Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11?

So you don't believe the "official" story that there were pilots. but you believe the "offical" story about them only having PPL's?
That makes a lot of sense!

At least you have confidence in your position . . . . think maybe you need to spend time on a Forum that debunks conspiracies not one that speculates freely about them . . .

I'm a pilot, commercial, with 1000's of hours in jet, air carrier aircraft.

These aircraft were apparantly fully operational with the autoflight and FMS systems working. If you have a working knowledge of how to program the FMS and also couple it to the autopilot, then yes, the WTC would be fairly easy to hit.

The Pentagon is another story. If they knew how to build a circling approach with a VNAV descent, then that could also be possible. But you gotta know what you're doing. Especially at that speed.

But what about WTC 7, didn't a plane hit that to...wait,

NVM. Whoever believe the Official story really don't care about anyone but themselves and "loved" ones.

So the ground effect would not be a problem at the Pentagon . . . you could hit it 30 feet off the ground at 460 knots ??

Last Edited by George B on 02/18/2013 10:03 PM

I didn't say that. It would be difficult even for seasoned pilots. I said it could be possible.

1) What probability would you assign to accomplishing this feat for an experienced pilot. . . .from 1 - 100%?

2) What probability would you assign to accomplishing this feat for a pilot with the hijacker's experience. . . . From 1 - 100%?

3) How likely do you think the hijacker was simply trying to hit anything on or near the Pentagon and just lucked up hitting the Pentagon where he did . . . 1-100%?

Last Edited by George B on 02/19/2013 08:52 AM

1) 50%
2) 05%
3) 10%

Thank you that was very helpful. . . since your percentages are rather low. . . Do you have a personal theory about what happened at the Pentagon? . . .

Here is your answer.

[link to thebigbamboozle.tumblr.com]


By the "late" Phillip Marshall.

They were Saudi fighter pilots disguised as low life's. the truth will never come out.

With the almost miraculous discovery of the indestructible Saudi passports, could someone please explain why a million +- Iraq people had to die?

OK . . . what was it's air speed . . . ? Seems it was recognizable throughout its run . . . don't know if that was true at the Pentagon . . .

Last Edited by George B on 02/21/2013 10:49 PM

I think you just made that up.

Prove otherwise.

What was the altitude this jet was flying at?

The Pentagon jet was supposedly flying low enough to knock down light poles on the nearby freeway.

Your jet was at least 300 feet up.

true! ground effect would have kicked in!!!

Proves nothing. Straight (and essentially level) run at an airspeed withing operating limits.

After considerable analysis . . . I have some thoughts . . .

1) There is no absolute proof that the aircraft supposedly involved in 911 collisions would have self-destructed at the speeds they appear to be flying prior to collision with the buildings . . .

2) They were all flying above the * DO NOT Exceed 250kts @ or Below 10,000ft Altitude.* specified by Boeing [link to knology.net]

3) They were all flying below or just below "Never Exceed" in the case of the aircraft that hit WTC #1 . . . the (• Vne/Mne 516/0.86 Mach Never Exceed Speed) [link to knology.net]

4) Why would you train for years and conspire to collide the buildings in your plan and take any risk of not hitting the Towers by flying so fast as to possibly lose control or have a wing fall off before you got to your target? Obviously, either the hijackers knew more about aircraft design and capabilities than many of the experts I have been reading or they were just plain stupid . . .

:911 Speed Analys:

Last Edited by George B on 02/21/2013 02:07 PM

Plausibility Of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated By GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems
Aidan Monaghan (B.Sc., EET) Abstract


The alleged flight performances of inexperienced terrorist pilots accused of proficiently operating complex flight control systems of four aircraft during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 has surprised observers. Moreover, official information presented to demonstrate terrorist pilot control of the said aircraft has been either unverifiable or demonstrated to contain noteworthy anomalies. The flight paths of the September 11, 2001 attack aircraft bear characteristics common to the capabilities provided by precision automated flight control systems and related commercial aviation technology that emerged just prior to these attacks. The clandestine use of precise augmented GPS guided auto-pilot aircraft systems in order to perform the said aircraft attacks is hypothesized.
Keywords: Global Positioning System, Wide Area Augmentation System, Selective Availability, Required Navigation Performance, Flight Management System, Multi-Mode Receiver, Dynamic Airborne Reroute Procedure, Radius-to-Fix Turn, Geometric Dilution of Precision.

[link to www.jamigen.com]



Last Edited by George B on 02/23/2013 07:16 PM

Porter Goss:
Bomb Goes Off At Pentagon During Porter Goss Q&A

Is this Flight 77 on tape?

[link to www.youtube.com]





What is the explosion before the screaming jet noise? Is that screaming jet noise Flt 77?

Most interesting....

Last Edited by George B on 02/24/2013 05:21 PM

Apparently no 757 would be able to fly at those speeds at that altitude.

wow! Never seen that one before!

Yes a most interesting video . . . I bet someone will call it a fraud or debunk it very soon if they have not already . . .

Last Edited by George B on 02/25/2013 05:32 PM

[link to youtu.be]

Well I am trying to make sense out of the following . . . this leads one to believe Flight 77's flight recorder was not accurate or was not in the THING that hit the Pentagon . . .



"Flight Data Recorder Analysis - Last Second of Data - 09:37:44
08/20/06 We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles. We have ananimation of the entire flight provided by the NTSB. The animation covers the whole flight from taxi out at Dulles... to the impact at the Pentagon in realtime. This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 in Hg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to the US Geological Survey. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forth coming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment. For further details, please see our Technical Paper here and Press Release here outlining our findings. For detailed presentation and analysis, please see Pandora's Black Box - ChapterTwo - Flight Of American 77." [link to pilotsfor911truth.org]


[link to youtu.be]

Thanks for all your participation . . .

POLL: Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the sp
7) No 27.1% (67)
6) Probably not, it would be very hard to do 14.2% (35)
11) I don't know 10.5% (26)
1) Yes 10.1% (25)
2) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward 10.1% (25)
8) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed 9.7% (24)
9) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed 5.7% (14)
10) No, the plane could never even reach that speed. 4.9% (12)
4) Yes, but it would have been very difficult 3.6% (9)
3) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration 2.8% (7)
5) Probably, but they were pretty lucky 1.2% (3)
Blank (View Results) (60)

Non-Blank Votes: 247

Here is a counter analysis of the above it is 16 plus pages . . .

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.) January 2011

"Summary and Conclusion

In response to FOIA requests the NTSB provided a CSV file and a coded FDR file. All contradictions between the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and these files appear to be traceable to missing data. In the case of the CSV file the data stopped about four seconds short of the impact. In the case of the FDR file the final frame was not initially decoded. Some researchers recognized that data was missing, while others claimed that the files proved the official account was false, as it appeared the flight terminated at a point too high to have created the observed damage trail on the ground.
Previous analyses were further confounded by uncertainty of the position of the last data point; failure to consider possible calibration errors in the pressure altimeter data, caused by high speed and low altitude; and false information in the NTSB flight animation.
The recent complete decoding of the FDR file has enlarged and clarified the information available and has thereby enabled resolution of the contradictions. It is clear that this file supports the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports the majority of eyewitness reports."
[link to www.journalof911studies.com]

Absolute horseshit. Pure and simple.

Which part? Seems like both sides have some interesting positions. . . Highly technical . . .