Video debunks BS so-called 911 truthers try to spread.

Some of the 9/11 truthers are certainly not the brightest, I'll give you that. I still think it was an inside job, but I just don't buy into some of the theories, like the "no plane" theory. I'm not saying those theories aren't possible, I just think it would be a hell of a lot easier to allow terrorists to do what they love anyway (blow shit up) and then reap the rewards, like Dick Cheney.

Um, G?,
I bet if you ask an airline pilot to estimate the speed of that pass...he would describe it as a LOW SPEED pass.
Nice try though...and like the poster above I don't buy all the theories but something deffo' stinks about the whole story of the events of Sept. 11th of 2001.
Debunkers-zero points..Bunkers-too many points and counting.
Drunken Blacksmith

The pilot on this great performance flight was Cap. César Brito no less than the TAP Airbus A310 fleet last Chief Pilot...this awesome pilot has 4,000 hours on the A310 and TAP wanted to pay the best tribute for almost 20 years of service in TAP without an accident. The airplane involved was CS-TEI and the co-pilot of that flight was Vitor Pereira. Has you know, from November on TAP will start to receive 5 brand new A330-200 fresh from the factory.
This incredible performance shows the great pilots TAP have during all these years, just to remind you in early 60's the famous Capt. Marcelino passed UNDER Tagus bridge with a Boeing 707!!!

Those 'arabs' couldn't fly a cessna........

That video always portrays the skills of a very accomplished pilot not some jackass like this:

In 1998, Hanjour received a one-hour lesson after which, in the words of manager Wes Fults, "He had only the barest understanding of what the instruments were there to do." Yet by April 1999, by means that FAA officials refuse to discuss, Hanjour had obtained a commercial pilots license, capping several years of trying. In April of 1996 he attended a 30-minute class at the Sierra Academy of Aeronautics in Oakland California, never to return. The next month finds him in Scottsdale, Arizona, where he signed up for lessons at CRM Flight Cockpit Resource Management. Hanjour left after three months with no certificate. He returned one year later, stayed only a few weeks, then left again. Over the next three years, Hanjour called the Scottsdale School seeking re-admision but was rebuffed as having no pilot potential. In 1998 Hanjour enrolled at Sawyer Aviation in Phoenix, Arizona. He attended a handful of sessions on the flight simulator, then disappeared once again.

[link to 911review.org]

That video always portrays the skills of a very accomplished pilot not some jackass like this:

In 1998, Hanjour received a one-hour lesson after which, in the words of manager Wes Fults, "He had only the barest understanding of what the instruments were there to do." Yet by April 1999, by means that FAA officials refuse to discuss, Hanjour had obtained a commercial pilots license, capping several years of trying. In April of 1996 he attended a 30-minute class at the Sierra Academy of Aeronautics in Oakland California, never to return. The next month finds him in Scottsdale, Arizona, where he signed up for lessons at CRM Flight Cockpit Resource Management. Hanjour left after three months with no certificate. He returned one year later, stayed only a few weeks, then left again. Over the next three years, Hanjour called the Scottsdale School seeking re-admision but was rebuffed as having no pilot potential. In 1998 Hanjour enrolled at Sawyer Aviation in Phoenix, Arizona. He attended a handful of sessions on the flight simulator, then disappeared once again.

[link to 911review.org]

remove the always

1. It's not the same type of plane.

2. The speed isn't listed.

3. There are no trees, light poles, bridges, power generators, or enormous spools of cable in the way of the stunt-pilot.

4. The stunt-pilot of the Airbus in the video is, you know....a pilot.

Other than that, you're right on target, genius.

That is why I wouldn't follow any battle plans made by you.

Much less can go wrong with everyone watching TV ... and believeing physics is suspended. ...

than actually having people hijack planes... sorry, logistically commanders would laugh at this plan.

with missions, you talk "rate of success" ... and actually hijacking four planes ... haha, ....

Which plan are you saying they would laugh at? The one where you let four planes be hijacked by trained pilots or the one where you apparently hire LucasArts to craft an amazing illusion so real that people in New York actually believe they saw something happen on 9/11? Again, not saying it isn't possible, but to laugh off a much more feasible (IMO) scenario is a bit foolish, Commander.

That was a lame debunk.

i thought the shill was banned?

Give it up G
Your arguments are like space......weightless.

One question for anyone that still believes the official 911 story... where did the "rivers of molten metal" in the basement come from?
This is the one thing they will never be able to explain no matter how many lies and BS they spout.

Except of course the fact that that plane was easily filmed unlike the pentagram plane. If we had that kind of footage, there would be no conspiracy.

more tripe from G. House.

Where are you, secret agent man?

Seems to me if you want to fly a plane into a building - you just point the nose at where you want to hit and fly straight at it - ground effect wouldn't come into it, provided youre not skimming the ground.

Topic is that many GLPers claim that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon would not have been controlable due to "ground effect".

Which I had debunked before in another thread from the aspect and FACT that large aircraft are not as effected by the phenomenom as smaller aircraft.

I posted this video just to back up my claim with something showing a similar sized aircraft under control flying at high speed very close to the ground.

As far as speed of the aircraft goes, the aircraft in the video is going between 250 and 300 knots judging its apparent speed and the engine sound. In fact it would be quitre dangerous to pull off this manuever at "low speed" as there would be little leeway to manuever out of say an engine failure if done at "low speed".

Contrary to popular GLP opinion it takes much less "talent" to crash an aircraft into a building then to do something more useful such as land the aircraft

And in the case of the Pentagon the aircrafts approach was quite sloppy because it did hit light poles and a massive external generator before it impacted the building. A really good pilot would probably have set up a fight path to miss those objects.

That is REALLY the ceiling fan UFO, photoshopped to look like a plane.





But I STILL give it *12* points, just for the cajones!


.

.

Not flying at anywhere near the same speed.

As far as the pilot goes, we really have no idea who the "terrorists" really were that day, considering the fact that 8 of them have later turned up alive.

Pull your head out of your ass and accept the fact that 9/11 was an inside job.

G.House, As far as i can tell there is disinfo on both sides. The official story is bullshit however on almost all fronts. I'll take this vid at face value even though the speeds are way different.


Here's my question: Why is it that they can show the planes go into the towers a thousands of times over and over and over and also the vid of the hudson river aircraft but after all this time they will not show vid of the Pentagon from across the street. Neither the gas station camera nor the hotel footage?

Please do not refer the 4 bullshit pics from the Pentagon entrance.