Education Forum Moderated by Anti-Semitic Crackpot---John Simkin is Aware

[Dr. William Niederhut]

That’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. Can you please go away now and return to your own forum? Your presence here is not being enjoyed by anybody.

And you know this how, exactly?

Do some research.  And get a more appropriate avatar.

Bob Marley wouldn't approve of you using his image and likeness.

The Raytheon testing was done in Marana, Arizona in August of 2001.

The Boeings could take off, maneuver precisely, and land without pilots.

[Tommy Shanks]

And you know this how, exactly?

Do some research.  And get a more appropriate avatar.

Bob Marley wouldn't approve of you using his image and likeness.

The Raytheon testing was done in Marana, Arizona in August of 2001.

The Boeings could take off, maneuver precisely, and land without pilots.

I could care less what you think of my avatar, or Bob Marley for that matter. But I have to know: are you actually claiming that there were no human pilots in the planes that hit the WTC??

[Dr. William Niederhut]

I could care less what you think of my avatar, or Bob Marley for that matter. But I have to know: are you actually claiming that there were no human pilots in the planes that hit the WTC??

It's difficult to know what happened, because the black box data is missing.

There were a number of anomalies with the flights, emergency signaling, etc.

The alleged Barbara Olson phone calls from AA77 to Bush's Solicitor General Ted Olson never happened.

They were foundational for the Bush/Cheney narrative about "Muslims with boxcutters."

We know, for certain, that the Boeings could have been precisely piloted without pilots.

We also know, from Phillip Marshall, and the Pilots for 9/11 Truth, that Hamzi Homshur could not have successfully flown AA77 into the Pentagon.  Even a highly skilled pilot would have had difficulty executing that 270 turn to ground level.

[Tom Graves]

Hamzi Homshur [sic] could not have successfully flown AA77 into the Pentagon.  Even a highly skilled pilot would have had difficulty executing that 270 turn to ground level.

Me: Is it true that it would have been nearly impossible for Hamzi Homshur (sic) to have flown the plane through 270-degree turn to near ground level before it struck the Pentagon?

Searching the web

30 results

GROK: No, it is not true that it would have been nearly impossible for the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77 (correcting the name: the hijacker-pilot was Hani Hanjour, not "Hamzi Homshur") to execute the maneuver described—a roughly 330-degree (often approximated as 270-degree) descending spiral turn to align with and strike the Pentagon at low level.

The question appears to refer to a common claim in some 9/11 discussions or conspiracy theories suggesting the final approach to the Pentagon required superhuman skill that Hanjour supposedly lacked.

Key Facts About the Maneuver

Flight path details (from official sources like the 9/11 Commission Report, NTSB flight path study, and radar data): After hijacking, the plane turned back toward Washington, D.C. About 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon, it performed a clockwise descending turn of approximately 330 degrees (a full circle plus some extra arc, often rounded to "270 degrees" in shorthand).

During this turn, the Boeing 757 descended roughly 2,200 feet while maneuvering, ending up aligned with the Pentagon's west face.

The plane then dove at high speed (around 530 mph at impact), clipping light poles and a generator before striking the building low to the ground.

Air traffic controllers noted the aggressive maneuvering (high speed, rapid descent, tight turn), initially mistaking it for a military jet due to its performance.

Hanjour's Background and Skill Level

Hanjour held a commercial pilot certificate from the FAA (earned in 1999 after training in the U.S., including on small aircraft).

He trained on simulators, including Boeing 737 models (relevant to handling a 757, which shares similarities).

Flight instructors described him as a weak or below-average student in some contexts—he struggled with English proficiency and precision in small planes, and some refused to rent him aircraft unsupervised.

However, he had hundreds of hours of flight experience and specific preparation for the attack, including refresher training in 2001.

Why the Maneuver Was Challenging but Not "Nearly Impossible"

The turn was descending and banking sharply, but it did not require fighter-pilot precision or exotic aerobatics. It was a high-speed, descending spiral—aggressive and sloppy by commercial standards (e.g., high bank angles, rapid altitude loss), but achievable with basic manual control inputs on a large jet.
A commercial jet like the 757 is stable and responsive; once the autopilot was disengaged, manual control allowed for such turns without advanced skill.
The target (the Pentagon) is a very large building (over 5 million square feet, multiple stories high), not a tiny or precise point. The low-level final approach was dangerous (risking ground collision), but the plane only needed to be roughly aligned and pointed at the facade—not surgically accurate.

Simulations and analyses (including by pilots recreating elements in simulators) have shown that inexperienced or moderately skilled pilots can replicate similar descending turns in large jets, especially without concern for safety, passenger comfort, or regulations.

Eyewitnesses and radar data confirm the turn was executed smoothly enough (no signs of wild instability or loss of control), consistent with someone at the controls intentionally guiding the plane.

Claims of "impossibility" often stem from exaggeration—comparing it to professional test-pilot standards or ignoring that the goal was destruction, not a safe landing. Official investigations (9/11 Commission, NTSB, DoD reports) concluded Hanjour piloted the plane in this maneuver, supported by flight data, radar, and witness accounts.

In short, while Hanjour was not an elite aviator, the maneuver aligned with his documented training and the capabilities of the aircraft under manual control. It was difficult and reckless, but far from "nearly impossible."

30 web pages

ME: Why is Hanjour's 330-degree turn described by some as a 270-degree turn?

Searching the web

31 results

GROK: The 330-degree turn is the more precise and officially documented measurement of the final descending spiral maneuver performed by American Airlines Flight 77 (piloted by Hani Hanjour) before impacting the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the NTSB Flight Path Study (February 2002), radar data reconstructions, and Wikipedia summaries based on those primary sources:  The aircraft was positioned about 5 miles (8 km) west-southwest of the Pentagon. 

It then executed a clockwise 330-degree spiral turn while descending roughly 2,200 feet (from around 7,000 feet down toward low altitude). 

At the end of this turn, it was aligned (pointed) toward the Pentagon's west face and downtown Washington, D.C., at about 2,000 feet altitude and 4 miles southwest, before accelerating into the final dive.

This 330-degree figure accounts for the full arc of the path as traced by primary flight data recorder (FDR) analysis, radar tracks, and official investigations. The turn was not a perfect circle but a descending spiral that overshot the direct line to the target slightly, requiring the plane to loop around more than a full 360 degrees minus a bit (hence 330° rather than exactly 360° or a simple 180° reversal).

Why "270 degrees" is Commonly Used Instead

The 270-degree description appears frequently in media reports, early news accounts, conspiracy discussions, and some secondary sources because:

It is a rough approximation or shorthand for a large, looping turn that is three-quarters of a full circle (270° = ¾ of 360°). Early eyewitness or controller descriptions (e.g., some air traffic control observations or initial media like a 2001 Cape Cod Times article) referred to the plane "circling 270 degrees to the right" as it realigned from an overshoot.

In the chaotic early reporting right after 9/11, precise radar reconstructions weren't yet public. Some outlets rounded or simplified the maneuver to "270 degrees" based on visual impressions or partial data, describing it as a tight, banking right turn that felt like three-quarters of a loop.

In 9/11 skeptic or alternative-theory communities, the "270-degree" figure is often repeated (sometimes exaggerated as "impossibly tight" or "military precision") because it originated in those early imprecise accounts and has persisted in forums, videos, and older articles. For example, some 2001–2002 reports contrasted it with the more detailed 330° from later NTSB/Commission analysis.

In reality, the two numbers describe the same event—just with different levels of precision:330° = the accurate, data-derived total angular change in heading during the spiral (slightly less than a full circle plus adjustment for the approach angle).

270° = a rounded or approximate version that stuck in popular memory and some narratives.

The difference is minor in practical terms (both indicate a large descending loop to lose altitude and realign), but official sources consistently use 330 degrees for accuracy.

31 Web pages