New World Ag said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

I would like to hear their reasoning for how a minimally trained Cessna pilot that couldn't fly at all would be able to do it

---

As stated before, Hanjour had a commercial pilots license

To obtain a commercial certificate in an airplane under FAR Part 61 rules a pilot must have:

• 250 hours of flight time, 100 hours of which must be in powered aircraft, and 50 must be in airplanes.
• 100 hours of pilot-in-command time, 50 of which must be in airplanes.
• 50 hours of cross-country time, 10 of which must be in an airplane.
• 20 hours of training, including 10 of instrument, 10 of complex or TAA, and a smattering of cross-country and practical test preparation.
• 10 hours of solo training, including a smattering of cross-country and night.

---

That's not a very high barrier, so I'm not sure how that's helping your argument when professional pilots that have flown a 757 require orders of magnitude more flying hours and training

AggiEE said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

I would like to hear their reasoning for how a minimally trained Cessna pilot that couldn't fly at all would be able to do it

---

As stated before, Hanjour had a commercial pilots license

To obtain a commercial certificate in an airplane under FAR Part 61 rules a pilot must have:

• 250 hours of flight time, 100 hours of which must be in powered aircraft, and 50 must be in airplanes.
• 100 hours of pilot-in-command time, 50 of which must be in airplanes.
• 50 hours of cross-country time, 10 of which must be in an airplane.
• 20 hours of training, including 10 of instrument, 10 of complex or TAA, and a smattering of cross-country and practical test preparation.
• 10 hours of solo training, including a smattering of cross-country and night.

---

That's not a very high barrier, so I'm not sure how that's helping your argument when professional pilots that have flown a 757 require orders of magnitude more flying hours and training

---

Andreas Lubitz murdered everyone on Germanwings flight 9525 by flying into a mountain. At the time of the crash he had 630 hours total flight time, and he had been flying the a320 for a while

Looks like you don't know what you're talking about. Again.

For what he wanted to do, it was enough.

To be an actual airline pilot, no.

New World Ag said:

---

For what he wanted to do, it was enough.

To be an actual airline pilot, no.

---

Yet what he wanted to do is something that apparently some pilots with thousands of hours flying a 757 could not do

Yeah a benign 1-2 degree per second turn at less than 2000 feet per minute followed by a 30 second wings level kamikaze is way too hard. Up until he nosed over and powered up it would have felt no different to a passenger than a normal arrival.

AggiEE said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

For what he wanted to do, it was enough.

To be an actual airline pilot, no.

---

Yet what he wanted to do is something that apparently some pilots with thousands of hours flying a 757 could not do

---

Have you ever flown anything?

AggiEE said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

2 pilots out of tens of thousands?

Remember the Seattle airline ground crewman who stole a twin engine turboprop and proceeded to get it in the air and make multiple loops and barrel rolls before intentionally crashing? He had ZERO flight time, only played with flight simulators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Horizon_Air_Q400_incident

---

This isn't about merely flying

It's having to fly, descend, turn at incredible speeds to hit not the top of the Pentagon, but at a nearly direct portion of the face of the Pentagon whereby the cockpit was somehow able to penetrate multiple layers of Pentagon structure and yet nothing of the engines or wings on the no exterior

---

Why do you think the cockpit penetrated multiple layers of the Pentagon?

AggiEE said:

---

"Yeah just point the aircraft down and hit your target"

That's not how it works, especially with the incredible speeds involved and how close they were flying to the ground

---

It's exactly how it works

GAC06 said:

---

The Japanese had the best pilots in the world in WWII because many of of their barely trained kamikaze pilots were able to hit maneuvering ships at sea, an amazing aerial feat. Many of them accomplished this on their VERY FIRST kamikaze mission!

---

And their last!

Quote:

---

Jesus, talk about selective quoting.

---

Like ignoring the fact that the web site and organization founder was put in the looney bin?

Quote:

---

''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon; he could not fly at all," said an ex-employee of a flight school attended by Hani Hanjour, alleged hijacker and pilot of Flight 77 on 9/11

---

Again, the guy held an United States Commercial Pilot Certificate, which means he had passed several check rides with FAA Examiners, and had a minimum of 250 hours pilot experience.

The US Government gave the guy a license that meant he could fly people or cargo for hire, I don't give a crap what some anonymous janitor at a flight school said.

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

Quote:

---

And at the Shanksville Pennsylvania impact site, where is any of the wreckage?!!! Of all the pictures I have seen, there is only a hole! Where is any piece of a crashed airplane?

---

I can't believe "Commander Kolstad" would say anything so ignorant, if he really existed and is really a Navy pilot.

Even the least informed aviation buff is familiar with the term "smoking hole in the ground". Airplanes are mostly aluminum tubes surrounding a lot of empty interior air. When they hit the ground at 500+ mph, almost nothing is left and a lot of what is left is buried deep within the earth.

They are still finding WWII crash sites in Europe, with just a few recognizable pieces, because the crash and fire obliterates almost everything.

When Vietnam War crash sites have been investigated, they aren't finding an intact F-4 Phantom with the pilot still strapped in the seat. They are finding little divots in the ground, with a few metal fragments, some bone shards, and maybe a dog tag, if they're lucky.

Quote:

---

I would like to hear their reasoning for how a minimally trained Cessna pilot that couldn't fly at all would be able to do it

---

He had hundreds of hours, and trained at multiple schools.

Why do you keep claiming he was a "Cessna Pilot", when you have no evidence of what he flew or was trained on?

This is a Cessna, by the way:

titan said:

---

snowdog90,

It certainly can't be doubted you are at least right about what the govt has metastasized into as of this date, whatever may or may not have occured in the 1960's with the alphabets. Having reviewed the scenarios, while none particularly compelling with the Pentagon, can you at least say which one you think rings true. To understand your position.

All anomalies are not created equal. Some are easier to explain than others, some really give pause. The Engineering Damage survey not getting to inspect the site till Oct 4 when somewhat cleared (you have cited a similar issue at the NY site) is more disturbing than the nature of wreckage left behind from an extraordinary impact. Etc.

If nothing else, what most doubting about Pentagon, which scenario lean to?

---

Ok, titan, here goes...

As for the Pentagon, I don't think a plane hit the Pentagon. I think a missile did. I base this on a few things.

1. Witnesses reported smelling cordite, which is much different than smelling jet fuel.

2. The plane did things that that plane is not supposed to be able to do - 500+ knots at sea level, crazy banking turn, knocks over light poles with no consequence or damage or flight deviation.

3. Survivor in Pentagon escapes with child through the hole made by the "plane". She sees no evidence of any plane, no bodies, no luggage, nothing, she just walks out through the hole.

4. Where is the plane? Where are the wings? There is a picture that is evidently well-hidden now that shows a large round hole in the Pentagon, before the wall collapsed. There's no wing damage visible and no wing debris. I saw this years ago and can't find it now. It might be in one of the longer documentaries like Loose Change, but I've seen it. The damage is not conducive to a plane impact.

5. If the plane hit as we're told, the massive engines would have scraped the ground before impacting the wall. There are no gouge marks from the engines, there are no big engine holes in the wall, and no engines. The engines are almost indestructible and yet there's no evidence they were there at all in the first picture taken of the damage.


As for my overall thoughts on the anomalies, there are just so many. On 911 overall, what swayed me the most was Tower 7, as I've said before, and as you have agreed looks very fishy. Once I believed we had been lied to about tower 7, I went deep into the rabbit hole and disbelieved all of it.


Titan, I'm gonna post a link. This is just another one of those anomalies. I've posted this before, and it looks pretty obvious to me what happens, and...

Well, it just doesn't make any sense at all.

So, you being of open mind, please watch this little 3 minute video from 911 and give me your explanation of what happens, if you can.

I've posted it before and gotten some ridiculous answers, but I'm very curious what you think.

https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/dustification-north-tower-spire-turns-to-dust/

snowdog90 said:

---

Ok, titan, here goes...

As for the Pentagon, I don't think a plane hit the Pentagon. I think a missile did. I base this on a few things.

1. Witnesses reported smelling cordite, which is much different than smelling jet fuel.

2. The plane did things that that plane is not supposed to be able to do - 500+ knots at sea level, crazy banking turn, knocks over light poles with no consequence or damage or flight deviation.

3. Survivor in Pentagon escapes with child through the hole made by the "plane". She sees no evidence of any plane, no bodies, no luggage, nothing, she just walks out through the hole.

4. Where is the plane? Where are the wings? There is a picture that is evidently well-hidden now that shows a large round hole in the Pentagon, before the wall collapsed. There's no wing damage visible and no wing debris. I saw this years ago and can't find it now. It might be in one of the longer documentaries like Loose Change, but I've seen it. The damage is not conducive to a plane impact.

5. If the plane hit as we're told, the massive engines would have scraped the ground before impacting the wall. There are no gouge marks from the engines, there are no big engine holes in the wall, and no engines. The engines are almost indestructible and yet there's no evidence they were there at all in the first picture taken of the damage.


As for my overall thoughts on the anomalies, there are just so many. On 911 overall, what swayed me the most was Tower 7, as I've said before, and as you have agreed looks very fishy. Once I believed we had been lied to about tower 7, I went deep into the rabbit hole and disbelieved all of it.


Titan, I'm gonna post a link. This is just another one of those anomalies. I've posted this before, and it looks pretty obvious to me what happens, and...

Well, it just doesn't make any sense at all.

So, you being of open mind, please watch this little 3 minute video from 911 and give me your explanation of what happens, if you can.

I've posted it before and gotten some ridiculous answers, but I'm very curious what you think.

https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/dustification-north-tower-spire-turns-to-dust/

---

Posting it again…
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

April Gallop went out a window, not a hole.

Read the report posted earlier. All of your points are refuted. A missile did not hit the Pentagon. Many people, including an aquaintance of my family saw AA77 crash into the Pentagon from the highway.

Quote:

---

2. The plane did things that that plane is not supposed to be able to do - 500+ knots at sea level, crazy banking turn, knocks over light poles with no consequence or damage or flight deviation.

---

Wait, you expect a missile to knock over light poles and remain flying undeviated better than a 130 ton aircraft?

It's sad that people with degrees from A&M can fall for this nonsense.

And blow plane parts through the pentagon in a clearly dissipating crash instead of doing what a missile does: explode on contact or penetrate then explode within.

Great link Thaddeus. Nice to have some actual evidence posted rather than speculation posted under the guise of evidence.

Snowdog, where is the AA77 757 that didn't hit the Pentagon? Where are the passengers and crew? These would seem to be pretty big questions that need answering if you're so sure of what didn't happen. What has your hundreds of hours of research led you to believe in this regard?

Also, engine debris from inside the building.

Duckhook said:

---

Great link Thaddeus. Nice to have some actual evidence posted rather than speculation posted under the guise of evidence.

Snowdog, where is the AA77 757 that didn't hit the Pentagon? Where are the passengers and crew? These would seem to be pretty big questions that need answering if you're so sure of what happened. What has your hundreds of hours of research led you to believe in this regard?

---

The, by far, easiest way to dispense with a 757 full of passengers and crew in order make it appear like it crashed into the pentagon is to actually crash it into the pentagon.

Quote:

---

Wait, you expect a missile to knock over light poles and remain flying undeviated better than a 130 ton aircraft?

---

Not only that, it had to stop, change directions, and take out light poles in a manner in which to simulate an object with a wing span approximately equal to that of a 757 taking out the light poles, then revert to its original flight path into the Pentagon.

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Great link Thaddeus. Nice to have some actual evidence posted rather than speculation posted under the guise of evidence.

Snowdog, where is the AA77 757 that didn't hit the Pentagon? Where are the passengers and crew? These would seem to be pretty big questions that need answering if you're so sure of what didn't happen. What has your hundreds of hours of research led you to believe in this regard?

Also, engine debris from inside the building.

---

Where's the proof that this small part is from a 757 engine? Why is this literally the only component that resembles an engine part out of the entire alleged wreckage?

---

dude about 10 pages ago you were given the report that answered those questions

17 pages and your tin foil hat is still just as embarrassing

yawny06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Wait, you expect a missile to knock over light poles and remain flying undeviated better than a 130 ton aircraft?

---

Not only that, it had to stop, change directions, and take out light poles in a manner in which to simulate an object with a wing span approximately equal to that of a 757 taking out the light poles, then revert to its original flight path into the Pentagon.

---

Or the light poles could have been knocked down in another fashion to seem like it was hit by a plane

Lol

They played a scooby doo hologram of a plane hitting light poles for all the people that saw that happen and then hit a button and winched them all down.

Prove they didn't! Prove your picture is real. Bring me all the part numbers!

AggiEE said:

---

yawny06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Wait, you expect a missile to knock over light poles and remain flying undeviated better than a 130 ton aircraft?

---

Not only that, it had to stop, change directions, and take out light poles in a manner in which to simulate an object with a wing span approximately equal to that of a 757 taking out the light poles, then revert to its original flight path into the Pentagon.

---

Or the light poles could have been knocked down in another fashion to seem like it was hit by a plane

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Great link Thaddeus. Nice to have some actual evidence posted rather than speculation posted under the guise of evidence.

Snowdog, where is the AA77 757 that didn't hit the Pentagon? Where are the passengers and crew? These would seem to be pretty big questions that need answering if you're so sure of what didn't happen. What has your hundreds of hours of research led you to believe in this regard?

Also, engine debris from inside the building.

---

Where's the proof that this small part is from a 757 engine? Why is this literally the only component that resembles an engine part out of the entire alleged wreckage?

---

"Small part"

Good grief you really don't know much about anything do you?

What a waste of space.

Quote:

---

Or the light poles could have been knocked down in another fashion to seem like it was hit by a plane

---

Perhaps it wasn't just a single missile, but actually five missiles, each laser guided precisely through those light poles to a single point on the Pentagon…

I am an instrument pilot, complex airplanes. Also a certified mechanic. I currently own a PA24-260, PA23, and part owner of a pressurized Baron 58P. I have over 2000 hours as a PIC.

Getting a commercial pilot license is not that difficult, getting ratings to fly large aircraft is difficult, not for everyone.

I wish we could see some films of a plane hitting the pentagon. Seeing would be believing, no doubt the twin towers were airplane hits.

it does appear to be a missile from the lousy security camera.

Flying a commercial airliner so low to the ground is not easy, looks like just off the ground, but not impossible. Ever see that film clip of the airport lineman that stole a commercial airliner and did barrel rolls a few years ago? Dude flew it for about 45 minutes or so then crashed on purpose, suicidal all the way. Poor soul.

Washington DC is heavy populated, finding the pentagon would not be as easy as you think, especially with '90s navigation instruments. Visual scud running at low altitude looking for the Pentagon, crazy but not impossible. Feat would be more convincing if he had dive bombed into the building rather than skim the surface.

I am going with the official version until a stronger argument is presented but I do understand the questions.

AggiEE said:

---

yawny06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Wait, you expect a missile to knock over light poles and remain flying undeviated better than a 130 ton aircraft?

---

Not only that, it had to stop, change directions, and take out light poles in a manner in which to simulate an object with a wing span approximately equal to that of a 757 taking out the light poles, then revert to its original flight path into the Pentagon.

---

Or the light poles could have been knocked down in another fashion to seem like it was hit by a plane

---

In a way that witnesses would think they saw a 757 fly into the pentagon? How exactly?

Quote:

---

Where's the proof that this small part is from a 757 engine?

---

Why do you think it's small? There are no reference points on which to judge size. Could be 15 feet across for all we know.

Quote:

---

Why is this literally the only component that resembles an engine part out of the entire alleged wreckage?

---

Why do you think it's the only such part?

AggiEE said:

---

yawny06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Or the light poles could have been knocked down in another fashion to seem like it was hit by a plane

---

---

---

So with thousands of rescuers working, and TV cameras running, the CIA ran out and knocked over a few light poles?