official 9-11 thread

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: event8horizon
vic-

its classified. the israeli connection to 9-11 is classified. if u can get those documents, that would be great.

Is there proof that it is classified.

Have documents been requested and denied due to security reasons? or by someone saying that they are classified, no one goes looking?

In otherwords, is that fact that the word classified is used an excuse/justification for not proving the connection?

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."

-- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

FOIA exemptions-
The nine exemption categories that authorize government agencies to withhold information are:
(1) classified information for national defense or foreign policy; (2) internal personnel rules and practices; (3) information that is exempt under other laws; (4) trade secrets and confidential business information; (5) inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters that are protected by legal privileges; (6) personnel and medical files; (7) law enforcement records or information; (8) information concerning bank supervision; and (9) geological and geophysical information.

i looked into it before. i think ill still try though. id like to know exactly what they got out of that weehawken n.j. warehouse.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tlc-

tell me what u think of general mahmoud ahmad being involved in providing/directing money to atta.

When you answer my question concerning what you think happened on 9/11, and not some obscure diversionary point about Atta either, I'll start responding to your questions. Until then I'll assume you're doing nothing more than attempting diversions into relatively insignificant minutiae to avoid having to answer that question in the first place.

what kind of obscure diversionary point are u talking about.

u said " diversions into relatively insignificant minutiae"

how the hell is the money man insignificant minutiae. always follow the money.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Just because the ISI sent them money does not mean the ISI knew the money was going to be used in an attack like 9-11.

We know from the Clinton cruise missile attack that people in the ISI were helping Osama in the 90s. Perhaps they were sending the money in order to further help Osama and had no idea how it was going to be spent. It is a sad fact that many in the muslim world support Osama and are willing to lend him support via money etc.

i remember reading a report from french intel that stated that cia and mi6 gave up the training camps to AQ in 90 or 91. ill have to find it for ya. check out the uber terrorist ali mohammed for a good read. egyptian intel to fort brag special forces to fbi informant all while possibly being cia as well. he also helped training OBL bodyguards. everytime u turn around investigating AQ, one runs into the ISI, MI6, CIA.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This thread is a perfect example of why the old policy of locking 9-11 conspiracy threads made sense.

what would u like to debate.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tlc-

tell me what u think of general mahmoud ahmad being involved in providing/directing money to atta.

When you answer my question concerning what you think happened on 9/11, and not some obscure diversionary point about Atta either, I'll start responding to your questions. Until then I'll assume you're doing nothing more than attempting diversions into relatively insignificant minutiae to avoid having to answer that question in the first place.

what kind of obscure diversionary point are u talking about.

u said " diversions into relatively insignificant minutiae"

how the hell is the money man insignificant minutiae. always follow the money.

Do you believe OBL was behind 9/11?

If not, explain your theory of who was and why. Clearly you've given this some thought, at least enough to argue on the internet about it. Surely you must also have expended some brain-power pondering who "really" did it, if not OBL.

So why is it so difficult for you to spell that out? Why are you hiding behind questions instead of providing answers?

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: digiram
I don't have to prove jack. You act like there were survelience cameras in the cock pit that sent feedback of the hijackers flying the plane to Fox News or something. The burden is in the media and the government to prove something before taking action based upon them. Especially, actions that cost billions in treasues and thousands in lives of not only the military but also civilians. However, if the public is willing to just accept everything told to them w/o question, then that isn't going happen.

All I'm doing is keeping an open mind on the situation, and refusing to drink the kool aid cause it smells like shit. In the mean time, I'm thinking of reasons why my daddy would give me this crap. Does he have a life insurance policy on me or something?

More red herrings and distractions. It's not that I have a closed-mind, it's that you're lying and being elusive about it. I'd love to believe your claim that Hanjour didn't fly the plane, BUT (1) you refuse to back it up, (2) it's not relevant to the fact that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, and (3) you're also not supporting your claim that Iraq was a direct pre-planned result of 9/11, except through innuendo.
I offered plausible alternative theories, ones completely at odds with any "official version," and got insulted as a kool-aid drinker.

This is the reason why I say that if the conspiracy theorists are right, then they are in on their own conspiracy theories. Nothing else can explain how the theories could be true, and theorists so good at discrediting themselves.

Just listen to the justifications for the Iraq war that came right out of the mout of GWB. Look what happened on 911, Saddam is dangerous, the same thing can happen again if we don't take action. The problem is the action doesn't even relate to what happened on 911, but 911 was used to indirectly justify it. Not the event in itself, but the thought of the new world that we're in due to it.

Perhaps, it's the father beating the child for his own good as control of the oil in the region would be critical in maintaining power and wealth at home.

I just hope that the reason isn't due to personal gains from the industries that are involved in and are able to profit from it. ie. the father killing his son to cash in on insurance pay outs.

I just don't see a valid reason for why the oil suppliers would want to hurt it's best customers. Unless, they wanted instability to occurr in their region to limit supply and increase prices. In that case, we're the suckers.

It is unlikely that you will find any single poster on this forum more opposed to the Iraq War from the very beginning than me (with the possible exception of Harvey), and all I can say to this post is so what?, STFU, and :roll:.

For the last time, that 9/11 was used to sell the Iraq War is not proof that 9/11 was pre-planned and executed for that purpose. It's just innuendo, and not even very good at that. Get a clue.

Then, why the hell did the admin use it sooooooooo much to sell the damn war???? If the friggin war is so damn just, why did they have to sell it at all? If 911 did not happen, would they have been able to sell to the public the idea of our vulnerability and the biggest threat was "Iraq"???

Point is, there would have been zero support at all for an Iraqi invasion, had 911 not happened. Do you agree or am I missing something. Don't give me any crap about Iraq failing to meet UN resolutions when many other countries are in the same boat, but we don't do jack to no one else.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: digiram
Then, why the hell did the admin use it sooooooooo much to sell the damn war???? If the friggin war is so damn just, why did they have to sell it at all? If 911 did not happen, would they have been able to sell to the public the idea of our vulnerability and the biggest threat was "Iraq"???

Point is, there would have been zero support at all for an Iraqi invasion, had 911 not happened. Do you agree or am I missing something. Don't give me any crap about Iraq failing to meet UN resolutions when many other countries are in the same boat, but we don't do jack to no one else.

Yes, you're missing something. If an umbrella salesman uses the fact that it's raining to sell umbrellas, that doesn't mean that he caused the rain. It just means he's a good salesman.
As to your UN resolutions comment, what part about I was against the war since before it started did you not understand?

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't know anyone who subscribes to the government's "official" story, but that doesn't mean that everyone I know subscribes to the 9/11 "truth" movement of explosives and missiles instead of planes. So don't be surprised if you get hit by "sidetracking flaming" when you continue to resort to straw men and red herrings over and over again instead of answering the questions about your own theories.

For starters:
If Hanjour didn't fly Flight 77, who did?
If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what did?
And if not Flight 77, where did the plane and its passengers and crew go?

You see how this works? It's not that we drink any kool-aid or buy any "official" version, it's just that the conspiracy theorists can't answer the simplest of questions, much less ask "legitimate" ones of your own. So take the halo off.

I'll ask you...why are we in Iraq right now and what was the main justification for going into Iraq???

That's not relevant. I already explained that the govt could have just capitalized off 9/11 to use an excuse to attack Iraq. It doesn't require the kind of pre-planned mega-conspiracy being proposed here.
Or are you saying the Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbor?

Look at it like this....10 people walk into the bank and 10 walk out. 100k is missing right after those 10 people walk out. Nobody knows or saw what happened. One of those 10 guys happened to purchase a new bmw m3 right after the ocasion. That same guy that bought a new car also happens to be a college student with no job. Who's the guy that's looking the most suspicious in this scenario??

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: digiram
Then, why the hell did the admin use it sooooooooo much to sell the damn war???? If the friggin war is so damn just, why did they have to sell it at all? If 911 did not happen, would they have been able to sell to the public the idea of our vulnerability and the biggest threat was "Iraq"???

Point is, there would have been zero support at all for an Iraqi invasion, had 911 not happened. Do you agree or am I missing something. Don't give me any crap about Iraq failing to meet UN resolutions when many other countries are in the same boat, but we don't do jack to no one else.

Yes, you're missing something. If an umbrella salesman uses the fact that it's raining to sell umbrellas, that doesn't mean that he caused the rain. It just means he's a good salesman.
As to your UN resolutions comment, what part about I was against the war since before it started did you not understand?

Would the same umbrella salesman sell the same amount of umbrellas if it weren't raining??

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: digiram
Then, why the hell did the admin use it sooooooooo much to sell the damn war???? If the friggin war is so damn just, why did they have to sell it at all? If 911 did not happen, would they have been able to sell to the public the idea of our vulnerability and the biggest threat was "Iraq"???

Point is, there would have been zero support at all for an Iraqi invasion, had 911 not happened. Do you agree or am I missing something. Don't give me any crap about Iraq failing to meet UN resolutions when many other countries are in the same boat, but we don't do jack to no one else.

Yes, you're missing something. If an umbrella salesman uses the fact that it's raining to sell umbrellas, that doesn't mean that he caused the rain. It just means he's a good salesman.
As to your UN resolutions comment, what part about I was against the war since before it started did you not understand?

Would the same umbrella salesman sell the same amount of umbrellas if it weren't raining??

If you are only looking at motivations, you seem to ignore OBL's.

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: digiram
Then, why the hell did the admin use it sooooooooo much to sell the damn war???? If the friggin war is so damn just, why did they have to sell it at all? If 911 did not happen, would they have been able to sell to the public the idea of our vulnerability and the biggest threat was "Iraq"???

Point is, there would have been zero support at all for an Iraqi invasion, had 911 not happened. Do you agree or am I missing something. Don't give me any crap about Iraq failing to meet UN resolutions when many other countries are in the same boat, but we don't do jack to no one else.

Yes, you're missing something. If an umbrella salesman uses the fact that it's raining to sell umbrellas, that doesn't mean that he caused the rain. It just means he's a good salesman.
As to your UN resolutions comment, what part about I was against the war since before it started did you not understand?

Would the same umbrella salesman sell the same amount of umbrellas if it weren't raining??

If you are only looking at motivations, you seem to ignore OBL's.

He hates us b/c we provided them with the means to fight off the Russians in Afghanistan??
Dammit, we should just stop helping people....period

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: digiram
Then, why the hell did the admin use it sooooooooo much to sell the damn war???? If the friggin war is so damn just, why did they have to sell it at all? If 911 did not happen, would they have been able to sell to the public the idea of our vulnerability and the biggest threat was "Iraq"???

Point is, there would have been zero support at all for an Iraqi invasion, had 911 not happened. Do you agree or am I missing something. Don't give me any crap about Iraq failing to meet UN resolutions when many other countries are in the same boat, but we don't do jack to no one else.

Yes, you're missing something. If an umbrella salesman uses the fact that it's raining to sell umbrellas, that doesn't mean that he caused the rain. It just means he's a good salesman.
As to your UN resolutions comment, what part about I was against the war since before it started did you not understand?

Would the same umbrella salesman sell the same amount of umbrellas if it weren't raining??

That still isn't proof that he caused the rain. That's my point. You're pretending that it is proof, and I'm explaining that that is faulty logic.

And it's not like the Bush admin is the only one who has found a way to profit from 9/11.

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: digiram
Then, why the hell did the admin use it sooooooooo much to sell the damn war???? If the friggin war is so damn just, why did they have to sell it at all? If 911 did not happen, would they have been able to sell to the public the idea of our vulnerability and the biggest threat was "Iraq"???

Point is, there would have been zero support at all for an Iraqi invasion, had 911 not happened. Do you agree or am I missing something. Don't give me any crap about Iraq failing to meet UN resolutions when many other countries are in the same boat, but we don't do jack to no one else.

Yes, you're missing something. If an umbrella salesman uses the fact that it's raining to sell umbrellas, that doesn't mean that he caused the rain. It just means he's a good salesman.
As to your UN resolutions comment, what part about I was against the war since before it started did you not understand?

Would the same umbrella salesman sell the same amount of umbrellas if it weren't raining??

That still isn't proof that he caused the rain. That's my point. You're pretending that it is proof, and I'm explaining that that is faulty logic.

And it's not like the Bush admin is the only one who has found a way to profit from 9/11.

Man, you're comparing scientific factual occurrences with a story told by the media and government which in itself contains no proof. Still...you do agree that the man does not sell the same amount of umbrellas if it doesn't rain?? correct

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: digiram
Then, why the hell did the admin use it sooooooooo much to sell the damn war???? If the friggin war is so damn just, why did they have to sell it at all? If 911 did not happen, would they have been able to sell to the public the idea of our vulnerability and the biggest threat was "Iraq"???

Point is, there would have been zero support at all for an Iraqi invasion, had 911 not happened. Do you agree or am I missing something. Don't give me any crap about Iraq failing to meet UN resolutions when many other countries are in the same boat, but we don't do jack to no one else.

Yes, you're missing something. If an umbrella salesman uses the fact that it's raining to sell umbrellas, that doesn't mean that he caused the rain. It just means he's a good salesman.
As to your UN resolutions comment, what part about I was against the war since before it started did you not understand?

Would the same umbrella salesman sell the same amount of umbrellas if it weren't raining??

If you are only looking at motivations, you seem to ignore OBL's.

He hates us b/c we provided them with the means to fight off the Russians in Afghanistan??
Dammit, we should just stop helping people....period

You mean, we used them to fight the Russians?

There are plenty of others. Look into the history of al-Zawahiri as well.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: digiram
Man, you're comparing scientific factual occurrences with a story told by the media and government which in itself contains no proof. Still...you do agree that the man does not sell the same amount of umbrellas if it doesn't rain?? correct

What part of the story told by the media and government contains no proof? The minor niggling issues that CTs want to focus on or the major issues they ignore because it doesn't flesh out their narrative?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: digiram
Man, you're comparing scientific factual occurrences with a story told by the media and government which in itself contains no proof. Still...you do agree that the man does not sell the same amount of umbrellas if it doesn't rain?? correct

What part of the story told by the media and government contains no proof? The minor niggling issues that CTs want to focus on or the major issues they ignore because it doesn't flesh out their narrative?

You know, if the politicians didn't abuse every inch of 9/11, what with their phony wars and all, you wouldn't have to put up with this. 😉

It's called "blowback." 😛

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: digiram
Then, why the hell did the admin use it sooooooooo much to sell the damn war???? If the friggin war is so damn just, why did they have to sell it at all? If 911 did not happen, would they have been able to sell to the public the idea of our vulnerability and the biggest threat was "Iraq"???

Point is, there would have been zero support at all for an Iraqi invasion, had 911 not happened. Do you agree or am I missing something. Don't give me any crap about Iraq failing to meet UN resolutions when many other countries are in the same boat, but we don't do jack to no one else.

Yes, you're missing something. If an umbrella salesman uses the fact that it's raining to sell umbrellas, that doesn't mean that he caused the rain. It just means he's a good salesman.
As to your UN resolutions comment, what part about I was against the war since before it started did you not understand?

Would the same umbrella salesman sell the same amount of umbrellas if it weren't raining??

That still isn't proof that he caused the rain. That's my point. You're pretending that it is proof, and I'm explaining that that is faulty logic.

And it's not like the Bush admin is the only one who has found a way to profit from 9/11.

Man, you're comparing scientific factual occurrences with a story told by the media and government which in itself contains no proof. Still...you do agree that the man does not sell the same amount of umbrellas if it doesn't rain?? correct

*head asplodes*

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: digiram
Man, you're comparing scientific factual occurrences with a story told by the media and government which in itself contains no proof. Still...you do agree that the man does not sell the same amount of umbrellas if it doesn't rain?? correct

What part of the story told by the media and government contains no proof? The minor niggling issues that CTs want to focus on or the major issues they ignore because it doesn't flesh out their narrative?

You know, if the politicians didn't abuse every inch of 9/11, what with their phony wars and all, you wouldn't have to put up with this. 😉

It's called "blowback." 😛

Was the Kennedy assassination "blowback?" How about the moon landing?

People like to believe stupid things, like conspiracy theories. It's the same reason why the National Enquirer still sells copy.

 

[ProfJohn]

If 9-11 was carried out in order to give us an excuse then why didn't they do a better job tying Iraq to 9-11?

They can plan and carry out this massive operation, but they can't produce one piece of evidence that ties the attackers to Iraq?

Also, if congress had stood up to Bush per-invasion or if Saddam had done a better job working with the weapons inspectors Bush would have never been able to start the war.

Seems awfully risky to plan out this great big conspiracy in order to justify invading Iraq but then risk getting what you want by relying on congress or Saddam to act a certain way.

Also, Bush took office in January. Did he start the plan for 9-11 right away? Or was the plan already be worked on before he took over? Which makes you wonder why the people behind this would risk all their hard work only to have Al Gore win election and not invade Iraq or Bush to not invade Iraq either.

Finally... can you guys even take a guess at the number of people it would take to pull off this operation as you 'think' it happened?

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: digiram
Man, you're comparing scientific factual occurrences with a story told by the media and government which in itself contains no proof. Still...you do agree that the man does not sell the same amount of umbrellas if it doesn't rain?? correct

What part of the story told by the media and government contains no proof? The minor niggling issues that CTs want to focus on or the major issues they ignore because it doesn't flesh out their narrative?

You know, if the politicians didn't abuse every inch of 9/11, what with their phony wars and all, you wouldn't have to put up with this. 😉

It's called "blowback." 😛

Exactly,

If we attacked and continued to move forward with finding Bin Laden and questioning our relationships with the Saudis, then I wouldn't have the same reaction to what happened. If we used our resources and intelligence to find an punish those directly involved with the event, then I'd have a different opion.

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If 9-11 was carried out in order to give us an excuse then why didn't they do a better job tying Iraq to 9-11?

They can plan and carry out this massive operation, but they can't produce one piece of evidence that ties the attackers to Iraq?

Also, if congress had stood up to Bush per-invasion or if Saddam had done a better job working with the weapons inspectors Bush would have never been able to start the war.

Seems awfully risky to plan out this great big conspiracy in order to justify invading Iraq but then risk getting what you want by relying on congress or Saddam to act a certain way.

Also, Bush took office in January. Did he start the plan for 9-11 right away? Or was the plan already be worked on before he took over? Which makes you wonder why the people behind this would risk all their hard work only to have Al Gore win election and not invade Iraq or Bush to not invade Iraq either.

Finally... can you guys even take a guess at the number of people it would take to pull off this operation as you 'think' it happened?

They don't have to b/c when they tell us to go get duck tape b/c that's gonna protect us from anthrax, we go out and raid home depot....lol.

That's all I'm wanting. For the public to be more open and to question events that occurr and information that is fed. Instead of consuming everything that the media feeds like it's fillet minion.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If 9-11 was carried out in order to give us an excuse then why didn't they do a better job tying Iraq to 9-11?

They can plan and carry out this massive operation, but they can't produce one piece of evidence that ties the attackers to Iraq?

Also, if congress had stood up to Bush per-invasion or if Saddam had done a better job working with the weapons inspectors Bush would have never been able to start the war.

Seems awfully risky to plan out this great big conspiracy in order to justify invading Iraq but then risk getting what you want by relying on congress or Saddam to act a certain way.

Also, Bush took office in January. Did he start the plan for 9-11 right away? Or was the plan already be worked on before he took over? Which makes you wonder why the people behind this would risk all their hard work only to have Al Gore win election and not invade Iraq or Bush to not invade Iraq either.

Finally... can you guys even take a guess at the number of people it would take to pull off this operation as you 'think' it happened?

They don't have to b/c when they tell us to go get duck tape b/c that's gonna protect us from anthrax, we go out and raid home depot....lol.

That's all I'm wanting. For the public to be more open and to question events that occurr and information that is fed. Instead of consuming everything that the media feeds like it's fillet minion.

Really? That's all you want? So you're not trying to push some bullshit conspiracy theory, you just want people to question things? Funny, because you said "The reason it happened was to sell the Iraq invasion." That's you saying that the US Government made 9-11 happen. Now, when confronted with some real questions, you back peddle and make up some lame excuse about just wanting people to be a little more open minded. Yea, ok.....:roll:

Edit - FYI, it's not "fillet minion", it's filet mignon.

 

[OokiiNeko]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...7FmCyA&feature=related

 

[KAZANI]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Avionics in a 757 are not vastly different from a 737. Besides that, Hanjour had training manuals for the 7575 and 767 and used MS Flight Simulator to familiarize himself with the avionics layouts. So, thanks but no thanks. I will not leave it. You simply saying it doesn't count carries no weight whatsoever in the face of the evidence.

600 hours of flight on small aircraft was not enough for Hanjour to make him capable of flying a Cessna but somehow a manual and few hours playing a PC game rendered him up to the task of commanding a large airliner. I trust most people possess enough common sense to disregard such blatant absurdities.

Bernard didn't have to pilot with Hanjour. He was the chief flight instructor at Freeway. It was his job to know how people wanting to rent the Freeway planes performed.

I merely implied that maybe the opinion of those who had first hand experience of Hanjour's flying would be more pertinet on this matter. You ignore the second and main part of my argument, which is that Bernard still refused to rent him an aircraft anyway.

"Intrinsic maneuver." What the heck is that suppose to mean or imply?

from the pilotsfor911truth site:

...

So, lets go on what we have. The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. Thats 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots (Update: FDR data shows 325 knots average airspeed. 9/11 Commission Report is inaccurate). 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. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the final impact speed was 530 mph. Update: FDR is now available and the 9/11 report is inaccurate in terms of impact speed. So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes. Since we dont know bank angles or speed. That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots. No problem for guys like you and me, but for Hani? We'll get to him later... Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral, he started to pull out of the descent at 2200 feet and accelerated only 30 knots more at full power to 460 knots in a descent from 2200 feet to the pentagon in about a minute (Whats Vmo at sea level for a 757? Flap speed? Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle only accelerating 60 knots from 7000 feet, the from 2200 feet at full power). AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree.

...

 

[dphantom]

Then who do you think flew the airplane?