounts to make their idiotic videos that help them make a living off people who do not want to research.

a reply to: Jacobu12

There was ONE 747 in the area, and it wasn't Flight 77. It was an E-4B that left Andrews AFTER 77 hit.

Why is it so hard for you to understand it wasn't a 747?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

OR, they started moving before the INS was fully aligned.

Pilots for 911 Truth, was run off of ATS long ago because there are too many aviation professionals on here that called them on their BS....ESPECIALLY on their attempts to portray the FDR data the way they do.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

There was ONE 747 in the area, and it wasn't Flight 77. It was an E-4B that left Andrews AFTER 77 hit.

Why is it so hard for you to understand it wasn't a 747?

We don't know when it got first sighted and this kind of plane the conspirators would use as a decoy. Eyewitnesses saw the plane Northward not Southward. The plane is off course to hit the Pentagon.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

James Fetzer, is a moron. As is Craig Ranke, Dylan Avery and the assorted other idiots they worked with to badger/edit witness accounts to make their idiotic videos that help them make a living off people who do not want to research.

Come on he interviewed least 13 eyewitnesses, they all saw the plane northward.

a reply to: Jacobu12

He is misrepresenting facts and his big "point" about north of/south of actually means zilch.

@Jacobu12..... Yes, and no landing gear marks on the concrete floor going in.....

Stuff like that, turbines ,too.......no marks.....men

a reply to: Jacobu12

We know exactly when the E-4B took off, and when it was seen over the Pentagon. An E-4B would not be used for a decoy under any circumstances, no matter what you think.

Flight 77 was a 757.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

The gear was not down. Why would you think it would make marks on the concrete?