WTC: Were the planes drones, how hard is flying a 767 into a building?

[Fred259]

[Admin: thread extracted from https://www.metabunk.org/showthread.php?p=22752#post22752 and title changed]

Well, would you agree that we know that:

1. Planes flew into WTC1 and WTC2, damaging them
2. There were big fires that lasted about an hour
3. Both towers collapsed in a manner consistent with progressive collapse
4. WTC7 was damaged, and fires burned in it for hours
5. WTC7 collapsed, with the interior collapse preceding the exterior

?

Disagree with any of that?

Yes. Point number 1 needs to be corrected.

Delete the word "Planes" and instead insert Drones. A pilot-less drone is of course still an aircraft, but it was not a Boeing 757 or 767 as widely assumed.

Here the London Telegraph and the BBC report as far back as 23 September 2001 that the so called Muslims hijackers are actually alive and well so forget them.

If the buildings were hit by anything they were pilot-less drones. This doesn't change anything of course because we still need to establish who are the real terrorists . However the fuel load would need to be recalculated.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor.../Revealed-the-men-with-stolen-identities.html


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1559151.stm 23 September 2001

Abdulaziz Alomari.


Abdulaziz Alomari was identified by the FBI as the hijacker who accompanied Mohamed Atta from the connecting flight from Portland and helped him hijack and pilot Flight 11 into the North Tower. Abdulaziz told the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper: "The name
[listed by the FBI] is my name and the birth date is the same as mine, but I am not the one who bombed the World Trade Center in New York." Saudi Embassy officials in Washington defended the innocence of Alomari, saying that his passport was stolen in 1996 and that he had reported the theft to the police.


Saeed Alghamdi.


Saeed Alghamdi, a Saudi Airlines pilot, was identified by the FBI of being a hijacker of Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania. Alghamdi was "shocked and furious" to learn this three days after the attack, noting that his name, place of residence, date of birth, and occupation matched those described by the FBI. "You cannot imagine what it is like to be described as a terrorist - and a dead man - when you are innocent and alive," said Alghamdi, who considered legal action against the FBI.
Salem Al-Hamzi.


Al-Hamzi was identified by the FBI as one of the hijackers of Flight 77, thought to have crashed into the Pen*tagon. Al-Hamzi said: "I have never been to the United States and have not been out of Saudi Arabia in the past two years."


Ahmed Al-Nami.


Al-Nami was identified by the FBI as one of the hijackers of Flight 93. Al-Nami said: "I'm still alive, as you can see. I was shocked to see my name mentioned by the American Justice Department. I had never even heard of Pennsylvania where the plane I was supposed to have hijacked."


Waleed Alshehri.


Waleed Alshehri, a Saudi Arabian pilot, was identified by the FBI as one of the hijackers of Flight 11. Alshehri turned up in Morocco after the attack where he contacted both the Saudi and American authorities to tell them he was not involved in the attack.


Abdulrahman al-Omari.


Abdulrahman al-Omari, a Saudi Airlines pilot, was identified by the FBI as one of the hijackers of Flight 11. After learning this, he visited the US consulate in Jeddah to demand an explanation. Ameer and Adnan Bukhari.


Ameer and Adnan Bukhari were named by CNN as suspected hijackers of Flight 175, the jetliner which crashed into the South Tower, in an article dated 9/13/01. In a correction, CNN stated that Ameer Bukhari died in a small plane crash in Florida, and that Adnan was still alive in Florida, having passed a polygraph test to confirm his innocence.

 

[Met Watch]

Yes. Point number 1 needs to be corrected.

Delete the word "Planes" and instead insert Drones. A pilot-less drone is of course still an aircraft, but it was not a Boeing 757 or 767 as widely assumed.

Here the London Telegraph and the BBC report as far back as 23 September 2001 that the so called Muslims hijackers are actually alive and well so forget them.

If the buildings were hit by anything they were pilot-less drones. This doesn't change anything of course because we still need to establish who are the real terrorists . However the fuel load would need to be recalculated.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor.../Revealed-the-men-with-stolen-identities.html


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1559151.stm 23 September 2001

You're beating a dead horse. This has been debunked countless times.

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

 

[Fred259]

You're beating a dead horse. This has been debunked countless times.

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

The problem Plane 852 is you produce some report and call it debunked.

I take great issue with your report. It clearly points to US Government involvement which is not the case. It was NOT a False Flag operation. It was deliberate attack to destroy key evidence that had been gathered by the FBI to support a court case in New York on 9 October 2001.

The offices targeted in the Twin Towers; buildings 1, 2, 6 and 7, and Pentagon unknowingly held information which if exposed, subsequently would expose a national security secret of unimaginable magnitude. Protecting that secret was the motivation for the September 11th attacks.

With respect Plane852 your myths of 9/11 website along with 95% of the so called truth moment is controlled and manipulated by the very people the FBI were trying to convict and jail for monstrous criminal acts.

Its these same people who then feed total nonsense topics like chemtrails and much more thus controlling the agenda and discrediting anyone focusing on who was really behind these criminal acts.

Here is a man who does know.

Bob Kerrey, the man who headed the US government investigation into 911, in an unrehearsed 83 second video taken in a hotel or convention center lobby stated emphatically that, "911 was a 30 year conspiracy" Notice how no mention is made about the man with the beard.


First, here is the link to the short video interview with Kerrey and so here is the proof from the man himself and in his own words........................................


@0.57... "Its a problem, its a 30 year old conspiracy" ( ie dating back to the early 1970's)


@ 1.02... (The reporter is lost by that comment and doesn't understand. The reporter then responds with ) "No No... I'm talking about 9/11"




@1.04.... (Kerry responds with) Yea,... that's what I'm talking about.


Again...


Kerrey " Its a problem its a 30 year old conspiracy"


Reporter "No No....Im talking about 9/11"


Kerry " That's what I'm talking about"


​


We agree its a 30 year problem, or rather 40 years now....................


Lets agree Plane 852, lets for one moment agree and assume you are correct and I will bow to your greater knowledge and understanding provided that you accomplish the following.

Fax the FAA in Washington in the morning and under an FOI request; ask for the following.


1.)The Hijackers pilots licence number. ( We will then be able to see what licence they actually held)

2.)The date and place of the pilots last medical examination.

3.)The aircraft types endorsed on the licence.

4.)The date of the last flight test or check ride.

5.)The date of the pilots last IFR check ride.

6.)The names and licence numbers of the examiners i.e. the actual examiners who conducted the flight tests these training captains or examiners are known as Type rating Examiners (TRE) and Instrument Rating Examiners (IRE). We need to know who did the testing.

These training captains would have examined and certified the Muslims in B767 simulators and signed them off as competent. The TRE / IRE signature will be on the licence.

If however we find out perhaps in the fullness of time that they have no instrument rating or B767 type rating then you can assume they didn't fly into the WTC.

Don't let the FAA come up with some BS story will you. Washington will hold training and medical records for every FAA certified pilot worldwide including tens of thousands of Muslim pilots so this should be no problem to an organisation like the FAA.


Do we have a deal?

 

[Met Watch]

The problem Plane 852 is you produce some report and call it debunked.

I take great issue with your report. It clearly points to US Government involvement which is not the case. It was NOT a False Flag operation. It was deliberate attack to destroy key evidence that had been gathered by the FBI to support a court case in New York on 9 October 2001.

The offices targeted in the Twin Towers; buildings 1, 2, 6 and 7, and Pentagon unknowingly held information which if exposed, subsequently would expose a national security secret of unimaginable magnitude. Protecting that secret was the motivation for the September 11th attacks.

With respect Plane852 your myths of 9/11 website along with 95% of the so called truth moment is controlled and manipulated by the very people the FBI were trying to convict and jail for monstrous criminal acts.

Its these same people who then feed total nonsense topics like chemtrails and much more thus controlling the agenda and discrediting anyone focusing on who was really behind these criminal acts.

Here is a man who does know.

Bob Kerrey, the man who headed the US government investigation into 911, in an unrehearsed 83 second video taken in a hotel or convention center lobby stated emphatically that, "911 was a 30 year conspiracy" Notice how no mention is made about the man with the beard.


First, here is the link to the short video interview with Kerrey and so here is the proof from the man himself and in his own words........................................


@0.57... "Its a problem, its a 30 year old conspiracy" ( ie dating back to the early 1970's)


@ 1.02... (The reporter is lost by that comment and doesn't understand. The reporter then responds with ) "No No... I'm talking about 9/11"




@1.04.... (Kerry responds with) Yea,... that's what I'm talking about.


Again...


Kerrey " Its a problem its a 30 year old conspiracy"


Reporter "No No....Im talking about 9/11"


Kerry " That's what I'm talking about"


​


We agree its a 30 year problem, or rather 40 years now....................


Lets agree Plane 852, lets for one moment agree and assume you are correct and I will bow to your greater knowledge and understanding provided that you accomplish the following.

Fax the FAA in Washington in the morning and under an FOI request; ask for the following.


1.)The Hijackers pilots licence number. ( We will then be able to see what licence they actually held)

2.)The date and place of the pilots last medical examination.

3.)The aircraft types endorsed on the licence.

4.)The date of the last flight test or check ride.

5.)The date of the pilots last IFR check ride.

6.)The names and licence numbers of the examiners i.e. the actual examiners who conducted the flight tests these training captains or examiners are known as Type rating Examiners (TRE) and Instrument Rating Examiners (IRE). We need to know who did the testing.

These training captains would have examined and certified the Muslims in B767 simulators and signed them off as competent. The TRE / IRE signature will be on the licence.

If however we find out perhaps in the fullness of time that they have no instrument rating or B767 type rating then you can assume they didn't fly into the WTC.

Don't let the FAA come up with some BS story will you. Washington will hold training and medical records for every FAA certified pilot worldwide including tens of thousands of Muslim pilots so this should be no problem to an organisation like the FAA.


Do we have a deal?

I do not need to provide more evidence on top of that which you were provided, and apparently completely ignored. The fact of the matter I was addressing is that these men did indeed fly these planes into the WTC, and all these claims of terrorists still alive by the BBC were cases of mistaken identity - I would encourage you to read that thoroughly.

Also, you seem to think that unless you're instrument rated or rated in the B767, then you cannot have possibly flown a Boeing 767. This is completely bogus, especially given the following:

1) The flight conditions that this hijacking and eventual crash into the Pentagon/WTC took place in was VFR - Visual Flight Rules. There was really no need to rely on the instruments given the fact that the weather was excellent that morning from Boston to New York.

2) If you remove the autopilot and all the electronic gauges and instruments, a Boeing 767 is just a much, much larger version of a tiny Cessna. If you know how to manipulate a yoke and the rudder petals to successfully fly a small airplane (in addition to the throttles), you can do the same in a Boeing, without needing the autopilot or any of the other stuff. This is all the hijackers needed to do - the actual pilots did all the pre-flight checks and tests before lifting off the ground. The hijackers had no intention to do a traditional landing, so all they had to do was control the plane into a building. In hindsight, it is NOT that hard.

You are not the first person to cite this article as some conspiracy that the planes used were drones. I am not the first person to present this counter argument to that article. I'm not even sure you fully indulged into the information on that link (there is more in-depth detail on each individual hijacker via links on the bottom half of the page), or you read it and choose not to believe it since it conflicts with your - and I say this respectfully - strong opinion on this matter.

 

[Fred259]

I do not need to provide more evidence on top of that which you were provided, and apparently completely ignored. The fact of the matter I was addressing is that these men did indeed fly these planes into the WTC, and all these claims of terrorists still alive by the BBC were cases of mistaken identity - I would encourage you to read that thoroughly.

I have its bunk.

Also, you seem to think that unless you're instrument rated or rated in the B767, then you cannot have possibly flown a Boeing 767. This is completely bogus, especially given the following

Yes I do.

I can tell by the way you have responded you do not have a 767 rating or an IR so how would you know what was bogus or not?

1) The flight conditions that this hijacking and eventual crash into the Pentagon/WTC took place in was VFR - Visual Flight Rules. There was really no need to rely on the instruments given the fact that the weather was excellent that morning from Boston to New York.

I understand what you mean by VFR. Commercial flights don't book out VFR. You make it sound as if they are departing from some farm strip. Regardless of the weather if they didn't have an IR they wouldn't last 2 minutes in a B767.

2) If you remove the autopilot and all the electronic gauges and instruments, a Boeing 767 is just a much, much larger version of a tiny Cessna. If you know how to manipulate a yoke and the rudder petals to successfully fly a small airplane (in addition to the throttles), you can do the same in a Boeing, without needing the autopilot or any of the other stuff.

Wow.... so are you saying these Muslims were hand flying the 767 ?


Do you think that's an easy thing to do...

This is all the hijackers needed to do - the actual pilots did all the pre-flight checks and tests before lifting off the ground. The hijackers had no intention to do a traditional landing, so all they had to do was control the plane into a building. In hindsight, it is NOT that hard.

Who told you this? How do you know its not that hard?

You are not the first person to cite this article as some conspiracy that the planes used were drones.

Could that be because the other person also shared my views about the complexities of flying heavy transport aircraft. I think with respect that it takes a few hundred hours just to become accustomed and reasonable competent in the right hand seat and thousands of hours maybe even ten thousand hours plus for captains, so No I don't think you can compare a piston aircraft weighing 900 kgs with a heavy jet aircraft like a 767 where the Max weight is around 200 tonnes if I recall correctly.


Its for these reasons that its quite impossible for someone with no training to even consider what has been suggested.


I do take your point about the drones, the point is we have the evidence that drones were used and are aware that some of the drone technology is now drifting onto commercial aircraft which is a serious concern.



I am not the first person to present this counter argument to that article. I'm not even sure you fully indulged into the information on that link (there is more in-depth detail on each individual hijacker via links on the bottom half of the page), or you read it and choose not to believe it since it conflicts with your - and I say this respectfully - strong opinion on this matter.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mick West]

Wow.... so are you saying these Muslims were hand flying the 767 ?

Do you think that's an easy thing to do...

Of course they were hand flying them. It's a very easy thing to do.

I've only flown small planes, but in terms of actually just flying around by hand, then larger planes are actually easier than small planes as they don't bump around.

Flying a plane once it is in the air is very very easy. You have a go-faster control, you have a left/right/up/down control. You have a compass. You can see the ground.

Why don't you try it? Go to a local flying school, a lot of them off introductory lessons for $100 or so. Or get a flight simulator.

 

[Met Watch]

I have its bunk.

Just saying "It's bunk" isn't going to sustain your argument.

I can tell by the way you have responded you do not have a 767 rating or an IR so how would you know what was bogus or not?

I do have a pilot's license with a fairly comprehensive ground school course. I don't have an instrument rating nor am I rated in the 767, but I know enough about basic flight to see your claim simply holds no water.

I understand what you mean by VFR. Commercial flights don't book out VFR. You make it sound as if they are departing from some farm strip. Regardless of the weather if they didn't have an IR they wouldn't last 2 minutes in a B767.

You misunderstood, and no, I didn't make it sound like they departed from a farm strip. The WEATHER was VFR, and for hijackers, they didn't really need to refer to the instrumentation to see what they were doing. Again, the hijackers did not take the plane off - they took it while in flight.

Wow.... so are you saying these Muslims were hand flying the 767 ?


Do you think that's an easy thing to do...

Yes, absolutely. Hand flying a 767 while it is in the air is not difficult. When it comes to a Cessna pilot and a 767 pilot doing basic, manual maneuvers with their aircraft, there is hardly any difference.

Any particular reason why you had to point out they were Muslim?

Who told you this? How do you know its not that hard?

Simulators. Flight lessons. The understanding that once you strip away all the computerized systems and autopilot on all these big commercial jets, those planes are controlled no differently from that of a tiny Cessna.

Could that be because the other person also shared my views about the complexities of flying heavy transport aircraft. I think with respect that it takes a few hundred hours just to become accustomed and reasonable competent in the right hand seat and thousands of hours maybe even ten thousand hours plus for captains, so No I don't think you can compare a piston aircraft weighing 900 kgs with a heavy jet aircraft like a 767 where the Max weight is around 200 tonnes if I recall correctly.


Its for these reasons that its quite impossible for someone with no training to even consider what has been suggested.

What training do you have to make those claims? It seems it was rather mis-informative if you really believe that. Please explain how controlling the pitch, bank, and yaw of a Cessna is any different from that of a Boeing 767 during manual flight.

I do take your point about the drones, the point is we have the evidence that drones were used and are aware that some of the drone technology is now drifting onto commercial aircraft which is a serious concern.

Where is the evidence? I presume buried somewhere with the evidence of explosives?

And drones have not quite drifted into the commercial business quite yet. I am aware of a few cargo companies (UPS and FedEx in particular) that are testing drone technology in bigger aircraft. And I agree, there are concerns to this, just as there are good prospects as well.

 

[Fred259]

Of course they were hand flying them. It's a very easy thing to do.

I've only flown small planes, but in terms of actually just flying around by hand, then larger planes are actually easier than small planes as they don't bump around.

Flying a plane once it is in the air is very very easy. You have a go-faster control, you have a left/right/up/down control. You have a compass. You can see the ground.

Why don't you try it? Go to a local flying school, a lot of them off introductory lessons for $100 or so. Or get a flight simulator.

Mick, lets clear up some misconceptions.


It is not "very easy" as you put it to fly a high performance commercial aircraft such as B767.


You cannot compare a 767 with that of a small piston engine aircraft.


In your own words "I've only flown small aircraft" which is wonderful but as you say they were only small aircraft and so like your friend Plane 852 you don't actually know how they perform or any of the flight and handling characteristics involved.


Given you have no experience of how they perform its best that you shy away from making comments such as "Once in the air its very very easy" If you and your friend persist in making these comments then we can only assume you are spreading disinformation.


For the avoidance of doubt just accept that its almost impossible to hand fly a B767 in the cruise. I say almost because I do accept that perhaps a type rated pilot with thousands of hours on type may accomplish the task for a very short period of time, perhaps only a few minutes.


We also need to discuss speed. I mention this previously in passing on one of the chemtrail threads. It is not possible to fly at 550 mph or kts at sea level. It cant be done. It may be possible at high altitude to obtain those performance levels but not at sea level.


Given its not possible comments such as slamming into buildings at 550mph suddenly become a major red flag to those who are aware that this isn't possible.


We also need to discuss what you call – left/right/up/down control. Can we agree you really mean roll (about the longitudinal axis) and therefore the image of the 767 rolling on 25 degrees (plus plus) at these ridiculous speeds isn't possible either.

 

[George B]

I have heard from both sides on whether a minimally trained individual could fly the aircraft in question into the three buildings at high speed near sea level . . . three for three . . . seems like this could be easily replicated via using light beams or visible laser columns over the desert of course using experienced pilots . . .

 

[Fred259]

Just saying "It's bunk" isn't going to sustain your argument.

I do have a pilot's license with a fairly comprehensive ground school course. I don't have an instrument rating nor am I rated in the 767, but I know enough about basic flight to see your claim simply holds no water.

You may have a private pilots licence and completed some ground school, but you don't have an ATPL (which is plain to see) an IR or 767 type rating or any experience on any commercial aircraft

You misunderstood, and no, I didn't make it sound like they departed from a farm strip. The WEATHER was VFR, and for hijackers, they didn't really need to refer to the instrumentation to see what they were doing. Again, the hijackers did not take the plane off - they took it while in flight.

See above

Yes, absolutely. Hand flying a 767 while it is in the air is not difficult.

Really!


One moment though. You have never flown a B767 so how can you compare and how would you know? Stop misleading people and stop publishing disinformation.

When it comes to a Cessna pilot and a 767 pilot doing basic, manual maneuvers with their aircraft, there is hardly any difference.

Total Rubbish..


See above. How would you know?

Watch this video......

​

Any particular reason why you had to point out they were Muslim?

No. Other than your so called theory of 19 Muslims with Box cutters.

Simulators. Flight lessons. The understanding that once you strip away all the computerized systems and autopilot on all these big commercial jets, those planes are controlled no differently from that of a tiny Cessna.

If and when you do a heavy jet rating you will know that this isn't the case. In the meantime stop misleading the public and publishing disinformation.



What training do you have to make those claims? It seems it was rather mis-informative if you really believe that. Please explain how controlling the pitch, bank, and yaw of a Cessna is any different from that of a Boeing 767 during manual flight.

A lot more than you which is why I will not allow you to spread disinformation and confuse the public.

Where is the evidence? I presume buried somewhere with the evidence of explosives?

And drones have not quite drifted into the commercial business quite yet. I am aware of a few cargo companies (UPS and FedEx in particular) that are testing drone technology in bigger aircraft. And I agree, there are concerns to this, just as there are good prospects as well.

I'm responding to your reply regarding my comment about drones. I mentioned in a previous post that key guidance components that are installed in drones can also be installed and more importantly have been installed in an undetermined number of Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier and Embraer commercial aircraft. Essentially this means that flight crew can be removed from the flight envelope and control of your flight to some holiday destination is now passed elsewhere.

Its possible that this is what caused the loss of Egypt Air 990 a B767 which plunged into the Atlantic on 31 October 1999.


Who was testing what?

Raytheon and 911 ….......Dead Men Tell No Tales And They Can't Talk .


Seven Raytheon employees were murdered on 911. They were senior management employ*ees involved with the technology used to fly aircraft by remote control. What are the chances that on 911 seven employees of the same company involved in the same advanced technology which might be directly related to the events of 911 being killed on three separate aircraft on the same day?


Murdered for National Security.


Peter Gay was Raytheon's Vice President of Operations for Electronic Systems and had been on special assign*ment to a company office in El Segundo, California.This division is one of two divisions making the Global Hawk.


Kenneth Waldie was a senior quality control engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems.


David Kovalcin was a senior mechanical engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems.

Herbert Homer was a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense. For some very strange reason Homer was listed for several days as having died in the offices that were attacked at the Pentagon while working there and the reports were later updated to include him as one of those killed on Flight 175.


Stanley Hall was director of program management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare. One Raytheon colleague calls him "our dean of electronic warfare."

Charles S. Falkenberg worked on "EOS Webster" a mapping system which provides Landsat Images, which are part of the mapping system for the Global Hawk technology. Raytheon was working on the Global Hawk pilot*less aircraft program and along with NASA and Boeing had developed the technology to operate Boeing Commercial jets by remote control.

William E. Caswell was a Navy scientist whose work was so classified that his family knew very little about what he did each day. Says his mother, "You just learn not to ask questions."


Now...............

This is a very serious subject. It does seem to me that your agenda here is about controlling public opinion and keeping it clearly focused on 19 Muslims with ridiculous box cutters etc etc.


The facts are we know who did 9/11, why it was done and above all the way it was done.


The problem however is the seriousness of the matter its scale and complexity.


Grieves, who started the thread named it "Seismic analysis indicative of explosives" His choice of words at the very least should indicate how serious this is.

Even ten years on, this is a very very very serious matter. It needs to be understood that control of parts of the US military is not in the hands of those who we assume have command and control. Its because of this 9/11 was possible. For example; Who instructed that the missile defence system for Washington DC be switched to standby prior to 9/11? Who issued the order that sent key USAF assets including aircraft from Langley AFB to Turkey, RAF Lakenheath England, Reykjavik in Iceland and Anchorage?

The destruction of buildings and severe loss of life both in Washington and New York is clear for all to see, but what about the "destruction of America" The fact that any of these attacks were remotely possible indicates the seriousness of the subversion the US has suffered. Its the same here in the UK where the subversive organisation Common Purpose controls and destroys the country. In the United States elements within the Senior Executive Service are responsible for the destruction of America. A government within a government or perhaps I should say a rouge government embedded within the democratically elected government.


So.... are you going to start discussing Grieves thread with the seriousness it deserves. If not we must assume you are part of the problem.

 

[George B]

Fred, that is a bunch of coincidences regarding scientists from one corporation . . . do you have some confirmations on this info???

 

[Mick West]

Total Rubbish..


See above. How would you know?

Watch this video......

​

That video is nothing to do with anything. They were not trying to land, they were trying to crash. All they had to do was steer the plane to New York, and then steer it into the building. The ONLY controls they would need would be the throttle, the yoke, and the rudder.

Really. Ask a pilot.

 

[Mick West]

For the avoidance of doubt just accept that its almost impossible to hand fly a B767 in the cruise. I say almost because I do accept that perhaps a type rated pilot with thousands of hours on type may accomplish the task for a very short period of time, perhaps only a few minutes.

"just accept"? Based on what?

We also need to discuss speed. I mention this previously in passing on one of the chemtrail threads. It is not possible to fly at 550 mph or kts at sea level. It cant be done. It may be possible at high altitude to obtain those performance levels but not at sea level.

Why? Plenty of pilots have said it's possible. Most people don't even discuss it it because it's quite obviously what happened. The video proves is.

We also need to discuss what you call – left/right/up/down control. Can we agree you really mean roll (about the longitudinal axis) and therefore the image of the 767 rolling on 25 degrees (plus plus) at these ridiculous speeds isn't possible either.

Yes, roll, banking, that's generally how you change headings, how you steer the plane. Why can't you roll to 25 degrees at 550 mph?

What training do you have to make those claims? It seems it was rather mis-informative if you really believe that. Please explain how controlling the pitch, bank, and yaw of a Cessna is any different from that of a Boeing 767 during manual flight.

A lot more than you which is why I will not allow you to spread disinformation and confuse the public.

Can you back that up? If you are going to appeal to your expertise, then you need to explain what that expertise is.

 

[Mick West]

Relevant video discussing how easy it is to steer a plane.

​

The clip at the end is discussing how hard it is to LAND a large plane.

 

[Fred259]

Fred, that is a bunch of coincidences regarding scientists from one corporation . . . do you have some confirmations on this info???

Conformation? The official line is that they were just Raytheon employees who happened to be travelling that day and they all booked on 3 separate flights that were hijacked by Muslims with box-cutters.

In reality they were senior engineers and software specialists key staff members who developed the QRS11 Gyro Chip that is used in unmanned flight, i.e. Drones and more importantly the Global Hawk drone.

They flew the Global Hawk from California to the RAAF Edinburgh base in Australia and back to California remotely with control inputs into the aircraft's Gyro system being controlled by the QRS11 Gyro chip.

​

QRS 11 Gyro Chip

 

[Fred259]

Relevant video discussing how easy it is to steer a plane.

​

The clip at the end is discussing how hard it is to LAND a large plane.

Get real Mike for goodness sake..........

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.mo911truth.org/http://www.mo911truth.org/[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I suppose these guys are all wrong as well[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[Mick West]

Fred. My name is Mick, not Mike.

I've removed a large portion of your post above, as it was a cut-and-paste from elsewhere. If you want to do that, then please provide a link to the original, and enclose relevant excerpts in

tags, and explain why you've copied it (if needed).

Regarding m0911truth.org, being a military officer does not mean you are right about everything. Just like in any area of human life, you can always find some people who will agree with any theory. Military officers are just people like you and I, and subject to the same biases and failings.

However, didn't you notice that even there, the majority of them don't say it was impossible to fly planes into the WTC?

 

[Billzilla]

Mick, lets clear up some misconceptions.


It is not "very easy" as you put it to fly a high performance commercial aircraft such as B767.

Well yes it is easy. Once they're airborne, a plane is a plane is a plane. They all fly much the same.
I have about a thousand hours on instructional time and have sent many people solo, and am also a retired 747 Captain.

To crash an aeroplane into an object, even a small one, is very easy to do. All you need is a felt pen.
Yep!
Just sit in the seat and hold the pen out straight in front of you, then put a mark on the windscreen in front of your eyes. Manoeuvre the aeroplane around to put the mark on the target and as long as you keep that mark on the target you will hit it. It's very easy to do and with maybe an hours instruction I could teach nearly anyone to do it in nearly any aeroplane.

 

[Billzilla]

Get real Mike for goodness sake..........

http://www.mo911truth.org/

I suppose these guys are all wrong as well

Mostly they are, yes.

 

[TWCobra]

A 767 is not difficult to hand fly. At high altitude it sensitive, due to high moments of inertia, but not impossible. We had a 767 hand flown for 7 hours at 35-37000 feet a few years ago after the auto-pilots were knocked out by a lightning strike (Specifically, the TAT probe was hit). The three pilots took turns and no-one noticed. At low altitudes it handles very nicely. Not a Cessna.... but easy to fly.

During 9/11, there was a significant crosswind blowing relative to the run-in of the second aircraft. It almost missed the tower. The only thing that stopped it missing was the last second turn to the left that the pilot made. An experienced pilot, with the line-up that the aircraft had and interpreting the in-cockpit wind display and the track box on the EHSI, would have hit it dead-on. Once you know what to look for, it is easy, particularly at the ridiculous speed that aircraft was doing.

To my mind it indicates an inexperienced pilot, but someone with some training, at the controls.


p.s. 6500 hours in the 767...

 

[Grieves]

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.* Retired commercial pilot.* Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years.* Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777.* 30,000+ total hours flown.* Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC)

"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's.* And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky.* I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

*

Article 7/17/05: *"The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…*

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying."

Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. *"The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall.* The airplane won't go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...

It's roughly a 100 ton airplane.* And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building.* There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77.* We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."

Sure he's just some conspiracy cook who doesn't know what he's talking about, though.

 

[TWCobra]

Actually I do think that. Being a pilot doesn't make you immune to mental illness or paranoia. Check out the Youtube videos of John Lear if you doubt that.

There are photos of 757 wreckage at the Pentagon. Most of the wreckage ended up inside the building, as you would expect.

 

[Billzilla]

Article 7/17/05: *"The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…*
Sure he's just some conspiracy cook who doesn't know what he's talking about, though.

That's only an average of 3,500 f/min descent, which is pretty easy to do with idle power and full speed brakes. Even easier if you ignore the maximum allowable speed (Vno) and just shove the nose down. Even easier in a turn. FWIW a standard rate turn is 360° in two minutes so only 280° in two minutes isn't much of a turn rate at all.

Actually I do think that. Being a pilot doesn't make you immune to mental illness or paranoia. Check out the Youtube videos of John Lear if you doubt that.

One of the American Captains I flew with had a nasty habit of talking to himself when doing things like walking down the street. We ended up pitching a few dollars together to buy him a Bluetooth earpiece so it looked like he was talking on the mobile phone. Another American Captain was just a nutter, plain & simple; he lied about his command time from his previous employer to get into the left seat with us. He could barely do the job at all, let alone safely.
And yeah got more of those but I don't want to worry the SLF too much.

 

[Fred259]

A 767 is not difficult to hand fly. At high altitude it sensitive, due to high moments of inertia, but not impossible. We had a 767 hand flown for 7 hours at 35-37000 feet a few years ago after the auto-pilots were knocked out by a lightning strike (Specifically, the TAT probe was hit). The three pilots took turns and no-one noticed. At low altitudes it handles very nicely. Not a Cessna.... but easy to fly.

Cobra... I'm not saying the 767 cant be hand flown clearly it can, what I am saying however is that I don't believe these low time Muslims could hand fly the 76 especially at altitude.

I would imagine the 767 it will be very sensitive at altitude. I have no experience of flying a 180 tonne aircraft. Many years ago I failed a Tristar conversion course because at that time my previous circa 4000 hrs experience had been on turboprops and so converting from a 20 tonne aircraft onto 200 tonnes was for me at that time difficult. Speed was also an issue. I was very comfortable at 240kts 4nm/min in the ATR, but initially struggled with 7-8nm/min in the L10-11. It was a big step. The 737 classic is slippery and can be very twitchy at times but then again it's a good 100 tonne less in weight.

My point is that these guys had no experience. You are thinking and comparing how it was for you last week or your last trip with xyz years of experience behind you. These guys didn't have the benefit of your experience (particularly at that weight) and so you cant compare them with your own experience can you .

During 9/11, there was a significant crosswind blowing relative to the run-in of the second aircraft. It almost missed the tower.

I'm not sure about the crosswind. I agree it looks like a crosswind but is it really and lets be honest at those speeds what component of the wind is headwind when compared with crosswind...its going to be minimal isnt it.

The only thing that stopped it missing was the last second turn to the left that the pilot made. An experienced pilot, with the line-up that the aircraft had and interpreting the in-cockpit wind display and the track box on the EHSI, would have hit it dead-on. Once you know what to look for, it is easy, particularly at the ridiculous speed that aircraft was doing.

Ohhh here you go again... naughty naughty Cobra keyword "An Experienced Pilot"...Yes, I agree but these guys had NO experience on type, they don't know what a track box is for goodness sake or where you would find it. They had no experience of glass or EHSI or HSI for that matter. According to the OS they had been in South Florida where they had been puddling around in two seater's with a vacuum driven DI that must to be slaved with the wet compass every 15 minutes!

This could all be resolved in a 5 minute FAA press conference. Publish details of the licences and training records and then we will know what they are capable of....Agreed?

What's the Aussie view on the vmo? 360 .86 would be sensible numbers this side of the equator, so where did 550kts at sea level come from I wonder?

Don't suppose you know Nick Smith SFO 767 YSSY by chance...

 

[Grieves]

There are photos of 757 wreckage at the Pentagon.

So let's see these conclusive photos of 757 wreckage.

Most of the wreckage ended up inside the building, as you would expect.

So when they took it all out, they surely made an effort to reconstruct the plane, right? As is standard investigative procedure for any plane-crash? Show me the pictures of that taking place.


So the pilot of 35 years with experience in planes not only just like, but also the very planes used in the attacks is just a crazy man. Fair enough. I mean, it's not as if there are any empoyees of the Pentagon who'd corroborate his stor-OHWAIT....

Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career.* Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University.* Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System.* Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).

Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11.* "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the*topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...

It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics.* The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...

There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact.* Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...

I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

*

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...

She's just mentally ill too though, right? Like every other pertinent professional who criticizes the official account? Quite an epidemic, given the hundreds upon hundreds of them out there.

 

[Grieves]

Here's the quote of Rumsfeld referring to the 757 that supposedly struck the Pentagon as a missile.

They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.

Which can be found in this interview. http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3845

Of course it was just a slip of the tongue, but a rather specific one wouldn't you say? Especially given his accidental utterance just happens to describe what many believe actually hit the pentagon.

 

[Fred259]

Regarding m0911truth.org, being a military officer does not mean you are right about everything.

I agree.

Just like in any area of human life, you can always find some people who will agree with any theory. Military officers are just people like you and I, and subject to the same biases and failings.

I agree with what you are saying but strongly disagree with your choice and use of the words "Any Theory" I don't think its just any theory as you suggest. Clearly they have looked at the matter and made a professional decision and expressed this as an opinion. Its not just any theory.

However, didn't you notice that even there, the majority of them don't say it was impossible to fly planes into the WTC?

No. I strongly disagree. You are being naughty and playing semantics. They are questioning the official version and have grave concerns about the numerous version of events.

For the avoidance of doubt I am not saying it is impossible for those who have the required experience.

What I am saying though is that in my opinion it is impossible or almost impossible for people with zero hours experience on Boeing 767 or any "heavy" to calmly walk into the cockpit slit the throats of not one but two of the occupants of that cockpit, and then jump in the left seat and then hand fly VFR all the way to New York.

Ummm you need to explain where and at what point along the route Logan to LAX that the murder took place and also how did these inexperienced Muslims fix a position or take cross cuts perhaps from ?? Where?? to establish a track directly towards not just New York but the WTC, and then while hand flying, VFR (according to you) they calculated a descent profile and then executed that profile as if they had 20,000 hours experience on type. Mick old chap, the bottom line is that many people will question that including many of these senior US military officers. http://www.mo911truth.org/

What concerns me slightly Mick is that you look at a problem provide an answer or your opinion and then call that "Debunked"

I noticed earlier you responded to Oxymoron in this Pentagon thread posts #7 and #8 here


https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1047-9-11-Did-flight-AA77-Hit-The-Pentagon

and included images from www.aerospaceweb.org.in your reply to Oxy's post.

My concern Mick is that the www.aerospaceweb.org is a very well known disinformation site and so I'm flabbergasted that someone in your position and if I may say so given the superb job you have done and continue to do on Chemtrails what are you doing messing around with these idiots.

Lets agree that its a mistake I'm sure you cant honestly be serious about this and that you agree with the findings on aerospaceweb.org.

For example below they fabricate images and distort the laws of physics and flight concerning ground effect which according to them doesn't exist. Ground effect isn't a problem ( according to them) thus allowing the B757 to float over the pentagon lawns deifying the principles of flight.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

Meanwhile over the other side of the Pentagon and the Potamac just a short distance away at Regan National, all the guys flying out of that airport are acutely aware of the consequences of ground effect. Why is this?

I'm sure the Military officers will be aware of Ground Effect as well.

Like I say I'm sure its just a misunderstanding.

 

[Fred259]

Here's the quote of Rumsfeld referring to the 757 that supposedly struck the Pentagon as a missile.



Which can be found in this interview. http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3845

Of course it was just a slip of the tongue, but a rather specific one wouldn't you say? Especially given his accidental utterance just happens to describe what many believe actually hit the pentagon.

These images show two high bypass ratio gas turbine engines recovered from the seabed following the loss of SwissAir Flight 111.


The engine has been catastrophically destroyed yet notice how they remain intact. This is because they are almost indestructible.


Notice how the engine shaft is still one single unit. The shaft runs all the way through the engine and towards the rear. Within that shaft are two other shafts, but essentially the shafts are in place.



What you are looking at is an engine.

​

Here is another picture of the RB 211 engine. You can clearly see the three spool shaft deep inside the engine.

​

What we get from the Pentagon is a photograph of a ?? turbine, or is a compressor no I say nozzle guide vanes from a Rolls Royce RB 211 engine , no its a P&W engine or turbine disc for a US Navy A4 Skyhawk/


This is the scary bit. In the Pentagon picture you can see how the shaft has been twisted and ripped off.! Now compare the Pentagon picture and the shaft on the disc with the Swiss-air engine and its shaft. Where is the engine? Is that it?

​

Produce two Rolls Royce RB-211 severely damaged engines from the Pentagon in much the same way they were able to recover the two severely damaged engines from Swiss-air Flight 111 from the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.



OR


Perhaps for once in his life Donald Rumsfeld spoke the truth............

 

[TWCobra]

Fred, your constant use of the term "Muslim" as some sort of shorthand for a supposedly backward or ignorant person encapsulates a lot of the bigotry that i believe has spawned the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory in the first place. Having personal experience of the lax and complacent level of cockpit security BEFORE 9/11, and the recommended actions for a pilot to take in the event of a hijack at that time, which was to cooperate and negotiate, I have no problem believing that situation could be taken advantage of in the way described by a determined group of fanatics.

The pilot of the Pentagon aircraft had a commercial licence and 600 hours. They routinely put pilots with 250 hours into the right hand seat of airliners these days. ( not that I agree with that, but it happens, especially in Europe.) The vertical and horizontal profile flown by that aircraft as published by the NTSB is not as fighter-like as some would like to propose and people seem to think that the hijacker has a specific tiny part of a huge building as his intended target, when in reality, ANY part of the Pentagon would suffice.

As for finding New York on the gin clear day, I don't believe that presented any major problems either. You could SEE where it was from 200 miles out. Typing KJFK into the FMC route page would have given them a navigational steer to get them into the general area and the rest was done visually. The procedure is described in Microsoft Flight Simulator and is not rocket science.

Grieves, 30 seconds of googling gives you enough info on Kwiatkowski to learn that she did not witness the actual crash, does not have an aviation background, and has her own barrow to push politically. I place her opinions in the appropriate file. Rumsfelds quote appears to have been a deliberate misquote, substituting "and" for "as".

 

[Unregistered]

T
What we get from the Pentagon is a photograph of a ?? turbine, or is a compressor no I say nozzle guide vanes from a Rolls Royce RB 211 engine , no its a P&W engine or turbine disc for a US Navy A4 Skyhawk/

Could be from the APU

 

[Grieves]

Grieves, 30 seconds of googling gives you enough info on Kwiatkowski to learn that she did not witness the actual crash, does not have an aviation background, and has her own barrow to push politically. I place her opinions in the appropriate file. Rumsfelds quote appears to have been a deliberate misquote, substituting "and" for "as".

She never claimed to have witnessed the impact, only to have been there in the aftermath, and to have witnessed damage, prior to the partial collapse of the struck section of the pentagon, not in keeping with a large passenger airline. I don't think you need aviation experience to judge the size of a hole. If you want aviation experience, see the above pilot's opinion, or the opinions of the numerous other experienced pilots who find the events of 9/11, especially in considering the pentagon impact, highly suspect. As for her 'political barrow', do you speak of her status as a libertarian/republican? What does her politics have to do with anything, especially considering she's turned down urgings to run for office on several occasions? How is being a 'truther', who are loudly decried in the American media, supposed to benefit her politically...?
I don't understand what you're suggesting in that respect.

 

[Grieves]

She's also clearly not unfamiliar with aviation in spite of not being a pilot, given she was an officer of the air-force, and wrote a book on air operations prior to the attacks.
Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions is it's name.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

I don't think you need aviation experience to judge the size of a hole. If you want aviation experience, see the above pilot's opinion, or the opinions of the numerous other experienced pilots who find the events of 9/11, especially in considering the pentagon impact, highly suspect.

AFAIK pilots are not trained or qualified as crash site investigators, the same applies to former political-military affairs officers. I've been driving cars most of my life. Regardless of how experienced a driver I might be, I'm completely unqualified to interpret a car accident scene or assess what might be normal or unusual.

Are there any NTSB investigators that claim the Pentagon crash site could not have been produced by a plane?

 

[Landru]

She's also clearly not unfamiliar with aviation in spite of not being a pilot, given she was an officer of the air-force, and wrote a book on air operations prior to the attacks.
Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions is it's name.

Trained in aircraft crash investigation? I don't see anything on her (albeit limited) CV that you presented that shows any work done outside. This guy on the other hand at http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon#flight77debris

External source
Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Pentagon - Popular Mechanics
​

Now, where is the next mole to whack?

 

[Mick West]

These images show two high bypass ratio gas turbine engines recovered from the seabed following the loss of SwissAir Flight 111.


The engine has been catastrophically destroyed yet notice how they remain intact. This is because they are almost indestructible.

Swissair 111 crashed landed into the ocean, not flown at high speed into a concrete building, so the damage to the engine is not comparable. It's already been shown that then engine parts match what was on the plane.

 

[Mick West]

Here is Barbara Olsen............................we were told she died on Flight 77 which hit the Pentagon.

Fred if you really want to start discussing every random piece of "evidence", then please start a new thread for each one. I'm going to delete the above post as it's just getting ridiculous.

 

[Mick West]

My concern Mick is that the www.aerospaceweb.org is a very well known disinformation site and so I'm flabbergasted that someone in your position and if I may say so given the superb job you have done and continue to do on Chemtrails what are you doing messing around with these idiots.

Lets agree that its a mistake I'm sure you cant honestly be serious about this and that you agree with the findings on aerospaceweb.org.

For example below they fabricate images and distort the laws of physics and flight concerning ground effect which according to them doesn't exist. Ground effect isn't a problem ( according to them) thus allowing the B757 to float over the pentagon lawns deifying the principles of flight.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

Meanwhile over the other side of the Pentagon and the Potamac just a short distance away at Regan National, all the guys flying out of that airport are acutely aware of the consequences of ground effect. Why is this?

Known disinformation site? What exactly is wrong in that ground effect article? It seems like a comprehensive, accurate, and detailed description of the situation to me.

 

[Mick West]

Ummm you need to explain where and at what point along the route Logan to LAX that the murder took place and also how did these inexperienced Muslims fix a position or take cross cuts perhaps from ?? Where?? to establish a track directly towards not just New York but the WTC, and then while hand flying, VFR (according to you) they calculated a descent profile and then executed that profile as if they had 20,000 hours experience on type. Mick old chap, the bottom line is that many people will question that including many of these senior US military officers. http://www.mo911truth.org/

New rules Fred: stop saying "inexperienced Muslims", and instead put down the amount of experience they had (hundreds of hours, commercial license), and exactly what they did, and what experience it would require. Don't call them Muslims, because that comes across as racist and impolite, call then hijackers, or "supposed hijackers" if you like.

I'm creating this new rule for you so that we can focus on what actually happened, and avoid distractions. I'll enforce with post edits and 1 day bans, doubling with repetition. There's no need for it.

Are you familiar with VOR navigation? It's a basic level part of pilot training that anyone could learn in an hour. It probably was not even really needed, but allows for very precise navigation beween points, and the ability to fix your position on a chart in a couple of of minutes. It's a trivial thing any pilot could do - and certainly those with the training the hijackers received.

And regarding Pilots for 9/11 Truth. You can ALWAYS find some people to be suspicious, retired pilots are no exception. This creates a false balance, as you seem to get one set of pilots against the other. But in reality there are millions of pilots in the world, and only a very small percentage of them, far less than 1%, have expressed concern. I'm sure there's a higher percentage of pilots who think their guardian angel has helped them fly the plane sometimes. Gathering up that sparse group of outliers is not evidence of anything other than there are always outliers.

 

[George B]

New rules Fred: stop saying "inexperienced Muslims", and instead put down the amount of experience they had (hundreds of hours, commercial license), and exactly what they did, and what experience it would require. Don't call them Muslims, because that comes across as racist and impolite, call then hijackers, or "supposed hijackers" if you like. I'm creating this new rule for you so that we can focus on what actually happened, and avoid distractions. I'll enforce with post edits and 1 day bans, doubling with repetition. There's no need for it. Are you familiar with VOR navigation? It's a basic level part of pilot training that anyone could learn in an hour. It probably was not even really needed, but allows for very precise navigation beween points, and the ability to fix your position on a chart in a couple of of minutes. It's a trivial thing any pilot could do - and certainly those with the training the hijackers received. And regarding Pilots for 9/11 Truth. You can ALWAYS find some people to be suspicious, retired pilots are no exception. This creates a false balance, as you seem to get one set of pilots against the other. But in reality there are millions of pilots in the world, and only a very small percentage of them, far less than 1%, have expressed concern. I'm sure there's a higher percentage of pilots who think their guardian angel has helped them fly the plane sometimes. Gathering up that sparse group of outliers is not evidence of anything other than there are always outliers.

So let's see an reenactment . . . using light columns or lasers in the desert with experienced pilots and a right seater . . . wouldn't be too expensive or difficult . . .

 

[Grieves]

Is finding someone supposedly identified through DNA/dental testing as being killed in the crash alive and well in a foreign country not an exceedingly strange/suspicious event? I've never heard of this/know nothing about it, but if it's true, it seems pertinent... As one would wonder how the conclusion of her death was reached.
In any event, a few questions in reference to the article you linked too, Landru.

In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings.

So where are these wings? Presumably if one was broken off on the ground prior to entry, and the other was sheared off during entry, then their wreckage should be on the outside of the structure, likely scattered about the lawn by the massive blast upon impact. As adamantly stated by others, the engine wreckage was found inside the building. So the wings to which the engines were attached were sheared away prior too/during entry, but the engines proceeded into the structure of of the pentagon, without widening the entry 'wound'? alright... But then where are the wings? If this was the series of events, why is the only piece of truly distinguishable wreckage on the lawn, suggested as proof of a Boeing's impact, an apparently twisted but un-charred piece of the fuselage, if the fuselage is what explosively passed through the building, and the wings are what remained on the outside? Where is the point of impact of the wing hitting the ground, and why wasn't it documented, or even mentioned until an interview several years after the event?

"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building.

Why weren't these documented?

I held in my hand the tail section of the plane,

What is that supposed to mean? And why wasn't the inordinately light 'tail-section' documented?

and I found the black box."

Then why have all previous news reports/documentation stated the black boxes were found by Carlton Burkhammer And Brian Moravitz, a rescue worker and a fireman? It seems as though Allyn E. Kilsheimer is being somewhat disingenuous, if not lying outright. One might ask what could possibly motivate the CEO of a firm of structural engineers to be dishonest about such serious subject manner. Another might answer a multi-million dollar contract to repair/restore the Pentagon.

I also find it highly suspicious that the black boxes were first stated as having contained flight-path and altitude data as well as voice records which were deemed of no investigative value and not released 'for the emotional sake of the families', but were then, following a freedom of information request from the victims families, claimed by Rumsfeld to have been damaged beyond the ability to retrieve the voice recordings. This would be the first time in history that a Solid-state data recorder was damaged beyond recovery. That the black box, the part of the plane -specifically designed- to survive crash scenarios, could have been damaged beyond all repair and yet 99% of the human remains were intact enough to be identified strikes me as highly unlikely.

I don't think this particular mole is quite dead yet, gentlemen.