On the website of Pilots for 9/11 Truth we read: “Physically and aerodynamically, Arlington's unique topography and obstacles along American 77 "final leg" to the pentagon make this approach completely impossible as we will demonstrate”.
Transcribed from their G Force video we read: “As we can see, G loads required to pull out of a dive from the top of the VDOT antenna are impossible for a 757”. Given that it is clearly possible to find a flight path that does not stress the aircraft, with an entry angle which would not stress the pilot, one wonders how it comes about that Pilots for 9/11 Truth have produced such a contrary finding. The answer is readily found. Firstly, there are gross errors in their calculation of g-force, as already pointed out. Secondly, they assume that the pilot would be stupid enough to maintain a constant descent angle from the top of the antenna all the way to the impact point on the first pole before pulling up. [...]
Why Pilots for 9/11 Truth restrict calculations to the improbable straight line approach path from the antenna to the poles is unclear. It does not come from the FDR, which certainly does not show this uniform approach slope. Could it be that this group has an agenda to prove that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon, rather than a scientific determination to find the truth, come what may? Given the assertion of these pilots that they do not have a position on whether a 757 hit the Pentagon, their simultaneous assertion that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon is contradictory. They are adopting a position that will require them to accept that the plane flew over the Pentagon, and that the complex damage pattern to the poles and the interior of the Pentagon, which fit well enough with the 757 theory, was created by other means. This would appear to be an uncomfortable position for a team which has done much work to obtain and analyze the FDR data, enabling us to see its flaws.
Members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth have had over a year to address these concerns, but so far have shown themselves to be unwilling to do so. Whether this represents the position of the majority of members, or just of the executive, is not clear.
