CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

How could a steel and concrete building collapse after being hit by a Boeing 767? Didn't the engineers design it to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 707, approximately the same size and weight of the 767?

---

767 max weight is about 150% that of a 707

---

Doesn't matter because it was designed to take multiple impacts

And of course we all saw the structure took the impact well, as it was designed

Quote:

---

Meanwhile I have multiple pilots claim it was impossible, even some that tried to replicate it in a sim?

---

Your link says they did replicate it

Quote:

---

I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!

---

A Navy Fighter pilot claiming they can't do something in an aircraft...that is less believable than the claim that there were no Muslim hijackers....

Yes I have. I've seen the New Pearl Harbor video several times over the years. Plus other truther videos that used to be on YT.

On your 9/11 pilots website there is a video interview between Captain Dan Hanley and Mark Gaffney. Both of them state up front they have zero doubts that a 757 hit the Pentagon. The big problem is they oversimplify the whole ordeal. They state that Hani took off from Dulles got to cruising altitude made a 180 turn to DC. They claim he makes 330 degree turn from 7000 feet and comes out PRECISELY at the surface without hitting it at 500 knots to crash into the pentagon...

Except that isn't true at all. He comes out of his turn just below 3,000 feet at around 300 knots. He still flies for another minute right at the pentagon still flying downward at it and doesn't hit 500 knots until just moments before impact.

On your Pearl Harbor video and the pilots who doubt the circle descent, one of the guys makes it sound like Hani did the turn and crashed right into the Pentagon. One he is assuming the Pentagon is a lot smaller than actually is and two assumes he crashed immediately into the building while performing the turn. Both are huge wrong assumptions.

They quote Commander Ralph Kolstad and his doubts. His doubts appear to be from the way it was described to him. Another pilot is quoted saying he can't imagine someone being able to perform that maneuvre....really that the pilot proof you have? Speculation on their part?

AggiEE said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Quote:

---

This maneuver was replicated in a flight simulator. Highly experienced pilots could not perform this maneuver on successive attempts without crashing and yet, according to the official narrative, Hani Hanjour accomplished this amazing aerial feat on the first attempt with minimal aircraft experience training in light Cessna aircraft having only a few hundred hours of total flight time.

---

---

Can you stop with this rediculous talking point? It doesn't matter if his training was in a light Cessna. He also spent time in simulators. Once the plane was in the air all the hard work was complete. All he had to do was make minor adjustments (things he would have learned in a basic Cessna) on his way to crashing the plane. He had enough training to obtain a FAA commercial pilot's certificate. He spent time in similators and did a couple scouting flights over DC prior to 9/11.

There was nothing spectacular about his maneuver. Have you watched the recration of the flight path from the data recorder? it was a big sweeping circle to lose altitude and setup for the final crash into the Pentagon., It took him a few mintures to turn and lose altitude.


The problem with your pilot skeptic is he is trying to replicate something he believes was a precise maneuver that was planed prior to execution. When in reality it was a killer trying to lose altitude before tyring to crash the aircraft into the Pentagon.

Also, you still haven't provided what a 757 is supposed to look like after crashing into a concrete building. Please provide your evidance.

---

HAVE YOU watched anything I've posted?

No, you haven't.

Please do before writing something completely ignorant of the facts surrounding why that maneuver was impossible to perform for even highly experienced pilots

---

Give us these facts. Write them out for us. Stop the hand waving and give us something in writing.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Meanwhile I have multiple pilots claim it was impossible, even some that tried to replicate it in a sim?

---

Your link says they did replicate it

---

No it does not, you just have poor reading comprehension

The scenario was recreated, none of them replicated it

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

Quote:

---

you just have poor reading comprehension

---

The irony

Satellite of Love said:

---

Yes I have. I've seen the New Pearl Harbor video several times over the years. Plus other truther videos that used to be on YT.

On your 9/11 pilots website there is a video interview between Captain Dan Hanley and Mark Gaffney. Both of them state up front they have zero doubts that a 757 hit the Pentagon. The big problem is they oversimplify the whole ordeal. They state that Hani took off from Dulles got to cruising altitude made a 180 turn to DC. They claim he makes 330 degree turn from 7000 feet and comes out PRECISELY at the surface without hitting it at 500 knots to crash into the pentagon...

Except that isn't true at all. He comes out of his turn just below 3,000 feet at around 300 knots. He still flies for another minute right at the pentagon still flying downward at it and doesn't hit 500 knots until just moments before impact.

On your Pearl Harbor video and the pilots who doubt the circle descent, one of the guys makes it sound like Hani did the turn and crashed right into the Pentagon. One he is assuming the Pentagon is a lot smaller than actually is and two assumes he crashed immediately into the building while performing the turn. Both are huge wrong assumptions.

They quote Commander Ralph Kolstad and his doubts. His doubts appear to be from the way it was described to him. Another pilot is quoted saying he can't imagine someone being able to perform that maneuvre....really that the pilot proof you have? Speculation on their part?

---

Where in that video are they assuming any of those things?

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Meanwhile I have multiple pilots claim it was impossible, even some that tried to replicate it in a sim?

---

Your link says they did replicate it

---

No it does not, you just have poor reading comprehension

The scenario was recreated, none of them replicated it

---

Have you ever seen the Pentagon in person?

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

AggiEE said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

cbr said:

---

I've flown a cessna exactly once, but what stunned me is how easy it was. Instructor just gave me a one sentence explanation of what to do when we were at about 5000 ft and i landed the ****ing thing.

Now, the cessna is probably a lot easier than a jet, and as long as you're aiming down and losing altitude it a;l,ost cant stall, but i am not going to buy that it was super difficult to hit the ****ing pentagon.

---

''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

---

Well that settles it. One guy thought he was bad at flying so that definitely outweighs the hundreds of eye witnesses who saw it live and the mountains of physical evidence from the site. Must have been a giant multilevel conspiracy and the people on the plane were killed off site and their remains were quickly Fedexed to the crash site with the rest of the planted evidence.

---

What hundreds of eye witnesses saw Hanjour fly 757 into the pentagon?

---

So now it was a 757 but someone else was flying?

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

cbr said:

---

I've flown a cessna exactly once, but what stunned me is how easy it was. Instructor just gave me a one sentence explanation of what to do when we were at about 5000 ft and i landed the ****ing thing.

Now, the cessna is probably a lot easier than a jet, and as long as you're aiming down and losing altitude it a;l,ost cant stall, but i am not going to buy that it was super difficult to hit the ****ing pentagon.

---

''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

---

Well that settles it. One guy thought he was bad at flying so that definitely outweighs the hundreds of eye witnesses who saw it live and the mountains of physical evidence from the site. Must have been a giant multilevel conspiracy and the people on the plane were killed off site and their remains were quickly Fedexed to the crash site with the rest of the planted evidence.

---

What hundreds of eye witnesses saw Hanjour fly 757 into the pentagon?

---

So now it was a 757 but someone else was flying?

---

I have already stated that while I doubt it was a 757, I am not certain.

If it somehow was, it certainly wasn't flown by Hanjour

redcrayon said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Meanwhile I have multiple pilots claim it was impossible, even some that tried to replicate it in a sim?

---

Your link says they did replicate it

---

No it does not, you just have poor reading comprehension

The scenario was recreated, none of them replicated it

---

Have you ever seen the Pentagon in person?

---

I for one have not only seen it close from outside, but have been in it. It is unbelievably massive, very high facade and above all --- wide, wide. It just doesn't seem hard to miss hitting if on a suicide approach. Hitting a particular window or such, maybe, but have never seen that alleged beyond some possibility that side was deliberately targeted. But even then, hitting it would not surprise.

titan said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Meanwhile I have multiple pilots claim it was impossible, even some that tried to replicate it in a sim?

---

Your link says they did replicate it

---

No it does not, you just have poor reading comprehension

The scenario was recreated, none of them replicated it

---

Have you ever seen the Pentagon in person?

---

I for one have not only seen it close from outside, but have been in it. It is unbelievably massive, very high facade and above all --- wide, wide. It just doesn't seem hard to miss hitting if on a suicide approach. Hitting a particular window or such, maybe, but have never seen that alleged beyond some possibility that side was deliberately targeted. But even then, hitting it would not surprise.

---

Have you ever flown a 757 using the flight maneuvers of Hanjour?

If a commercial airline pilot posting on this website said the ACTUAL maneuvers performed by Hanjour were possible, would you believe them?

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

AggiEE said:

---

titan said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Meanwhile I have multiple pilots claim it was impossible, even some that tried to replicate it in a sim?

---

Your link says they did replicate it

---

No it does not, you just have poor reading comprehension

The scenario was recreated, none of them replicated it

---

Have you ever seen the Pentagon in person?

---

I for one have not only seen it close from outside, but have been in it. It is unbelievably massive, very high facade and above all --- wide, wide. It just doesn't seem hard to miss hitting if on a suicide approach. Hitting a particular window or such, maybe, but have never seen that alleged beyond some possibility that side was deliberately targeted. But even then, hitting it would not surprise.

---

Have you ever flown a 757 using the flight maneuvers of Hanjour?

---

Have you ever seen the Pentagon in person?

AggiEE said:

---

titan said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Meanwhile I have multiple pilots claim it was impossible, even some that tried to replicate it in a sim?

---

Your link says they did replicate it

---

No it does not, you just have poor reading comprehension

The scenario was recreated, none of them replicated it

---

Have you ever seen the Pentagon in person?

---

I for one have not only seen it close from outside, but have been in it. It is unbelievably massive, very high facade and above all --- wide, wide. It just doesn't seem hard to miss hitting if on a suicide approach. Hitting a particular window or such, maybe, but have never seen that alleged beyond some possibility that side was deliberately targeted. But even then, hitting it would not surprise.

---

Have you ever flown a 757 using the flight maneuvers of Hanjour?

---

No. The only simulation was landing on a carrier, which actually succeeded. But actual pilots are debating those details. Why are they wrong? There seems dozens of claims going both ways. How is a layman (non pilot) reading them to know which is which?

redcrayon said:

---

If a commercial airline pilot posting on this website said the ACTUAL maneuvers performed by Hanjour were possible, would you believe them?

---

Would need to compare their reasoning to the others that have doubts and have unable to personally replicate the maneuvers in a sim

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

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

---

A descending turn isn't difficult, a student pilot does every time they are working the traffic pattern while learning to land. Pointing your plane to hit any of the face of a huge building isn't something that requires a test pilot to do.

titan said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

titan said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Meanwhile I have multiple pilots claim it was impossible, even some that tried to replicate it in a sim?

---

Your link says they did replicate it

---

No it does not, you just have poor reading comprehension

The scenario was recreated, none of them replicated it

---

Have you ever seen the Pentagon in person?

---

I for one have not only seen it close from outside, but have been in it. It is unbelievably massive, very high facade and above all --- wide, wide. It just doesn't seem hard to miss hitting if on a suicide approach. Hitting a particular window or such, maybe, but have never seen that alleged beyond some possibility that side was deliberately targeted. But even then, hitting it would not surprise.

---

Have you ever flown a 757 using the flight maneuvers of Hanjour?

---

No. The only simulation was landing on a carrier, which actually succeeded. But actual pilots are debating those details. Why are they wrong? There seems dozens of claims going both ways. How is a layman (non pilot) reading them to know which is which?

---

Make up your own mind, I find it comical that anyone could believe Hanjour could make those maneuvers.

It's almost as comical as someone believing a passport ended up in the streets of New York. Almost.

Exactly what pilots flew it on a simulator?

I suspect the answer is "none".

AggiEE said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

cbr said:

---

I've flown a cessna exactly once, but what stunned me is how easy it was. Instructor just gave me a one sentence explanation of what to do when we were at about 5000 ft and i landed the ****ing thing.

Now, the cessna is probably a lot easier than a jet, and as long as you're aiming down and losing altitude it a;l,ost cant stall, but i am not going to buy that it was super difficult to hit the ****ing pentagon.

---

''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

---

Well that settles it. One guy thought he was bad at flying so that definitely outweighs the hundreds of eye witnesses who saw it live and the mountains of physical evidence from the site. Must have been a giant multilevel conspiracy and the people on the plane were killed off site and their remains were quickly Fedexed to the crash site with the rest of the planted evidence.

---

What hundreds of eye witnesses saw Hanjour fly 757 into the pentagon?

---

So now it was a 757 but someone else was flying?

---

I have already stated that while I doubt it was a 757, I am not certain.

If it somehow was, it certainly wasn't flown by Hanjour

---

"Certainly" Lol. It keeps getting better. Which brave (and also suicidal) deep stater was willing to go down for the cause?

New World Ag said:

---

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


A descending turn isn't difficult, a student pilot does every time they are working the traffic pattern while learning to land. Pointing your plane to hit any of the face of a huge building isn't something that requires a test pilot to do.

---

---

You are simplifying this to an absurd degree

"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

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.

Minimal training? This guy had years of flight training (beginning in 1996) and hundreds of hours of flight time, and received a commercial pilots license. And apparently a significant amount of that spent on a singular purpose…that goal not actually being to do any of the things that a flight instructor who thinks youre going to be flying people around cares about, but training to take over mid flight and fly the plane into a target. He didn't actually need to learn things that people who were going to be flying planes the rest of their lives would care about, its not surprising that an instructor would be concerned that he didnt have skills the instructor thought he would need but that he himself knew he would not need. The flight instructors were concerned this guy was going to get hired to fly and he couldnt speak English well, and didnt care about procedures or learning things he wasnt going to need, IMO

AggiEE said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

Yes I have. I've seen the New Pearl Harbor video several times over the years. Plus other truther videos that used to be on YT.

On your 9/11 pilots website there is a video interview between Captain Dan Hanley and Mark Gaffney. Both of them state up front they have zero doubts that a 757 hit the Pentagon. The big problem is they oversimplify the whole ordeal. They state that Hani took off from Dulles got to cruising altitude made a 180 turn to DC. They claim he makes 330 degree turn from 7000 feet and comes out PRECISELY at the surface without hitting it at 500 knots to crash into the pentagon...

Except that isn't true at all. He comes out of his turn just below 3,000 feet at around 300 knots. He still flies for another minute right at the pentagon still flying downward at it and doesn't hit 500 knots until just moments before impact.

On your Pearl Harbor video and the pilots who doubt the circle descent, one of the guys makes it sound like Hani did the turn and crashed right into the Pentagon. One he is assuming the Pentagon is a lot smaller than actually is and two assumes he crashed immediately into the building while performing the turn. Both are huge wrong assumptions.

They quote Commander Ralph Kolstad and his doubts. His doubts appear to be from the way it was described to him. Another pilot is quoted saying he can't imagine someone being able to perform that maneuvre....really that the pilot proof you have? Speculation on their part?

---

Where in that video are they assuming any of those things?

---

So you don't know your own evidance?

Here is them stating they believe a 757 hit the Pentagon. Watch until 5:34


On the Hani story. I almost quote him word for word

Quote:

---

The big problem is they oversimplify the whole ordeal. They state that Hani took off from Dulles got to cruising altitude made a 180 turn to DC. They claim he makes 330 degree turn from 7000 feet and comes out PRECISELY at the surface without hitting it at 500 knots to crash into the pentagon...

---

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

---

He performed a descending standard rate turn then flew wings level and hit a gigantic building, or rather the ground and other objects then the gigantic building. He probably would have done more damage if he had avoided the outer wall and hit the roof at a shallow angle parallel one or splitting the difference of two sides of the building. It wasn't some precision maneuver. It could have been flown better. Lots of inexperienced pilots could have done it, with a little practice in the sim loading a point to navigate to the general vicinity.

You really need to learn to start questioning the "facts" in these truther videos instead of taking them all as gospel.

AggiEE said:

---

titan said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

titan said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Meanwhile I have multiple pilots claim it was impossible, even some that tried to replicate it in a sim?

---

Your link says they did replicate it

---

No it does not, you just have poor reading comprehension

The scenario was recreated, none of them replicated it

---

Have you ever seen the Pentagon in person?

---

I for one have not only seen it close from outside, but have been in it. It is unbelievably massive, very high facade and above all --- wide, wide. It just doesn't seem hard to miss hitting if on a suicide approach. Hitting a particular window or such, maybe, but have never seen that alleged beyond some possibility that side was deliberately targeted. But even then, hitting it would not surprise.

---

Have you ever flown a 757 using the flight maneuvers of Hanjour?

---

No. The only simulation was landing on a carrier, which actually succeeded. But actual pilots are debating those details. Why are they wrong? There seems dozens of claims going both ways. How is a layman (non pilot) reading them to know which is which?

---

Make up your own mind, I find it comical that anyone could believe Hanjour could make those maneuvers.

It's almost as comical as someone believing a passport ended up in the streets of New York. Almost.

---

On the first my mind is made up that given what seems at least possibly equally weighty and apparent credentialed pilot testimony can't really tell which is true. Each side is pretty adamant. So that part's a wash.

On your second about that passport, can agree that seems a bit striking convenient. But as another poster said well -- sometimes these things "are in the middle". That could be a throwdown (or genuine) without implying the attack is staged. It is an unfortunate tendency of officialdom to "reinforce a narrative" and by doing so, partly undermine their otherwise already passably firm case if its discovered. A good example is how many still see the glove in the O.J. trial -- but Spence concluded something less outrageous "they framed a guilty man."

I think some of that may well have been going on. Just a different thought to consider.

titan said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

titan said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

titan said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Meanwhile I have multiple pilots claim it was impossible, even some that tried to replicate it in a sim?

---

Your link says they did replicate it

---

No it does not, you just have poor reading comprehension

The scenario was recreated, none of them replicated it

---

Have you ever seen the Pentagon in person?

---

I for one have not only seen it close from outside, but have been in it. It is unbelievably massive, very high facade and above all --- wide, wide. It just doesn't seem hard to miss hitting if on a suicide approach. Hitting a particular window or such, maybe, but have never seen that alleged beyond some possibility that side was deliberately targeted. But even then, hitting it would not surprise.

---

Have you ever flown a 757 using the flight maneuvers of Hanjour?

---

No. The only simulation was landing on a carrier, which actually succeeded. But actual pilots are debating those details. Why are they wrong? There seems dozens of claims going both ways. How is a layman (non pilot) reading them to know which is which?

---

Make up your own mind, I find it comical that anyone could believe Hanjour could make those maneuvers.

It's almost as comical as someone believing a passport ended up in the streets of New York. Almost.

---

On the first my mind is made up that given what seems at least possibly equally weighty and apparent credentialed pilot testimony can't really tell which is true. Each side is pretty adamant. So that part's a wash.

On your second about that passport, can agree that seems a bit striking convenient. But as another poster said well -- sometimes these things "are in the middle". That could be a throwdown (or genuine) without implying the attack is staged. It is an unfortunate tendency of officialdom to "reinforce a narrative" and by doing so, partly undermine their otherwise already passably firm case if its discovered. A good example is how many still see the glove in the O.J. trial -- but Spence concluded something less outrageous "they framed a guilty man."

I think some of that may well have been going on. Just a different thought to consider.

---

Given the speed and clarity at which the entire plot of 9/11 was rolled out in the mainstream media, with the passport in New York story being icing on the cake, it seems pretty clear to me this was a psyop and it worked as planned

Who needs a true investigation when you can have three letter agencies control the information and a willing partner in the mainstream media to disseminate it

There are far too many enormous holes in the official narrative and physical evidence

Satellite of Love said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

Yes I have. I've seen the New Pearl Harbor video several times over the years. Plus other truther videos that used to be on YT.

On your 9/11 pilots website there is a video interview between Captain Dan Hanley and Mark Gaffney. Both of them state up front they have zero doubts that a 757 hit the Pentagon. The big problem is they oversimplify the whole ordeal. They state that Hani took off from Dulles got to cruising altitude made a 180 turn to DC. They claim he makes 330 degree turn from 7000 feet and comes out PRECISELY at the surface without hitting it at 500 knots to crash into the pentagon...

Except that isn't true at all. He comes out of his turn just below 3,000 feet at around 300 knots. He still flies for another minute right at the pentagon still flying downward at it and doesn't hit 500 knots until just moments before impact.

On your Pearl Harbor video and the pilots who doubt the circle descent, one of the guys makes it sound like Hani did the turn and crashed right into the Pentagon. One he is assuming the Pentagon is a lot smaller than actually is and two assumes he crashed immediately into the building while performing the turn. Both are huge wrong assumptions.

They quote Commander Ralph Kolstad and his doubts. His doubts appear to be from the way it was described to him. Another pilot is quoted saying he can't imagine someone being able to perform that maneuvre....really that the pilot proof you have? Speculation on their part?

---

Where in that video are they assuming any of those things?

---

So you don't know your own evidance?

Here is them stating they believe a 757 hit the Pentagon. Watch until 5:34


On the Hani story. I almost quote him word for word

Quote:

---

The big problem is they oversimplify the whole ordeal. They state that Hani took off from Dulles got to cruising altitude made a 180 turn to DC. They claim he makes 330 degree turn from 7000 feet and comes out PRECISELY at the surface without hitting it at 500 knots to crash into the pentagon...

---

---

Those aren't the videos I was talking about

There are many truthers that believe a 757 hit the pentagon, that's not what I was arguing about

NTSB report based on the 757's flight data recorder found in the pentagon:

"At 9:34 AM, the aircraft was positioned about 3.5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon, and started a right 330-degree descending turn to the right. At the end of the turn, the aircraft was at about 2000 feet altitude and 4 miles southwest of the Pentagon. Over the next 30 seconds, power was increased t onear maximum and the nose was pitched down in response to control column
movements. The airplane accelerated to approximately 460 knots (530 miles per hour) at impact with the Pentagon. The time of impact was 9:37:45 AM."


He flew to the pentagon then did a descending standard rate turn (standard rate meaning it's the rate of turn used for instrument flight procedures every day by ever pilot on earth) until he was roughly lined up four miles away at 2000 feet. Not low level. Not crazy turns. Not crazy speed. Then he nosed it over and throttled up over 30 seconds to fly somewhat imprecisely into an enormous building.

The pilots saying it was a difficult maneuver either had the maneuvering misrepresented to them or they're lying or they're smooth brainers like the rest of the truther crowd.

Edit: Looks like it was actually a significantly more benign turn than standard rate, which is 3 degrees per second, and this turn was apparently less than two degrees per second.


https://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/Flight_Path_Study_AA77.pdf