Post 42 only has the first Bernard quote, you conveniently left out the one I posted. No one else quoted there is Bernard. You are being disingenuous. You are not grasping at straws, you are out and out lying. He meant the Pentagon. No one on the planet with a bit of English reading ability and comprehension would say different.
1. You continue to ignore the other quotes I cited.
Capt. Russ Wittenberg
"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky.
I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."
Capt. Daniel Davis: "Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757.
Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists".
"Commander Muga: The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...
I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature."
2. Asserting that he "meant" the Pentagon, when he only said "a building," does not suggest at all that he meant it. I'll rephrase my question.
Suppose the article went like this:
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said."
"However, Bernard then added, Hanjour could not have flew into the Pentagon the way he allegedly did."
Does this last statement contradict Bernard's previous statement? Yes or no?
