Hello, New user saying hi Options

[andyross37]

Hi All, My name is Andy and I'm based in the UK.

I'm not an airline pilot, but I am an avaiation enthusiast, who has been searching the internet for a pilots view of the 9/11 attacks.

I was particularly interested in the attack on the Pentagon, as I have always said it was impossible that a 757 could have hit that building, yet I have been left frustrated by people who laugh at my theories, but not knowing any actual pilots, I have felt that I have been alone in thinking it impossible to fly a 757 into the pentagon......until now that is.

I am finally 100% sure that my theories were correct.

One thing I'd like to say (apologies if I get facts incorrect or if what I write goes all over the place), is that it IS possible to learn very quickly how to operate certain equipment in a modern jet. I have several 'on the flightdeck' videos, covering the B737, B747, B757, B767 & B777. In each video the pilots cover the flight controls, autopilot controls, FMC etc. On the B767 video the co-pilot even covers all the switches on the overhead panel. In the UK (even in 2010) you can pay to use the Flight Simulators at Gatwick or Heathrow to experience flying a real airliner. As someone who's never been on the flight deck of a 757 or a 767 I know I could switch off the transponder within a matter of minutes. One of my hobbies is playing Microsft Flight Simulaor and my favourite add on is the 737-400. It's a virtual 'real' 737 with all the panels and switches etc of the real thing. You have to do everything a real pilot has to do, including programming the fmc etc. So learning the controls and positions of switches etc is easy enough even for someone with no experience.

However, I have always said that even a real pilot experienced on the 757 would have extreme difficulty flying a 757 in to the pentagon. The fact that the plane hit the building so low down would mean the plane would have to fly very low at very high speed, which thanks to this site I now know to be impossible, and I wasn't taking many of the factors you mention in to consideration. I have read a number of internet sites, and I have read that for a 757 to hit the building the way it did the engines would have to be embedded in to the ground. One theory I read is that it's more likely a 737-200 was flown in to the building......this to me is a much more likely explanation. I have tried to explain to people by showing them photos of a 757 that even with gear up it's physically impossible to hit the building that low down as a 757 is by no means a small plane.

[KP50]

Welcome Andy,

I'm not a pilot but I am in New Zealand and hence awake to be able to greet you at this hour.

You've come to the right place to gain knowledge, just make sure you come in with an open mind and assume nothing at all about the Pentagon attack. PfT have done a great job in exposing the ridiculous nature of the official story and as an aviation enthusiast, there is much material here to work through.

The work of CIT in interviewing the witnesses to the incident prove that much of the scene was staged and that while there was an airplane that flew low, no lightpoles were hit and the plane flew over the Pentagon. If you haven't looked into that area at all then that sounds far-fetched so take a deep breath before you embark on the research, some of their work is in the Pentagon section here and the full detail is at

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/index.html

Cheers,
Nick in New Zealand

[andyross37]

Welcome Andy,

I'm not a pilot but I am in New Zealand and hence awake to be able to greet you at this hour.

You've come to the right place to gain knowledge, just make sure you come in with an open mind and assume nothing at all about the Pentagon attack. PfT have done a great job in exposing the ridiculous nature of the official story and as an aviation enthusiast, there is much material here to work through.

The work of CIT in interviewing the witnesses to the incident prove that much of the scene was staged and that while there was an airplane that flew low, no lightpoles were hit and the plane flew over the Pentagon. If you haven't looked into that area at all then that sounds far-fetched so take a deep breath before you embark on the research, some of their work is in the Pentagon section here and the full detail is at

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/index.html

Cheers,
Nick in New Zealand

Hi Nick.
Thanks for the reply. It's great to hear from a fellow kiwi!!
I'm still looking through this site and many others which cover 9/11. I do keep an open mind, and I'm not an expert in any field so some of the information I receive is beyond my comprehension.
I agree that pft has done an excellent job, who better to explain the behaviours of a big passenger jet than those who fly them every day and spend years in training to cover every eventuality they may face in their everyday role. As a non pilot, who's studied aviation, I know for example I could programme an autopilot to land a plane safely on a runway........I very much doubt I'd be able to carry out a visual approach and landing......let alone fly a 757 into a 4 story building whilst avoiding lightpoles and travelling at full speed with throttles fully open. I'm now 100% sure that an experienced 757 pilot could not achieve that, let alone someone who can't even land a cessna 172!!!

[Sanders]

This photo for me says it all. The entry point is supposed to be toward the right, above the front tire of the white car in the photo. A plane crashed there? Really???

(IMG:http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/5236/071106pentagon.jpg)

Welcome to the forum - (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/welcome.gif)

[localbod]

This photo for me says it all. The entry point is supposed to be toward the right, above the front tire of the white car in the photo. A plane crashed there? Really???

(IMG:http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/5236/071106pentagon.jpg)

Welcome to the forum - (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/welcome.gif)

The Pentagon right?
I suppose the 767 passenger airliner was going so fast and the forces upon it soo great that it all just folded up in to a 18ft hole.Taking with it the miles of cable ,seats ,passengers , luggage, wings, engines , tail and all!!
I tried to talk to people today about it but they just glazed over , i guess because the ramifications are massive and they don't want to try to get their heads around it!
If you just let your eyes do the work it's all in plain sight.
No large passenger carrying aircraft strike / crash simple , period.
Now why the U.S. government would say there was when there so blatantly was not ,that is a whole different bottle of crisps?!

respec-localbod.

[KP50]

Hi Nick.
Thanks for the reply. It's great to hear from a fellow kiwi!!

So you are a kiwi in the UK? I am a pom in NZ, but have been here 12 years.

As Sanders' photo shows, you can look at any photo of the Pentagon pre-collapse and wonder where that rather large plane disappeared to ......

[amazed!]

Welcome Andy, and a great post!

It seems there are 2 types of simulator (in the broadest sense) pilots--those who understand that the simulator is not REALLY an airplane, and the others. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

You are in the first category as I see it. Yes, turning switches on and off, using checklists and such, can be learned fairly quickly and for that the sim is excellent.

But the so-called Hani Maneuver, making that little run down into the wall at 300 knots or better, is real difficult for most pilots. The advanced computer/autopilot would do it way better than a human.

I actually know a guy who thinks that the Boeing at the Pentagon dragged its engine cowlings across the curb uphill. I takes all kinds, eh? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)