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

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Salander
Yes, I wonder if it is easier to hack into an Airbus than it is to hack into a Boeing?

Why don't you do the research and post how each would be hacked? Like stating what data connection are available, which way the data can flow through the connections, what sections of memory are accessed, and if any flight controls can be accessed. Or if the hack would require physically splicing into the system.

That would require honest research, and one of the prerequisites of becoming a conspiracy believer in the first place is an aversion to doing that.

I'm thinking of an aversion like how Dracula has an aversion to sunlight.

One of the prerequisites of believing the official story is to ask no questions at all of government sources.

Well since I DON'T believe all of it nor do I believe guv sources.... now what?

I personally believe it was what Kean (?) said at the beginning, that they were meant to fail. However, that doesn't mean that I believe 9/11 was an inside job.

IMHO, the 9/11 Commission Report was a total whitewash about how badly the intelligence community failed, mainly due to Clinton/Gorelick's "wall". Which explains why SHE was on the Commission.

And also IMHO, the NIST Report was a whitewash regarding the building code variances and/or fire code variances that the Rockefellers were allowed to build the towers. And a whitewash about building 7 over a power station with a crap load of sketchy load transfer trusses. And a whitewash about just how poorly the fire retarding application was done ( by mobbed up contractors).

IOW - politics protecting the rich and powerful.

Not what you thought, I bet?

a reply to: yorkshirelad

the hijackers were a bunch of run of the mill arabs. 4 of them had come to me to train them. their english was not good. they wanted to fly 747 like jets to start to learn flying. needless to say i sent them to the owner of the flying school who promptly chased them out.

a reply to: neutronflux

Much easier to just fly the damn plane. Full throttles and small inputs is not very hard.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: neutronflux

Much easier to just fly the damn plane. Full throttles and small inputs is not very hard.

Easier said than done. If you are descending and turning thru 270 deg, the throttle is usually full back. higher the airspeed bigger is the radius of turn.
I haven't read any reports of 9/11 tho

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

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

About the same level of skill that it would take to beat the fourth level of world 6. of super mario 3. Quite a feat but far from impossible.

Basically it may require some hand eye coordination, at lest a few hands on approach and maybe a few tries, definitely get your hands on the controls more then a few times, oh and some sharpened pencils. If you beat the whole game or any Super Mario game for that matter. Well, if so? Then then you may be overqualified to fly a plane into a building.

Oh! And the ability to jump on gumbas is probably a must, just think of them as passengers. And seeing none of the hijackers had any of those skills, excepting the sharpened pencils skill. Well!

Cool story bro. But it makes so little sense. However, flying a big plane, into a bigger building, well it should not be that hard with a bit of practice, theoretically speaking ya know. And if your stupid enough to do it, that is. Question is, who practices to crash? Its just not done, most pilots or people practice not to crash. The total and complete opposite of crashing.

When you find who practices crashing, and how long would they practice crashing before they figure out its not cost effective, then you will find your culprits. Or not, does any of this matter now? I suppose it must for some as you all are talking about it. Strange world we live in.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Easier said than done. If you are descending and turning thru 270 deg, the throttle is usually full back. higher the airspeed bigger is the radius of turn.
I haven't read any reports of 9/11 tho

I'm not sure when they started the full power, but you can hear it in the video on the straight away. Slight decent with full power on your line up is what I'm thinking. I'm not sure the distance they had from a 270 but they didn't need to be at full power for that to quickly get there once they lined up.

a reply to: MrBig2430


That they were set up to fail means something. It means somebody has something to hide, somebody does not want the truth to get out. Humans are that way, keeping secrets from their parents when young, and otherwise deceiving fellow humans. When two or more do it, they call it conspiracy. Obviously, one cannot conspire with oneself.

So if the truth is being obscured, what does that mean to you in analyzing the event?

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: yorkshirelad

the hijackers were a bunch of run of the mill arabs. 4 of them had come to me to train them. their english was not good. they wanted to fly 747 like jets to start to learn flying. needless to say i sent them to the owner of the flying school who promptly chased them out.

Atta and his posse did exist, and identification papers are easy to come by if you're properly connected, but otherwise "the hijackers" in the story of the day were but characters in a drama, like a movie.

There is nothing to prove those flights were hijacked that day, and a fair amount of data exists to show that at least one did not even fly.

Nobody can prove any of those flights were hijacked, and it's certain that there was no airliner at Shanksville.

Huffman Aviation must have been a cool experience.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33 Ask the Hollywood Producers about the Twin Towers. Why did Buliding 7 Go down we knew that no planes hit that building, later on in the afternoon met a same fate.

a reply to: Salander

Other than jet wreckage at the towers, the right flight records and wreckage at shanksville and the pentagon, the jet wreckage identified by identifying numbers, jets missing from inventory, families missing members, human remains identified by DNA, calls from the jets reporting the hijackings, recorded cockpit struggles, paper trail of individuals bent on conducting a suicide mission, radar records of jets taking off and going off course, and explaining how human piloted jets purposefully crashed? I guess there is no evidence if you want to ignore it and have a biased view.

a reply to: Salander

I recognized the jokers when their photographs came out in the papers.
tho b4 i met those jokers my plane for the multi engine instructor check ride was sabotaged, which
would have surely killed me and the examiner, had i not found out about the sabotage on my pre flight checks.

Neutron that is not so. My brother

The chopper news crew said no debris dumbbunny

At both locations.....I saw the jet ranger and longranger bell choppers as it occurred.

We have the video of A B C even here at ATS...with the ground reporter saying ita reply to: neutronflux

a reply to: GBP/JPY

One, the jet pushed into the pentagon, so why wouldn't the bulk of the wreckage end up in the pentagon.

Two, the chopper was in the air? Not exactly that good at seeing the small bits of wreckage on the ground.

Three, how close did the helicopter fly to the smoke pouring out of the pentagon. Lots of incentive not to fly directly over the pentagon.

Why didn't a bomb /missile explode the interior out into the lawn. So you contradict your own theory dumb-bunny.

Then add you do not link to the video and provide evidence how close the chopper flew over a military building just attacked with smoke pouring out?

a reply to: MrBig2430

Your right shabby construction along with a very poor design. They will no longer make a building which uses exterior supports. Every design school in the country learns not to build that design again. The archetects thought they were cutting edge. In truth they taught everyone what not to do. My brother and law is an archetect and believe it or not they spent 3 weeks on the world Trade Center using it as an example of poor planning. Two things he told me that caused it fire suppression system failed. And the other major factor is he said they created a furnace because the wind fed the fire. Just as you can melt steal usING coal and a bellow coal isn't hit enough to melt steal on its own.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


That they were set up to fail means something. It means somebody has something to hide, somebody does not want the truth to get out.

Yes, I agreed that the 9/11 Commission Report was a whitewash. IOW, in my opinion they are hiding the truth about how the intelligence failures occurred, and I gave a hint about who I feel was mainly responsible.

To expand on that, it was a whitewash to hide that "the wall" , while good intentioned when Clinton had it put into place, resulted in poor communication between agencies. It was put into place so that evidence collected through search warrants etc by the FBI wouldn't be tainted if the info and evidence to obtain those search warrants came from the CIA, which isn't required to follow the same rules.

The whole reason for this mess is because Clinton, being a lawyer, wanted to prosecute terrorists AFTER THE EVENT rather than preventing it. IOW, he #ed up big time, and Gorelick was on the commission to protect his legacy cuz..... the Clinton political machine always had designs for Hillary becoming president.

So why did Bush and his cronies go along with it? Cuz he had other plans. He wanted to go after Saddam and Al Quiada and knew that gutting the CIA and FBI would be counterproductive to his plans - he needed those experienced guys in place.

So there's the conspiracy you're looking for.

Powerful politicians scratching each other's back, hiding the truth for the intelligence failures to further their own political plans.

And guess what? It even satisfies your criteria of not trusting the guv sources AND it doesn't require some crazy conspiracy involving hundreds to make it happen.

So if the truth is being obscured, what does that mean to you in analyzing the event?

It means that unlike what you assume, I don't rely on guv sources for my information and can think for myself. It means that I read between the lines. But I don't discard any source either just because it's from crazy truthers

See, you don't do that. You automatically reject everything from guv sources cuz you assume everything they say is a lie. You display zero judgment in evaluating your sources and it has led you to believe in some crazy 9/11 was an inside job conspiracy involving nukes and no planes and to make obviously false claims about being a pilot etc. IOW, your opinion obviously is seriously delusional and ill informed.

a reply to: Hyperboles


Probably 10 years later, I talked to a lady who had worked at the Venice Airport when all that was going on. She said many of the locals knew there was some sort of CIA connection, some spooky connection, with Huffman Aviation.

Inside job all the way.

a reply to: MrBig2430


To me, the dead giveaway that somebody had something to hide was when President Bush and VP Cheney tried to hard to avoid an investigation of any sort. All that was covered in the documentary "Press For Truth".

I know that if I was POTUS when it happened, and I had clean hands, I would have immediately ordered an investigation.

But George and Dick refused to have one. Then, when they finally succumbed to all the political pressure, they wanted Henry Kissinger to head it up. Ludicrous, shades of Richard Nixon. LOL

Somebody had ALOT to hide...

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Hyperboles


Probably 10 years later, I talked to a lady who had worked at the Venice Airport when all that was going on. She said many of the locals knew there was some sort of CIA connection, some spooky connection, with Huffman Aviation.

Inside job all the way.

Is this like you claiming you are a pilot? Did you claim flight 77 made impossible maneuvers? What are you talking about? You back that no jet's were not hijacked. You back the pentagon jet didn't hit. You back a small military jet hit the pentagon. You back no jet hit the pentagon. You back a missile or bomb used at the pentagon. You also back flight 77 was remote controlled. You back no jet impact at shanksville. How does this support all your contradictions. You have no credibility! And your are shameless.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


To me, the dead giveaway that somebody had something to hide was when President Bush and VP Cheney tried to hard to avoid an investigation of any sort. All that was covered in the documentary "Press For Truth".

I know that if I was POTUS when it happened, and I had clean hands, I would have immediately ordered an investigation.

But George and Dick refused to have one. Then, when they finally succumbed to all the political pressure, they wanted Henry Kissinger to head it up. Ludicrous, shades of Richard Nixon. LOL

Somebody had ALOT to hide...

Yes, again I agree. They had a lot to hide.

You think they had 9/11 was an inside jobby job involving nukes, no plane in Shanksville or the Pentagon BUT real, switched planes at the towers, and I shudder to think what else.

I think they had politics as usual to hide.

You reference Sir Occam above. Whose side do you believe he's on?

a reply to: MrBig2430


Occam has been dead for a long time, so he is on nobody's side.

But his theory is still quite useful in analyzing events with the luxury of hindsight, which we have.

We might apply his "razor" to many events. For example, the reason nobody at Shanksville could see, touch, photograph or video a wrecked airliner in that field is because there was no airliner in that field.

Or, the reason it appeared that Bush had something to hide in not wanting to investigate is because he DID have something to hide. He remedied the situation however, by having Zelikow supervise the Commission, and that is in general what Kean and Hamilton were alluding to in saying they were set up to fail.