Pilots for 911 Truth

I got into a blog argument with a debunker who provided what *might* be a good debunking of the claim by pilotsfor 911 truth that the final Flight 77 data does not indicate the plane could not have hit the Pentagon.

He says the plane was in a near stall, went into a dive then levelled out at high speed into the Pentagon.

So the question to you is whether or not his anlalysis is crap or not.

Here is his "debunking" followed by my reply:

“… So I read a bit of the pilots for 911 truth or whatever. Took me about two minutes to find a glaring flaw. Maybe it is just a typo, or maybe they are lying sacks of shit, I don’t know. And since I don’t know for sure they aren’t lying sacks of shit I really have no opinion on whether they are lying sacks of shit. I should probably read more of your stuff, it usually doesn’t take long to find the errors. So the maneuver that can’t be made;

[The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. That’s 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots] these numbers work no problem here.

[Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes] See the problem? He traveled 33 miles in 5 minutes, and then went 5 miles in 3 without changing speed? So do the math he would be traveling about 120 MPH to travel 5 miles in 3 minutes. The takeoff speed of the 757 is 160 mph so I would think stall speed would be in the 120 range. 5 miles in 330 degrees is about a 7/8 mile radius plus the mile down. So we put this all into our nifty aircraft turn calculator and we get a 25 degree turn angle at 1.1 g’s not all that radical (this was at 180 mph so our inexperienced pilot can keep control of the plane. At 400 mph this would require a 70 degree turn at almost 3 g’s, still possible but not probable. The 400mph turn would also only take 41.8 seconds (360deg).
So let’s see if this fits. Our boy has gained control of the plane, he flies it for the most part as the dead pilots left it. 400mph, he probably doesn’t have much knowledge of navigation, just compass points, he is for the most part flying by dead reckoning, his partner shouts that he has missed his mark, the Pentagon is over there. He throttles back, cranks the yoke and puts the plane into a sloppy turn, not being accustomed to rudder controls since most of his practice has been on video games in his living room. The plane looses speed quickly, he puts it in a 12 degree dive (that’s all, I drew it up in Autocad) and turns the plane for the building. He aims the plane for the center of the building as he has been instructed since the outer wall is hardened but the inner walls aren’t but he is in danger of overshooting his mark so in a move of desperation he tips the plane into a dive, remember he is only going between 120 and 180 mph at this time. By this time the plane is essentially stalling and uncontrollable, it falls like a rock, in the last second he has enough speed to regain enough control to skip the plane into the side of the building. At close to 500mph, not pretty, but effective. Tell me where I am wrong.

Preemptive, I know I am not an expert, but I can do math. So what they say is partly true, they just leave a big gap for you to fill in yourself, but I don’t have an opinion on that since I can’t read their minds.”

Now, my response:

Start paste --> …
Regarding the flight path, I have only two observations (criticisms?) to offer about the flight path aspect of your Conspiracy Theory. (By the way, we all thought there was no communication with the aircraft, so Sherlock, how’d you know everyone but the terrorists were dead?) My observations on your flight path is that:

(a) if the aircraft was in a stall and fell like a rock until enough velocity was attained to pull the 757 out of the fall at the last second, how did he manage to pull the JUMBO JET to near level flight at the last “SECOND”? (I didn’t realize 757’s could be so nimble)

(b) if the aircraft “skipped” into the Pentagon, why was there no indications of this on the lawn, highway, or any other surface (excluding the light poles which were apparently clipped off at some height above the road surface)?

If you are sure you are correct in your calculations, I salute you because that would be valuable input and I would like to hear the response you get from pilotsfor911Truth. Please advise them ASAP. Pointer for the wise: try to avoid calling them “lying sacks of shit”, that kind of talk just reflects poorly on you.

--> End Paste

Any comments from pilots or people who can do the math without too much effort would be appreciated!

Not to quote someone we all

Not to quote someone we all absolutely hate and despise, but that sounds like "fuzzy math" to me.

His argument takes in nothing but speculation. He has no evidence of anything he just said. In fact, the only way to tell if there was a "stall" would be to look at the FDR. I mean, doesn't that record altitude, path, etc. Therefore, if the FDR shows what he just said then fine, but if it shows a fairly smooth turn into the building at a constant speed, then not fine.

Even if what he says is correct, your point (b) is spot on. None of what he said could have happened without those retard pilots hitting the lawn, breaking off wings, engines flying into the building, etc.

That argument doesn't stick


Did Hanjour skip the boeing 757 off the light poles, the roads, the lawn? Where did he "skip" the plane exactly?
As if the physics-defying OCT wasnt enough, now we have this brilliant theory which is more ridiculous than the oct alone.

I am afraid the only thing "skipped" here was junior high school physics classes, and maybe a course in logic.

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

I long ago came to the conclusion that AA-77 was nowhere near

the Pentagon on 9/11.

A few observations. a) A

A few observations.

a) A Boeing 757 is not a jumbo jet. A Boeing 747 is.
b) 757s are surprisingly nimble and are masterpieces of engineering. See: http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html
c) Photographs of the Pentagon lawn are deceptive, since they are taken from such long distances away. There very well could have been an indication that the plane hit the ground closer to the building itself, where burning cars, chunks of limestone and debris were.

The two problems I have with his analysis are:

a) He sounds like a typical debunker: self-righteous, convinced of his infallibility and destined to forever refer to those questioning the official story with derogatory terms. Then again, many in the Truth Movement fit this profile also.
b) His scenario is based entirely on the assumption that Hani Hanjour was piloting the plane.

FDR Data and Corroborating Evidence

FDR Data and Corroborating Evidence

(a) "if the aircraft was in a stall and fell like a rock until enough velocity was attained to pull the 757 out of the fall at the last second, how did he manage to pull the JUMBO JET to near level flight at the last “SECOND”? (I didn’t realize 757’s could be so nimble)"

This assumes that the FDR data is accurate. I don't believe this for three reasons:

1. Would the government be stupid enough to take the FDR from "The plane that flew over", and delete the data up until it "flew over"?
2. The Pentagon is surrounded by large highways and ZERO witnesses have come forward to directly claim a flyover. Where are these witnesses? If witnesses can come forward at WTC7 to claim that the lobby was BLOWN UP, where are the Pentagon witnesses who say the plane flew over?
3. The FDR is contradicted by the eyewitness testimony and the physical evidence

Now having said that I personally don't believe the FDR data because it is contradicted by a lot of evidence, I'm quite aware that there are others who do, and who are inclined to believe it simply because it "proves the official story false". The concept of "corroborating evidence" is relevant here--if evidence is supported by other types of evidence, we can determine it to be credible. The FDR data is not credible because it is contradicted by many other types of different evidence--not just the eyewitness testimony.

The eyewitnesses ALL, place the plane at TREETOP or LIGHT POLE height. A flight path is established by PHYSICAL DAMAGE at the light poles and an implied flight path CONFIRMED by the damage inside of the Pentagon. The damage inside of the pentagon aligns in a straight LINE with the light pole damage--all the way to the C hole. Those who claim that the PentaCon witnesses support the FDR data simply aren't paying attention. These witnesses claimed the plane flew LOW--VERY LOW, and HIT the Pentagon. How does that support the FDR data, when it claims the plane was flying MUCH higher?

(b) if the aircraft “skipped” into the Pentagon, why was there no indications of this on the lawn, highway, or any other surface (excluding the light poles which were apparently clipped off at some height above the road surface)?

This assumes that the plane hit the ground first which isn't strongly supported by the eyewitness testimony. Witnesses claimed the plane completely entered the Pentagon, and the plane parts inside of the Pentagon would seem to confirm this.

I agree that the FDR data is incriminating and needs to be explained. These debates about whether a plane hit the Pentagon do not change the fact that 9/11 was an inside job. No plane should have hit the Pentagon. The only way a plane hit the pentagon on the GROUND floor was by REMOTE CONTROL, not a hijacker. There is no way in hell a hijacker did this.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

just a thought

The "debunker" may not have taken into consideration the possibility that due to cirling, there may not be any contradiction inherent in the data he quotes. look at it like this: suppose the plane is 5 miles away from the Pentagon when it goes into the spiral dive. It travels a much greater distance through the air than 5 miles in order to (theoretically) crash into the Pentagon. Of course, this can probably be seen more clearly in the simulation, but I guess the "debunker" may not have bothered to watch that.


Thank you for your comments. That was enuf.

The debunker (backflippper for the OCT) has backed away from his position and does not even support his own rough calculations enough to send his "critique" to 911Pilotsfortruth for their comments.

No need for further comments, there is no need to waste anymore time on this item.

Thanks again.