Rusted Sky

Jerry, I’m going to weigh in (reluctantly) on this one:

“…this assumption would claim that a single person, with terrible piloting skills, was able to fly a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon without leaving any significant evidence around the Pentagon…”

-- because I have an experience that might be relevant. (And I will leave out the inaccuracy of that statement about “...without leaving any significant evidence around the Pentagon...” The B757 in question hit short of the Pentagon building, which certainly did leave “evidence.” But on to my main point.)

I’m going to second your assertion that what the 9/11 highjackers was not beyond the abilities of even unskilled pilots. And I say that because – I’ve done it, or something pretty similar, if not a bit more difficult.

Background: I used to be a lightplane pilot -- about thirty-five years ago. I flew PA28-140s and C172s out of the Aero Club at Robins AFB. I only got a coupla hundred hours in my logbook before I had to quit, and I was what our Chief Pilot called “a good fair-weather pilot,” i.e., don’t ever, ever get yourself caught in instrument conditions because you will die, kid.

Roll forward twenty-five-plus years. I’m working at Delta Air Lines as a structures engineer. One day, our department boss, as a morale-raising exercise, gets his engineers a tour of the flight simulator facility over at the General Offices, and we get to try our hand at one of the Boeing 737 3-axis simulators. Very cool – if clunky by today’s standards. The instruments and controls work exactly like a real B737, the unit moves and pivots realistically, and the view out the flight deck windows is a computer-generated simulacrum of the area around Atlanta and Hartsfield International.

I was disappointed that I didn’t get to land or take the “airplane” off, like some of the other guys. In fact, I’m the last guy to get to handle the controls. And – it was a blast! The computer was simulating light turbulence, but the B737 cut right through it in a way the light Cherokees I was used to never could. The autothrottle was handling the power settings so I never had to touch the throttles to maintain a set speed. And the power trim button on the yoke meant I could put the nose anywhere I wanted and immediately trim out control forces. I would pay to ride that game again!

Anyway, we’re getting close to the end of the time block arranged for us. I’m cruising south at about fifteen thousand feet over Henry County, and the instructor says, “Bring her around north and start a descent... Now look down and slightly to your left. See that red dot?” Yep...

“That’s the red neon letters on top of the Tech Ops 1 building that say “FLY DELTA JETS.” (Yes, that’s part of the computer database.) “I want you to try and fly through them. Don’t worry about your speed; the autothrottle will take care of that. Just put your nose on the red dot and keep steering for it.”

Which I did. With minimal coaching. (I could still make a coordinated turn, I found, even after mumble-mumble years.) The letters got bigger and bigger until – just about at the point where I could read “FLY” – we flashed through them. (In simulation, of course.) The instructor patted me on the shoulder and said, “Pretty good. Most people hit the sign at a downward slant and impact in the parking lot. You hit ‘em level. (Beat) You’re still dead, though.”

And that’s my perspective on this: It ain’t that tough.

F451:

I don't know if you noticed it or not but what your simulator instructor told you that most people do when trying to fly into a simulated fixed target at or just above ground level is exactly what the pilot who flew the plane into the Pentagon did on Sept. 11. The pilot was trying to fly directly into the Pentagon but hit the greensward just in front of the main building at a downward slant.

The pilots who managed to actually hit the World Trade Center did so only because they were flying virtually straight and level about 800 feet above the ground. This corresponds closely with the tactics you used to suscessfully complete your assigned mission while while flying the simulator.

Flight 93 won't be considered because we know perfectly well why they augered in.

I think Jerry can add your comment to his file of counter-examples to the 'truthers' claims.

Otpu

Yes, I had noticed that. It's a real small sample -- but still interesting.

Among the items of evidence left by the crash of the B757 into the Pentagon was a security camera video showing the crash of a B757 into the Pentagon.

No evidence?

???

Ben

Ben -

They would seem to ignore hard info in preference to hearsay. I really despair sometimes - I know the tendency is for the squeaky wheel to get the grease, but there comes a point where you've got to grease the other wheels also - and the squeaky wheel doesn't want to give up one damn bit of the grease...

So the wheels fall off, but the squeaky wheel spins on. A technologically based society can't afford to have the wheels of critical thinking fall off in favor of unthinking belief...

J.

In reference to Ben's talk of evidence, yes there was such things as a single blurry video released and there was a some scrap metal to be found on the prestine lawn after the hit but when weighing the facts it just doesn't add up.

Why release only the single unclear video from the apparent only securit camera to catch the footage on the world's most protected building? Why would the goverment take all of the security camera tapes from surrounding buildings?

Yes, another video was recently released but it's footage is more uncler and questionable than the first. Also, why did the government take so long for it to be released for public viewing in the first place.

Are you truly willing to support that a B757 hit the Pentagon based on two bad videos and simply because it is what the government told you to be the truth? Are you willing to stand up for something that leads to more questions than answers? While living in a nation today filled with so much lies and deceptions, can you really put your whole self into backing something that has been told to you without even the evidence to add up to what you are being told to be true. Just because it was the head of our country to tell us what happened, doesn't mean that they cannot simply lie about it like any other person.

Ashley -

Look at http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html - and read the whole thing.

Also look at http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-2#hani-hanjour - and keep scrolling down.

I swear, if what you posted is supposed to be substatiated, well-researched, well-thought out opinion on the subject, you need a refund of your tuition. Have you bothered to do ANY research on this, to SEE what's out there? Or are you depending on the opinions of your friends, who haven't bothered to research it either?

I've been paying attention on this since day one. I'd really like to see how you're going to disprove the information on those sites - you seem exceedingly certain you're in the right, so convince me with information that's as solid as what's above. You seem convinced it's out there - show me links to it. But you'd better make it to hard, solid FACT - not 'well, what if' blue-sky bullshitting.

Isn't college supposed to teach you how to research a subject? Have you been paying attention? If so, they seem to have failed - because they haven't taught you how to tell the difference between rumor and fact and apparently you don't have the skills to actually do your own research and draw your own conclusion from facts. Instead, you apparently dive deep into groupthink - someone told you this, so it MUST be true!

I mean, it's not like it's hard to find FACT with Google, along with fantasy!

Someone's fed you a load of garbage, Ashley - you need to close your mouth and open your eyes.

J.

Let's get all deconstructivist on this mess:

"In reference to Ben's talk of evidence, yes there was such things as a single blurry video..."

Which clearly shows a large jet skimming the surface.

"released and there was a some scrap metal to be found..."

which looks remarkably like key parts of a Boeing 757

" on the prestine lawn"

Pristine? You mean, pristine except for all the evident damage, yes?

" after the hit but when weighing the facts it just doesn't add up."

Sure it does. Get a pencil. Not that one, you chewed it. Yecch. Get a new one. Ready?

Video of plane+
fact of missing plane+
debris matching missing plane's type+
damage consistent with plane impact=
Plane hit building.

It does to me. What else would you like?

Why release only the single unclear video from the apparent only securit camera to catch the footage on the world's most protected building? Why would the goverment take all of the security camera tapes from surrounding buildings?

"Yes, another video was recently released but it's footage is more uncler and questionable than the first."

says who?

"Also, why did the government take so long...'

Oh, this is a hoot. It's government, Ashley, do you REALLY think they're going to be any different here than everywhere else? They ALWAYS take so long. In fact, if it had gone the other way, I would be the suspicious one and ask "How was it the government moved so quickly?"

"Are you truly willing to support that a B757 hit the Pentagon based on two bad videos and simply because it is what the government told you to be the truth?"

Plus all the other stuff? Plus Popular Mechanics, Skeptic Magazine, etc? Beats the hell out beleiving YOU told me is the truth. Come up with some actual evidence.

Ben

That's one of the hallmarks of the Truthers, Ben - take one statement and spin the hell out of it, ignoring context or actual reality as needed. I don't know WHY they seem to have an obsessive need to operate like that, but it's been a pretty consistent thing and hard to overlook as a pattern.

And I predict that we won't get a reply back from Ashley on this that's at all pertinent to the subject, if we get one at all.

J.