Can anyone support or refute the 9/11 Truthers' claims that three successful airplane attacks required accuracy and skills far above those possessed by student pilots and unlikely even for experienced pilots?
I can argue both sides. Some of the Pilots for Truth claim that the spiraling drop of flight 77 in its approach to the Pentagon exceeded the abilities of even experienced pilots. I have seen an argument made that the autopilot could have done that drop just fine. The argument has been made that flight 77's low-level flight into the Pentagon was impossible because the Ground Effect would have made the aircraft unstable. The argument has been made the Ground Effect operates at low speeds only and that at high speeds it would be negligible.The argument has been made that Hani Hanjour was such a lousy pilot that he could not have flown flight 77 into the Pentagon. The counterargument can be made that perhaps his demonstration of poor piloting skills a few weeks before 9/11 (he tried to rent an airplane and was refused) was a ruse and part of his cover. There's also the issue that in the alleged security video images from Dulles airport a person alleged by certain news media to be Hani Hanjour looks nothing like him. (There's also the issue with that video that it appears to be 30-frames-per-second consumer video when security video such as the Pentagon parking-gate video is normally a much slower frame rate.) As to the flights into the WTC towers, I have been told by a retired airliner pilot (who is a member of Pilots for Truth) that the type of radio beacon used in airports would allow a plane under autopilot to fly in on the beacon with a vertical tolerance of +/- ten feet. Thus if radio beacons were planted in the towers, the planes possibly could have flown in on the autopilot. The curving approach of flight 175 to the South Tower was very difficult and may have required sensitive course corrections well in advance of the impact. Whether the autopilot could have handled that, I do not know.So, as with a lot of 9/11 stuff, the issues are complicated, and few people have the patience to sift through the conflicting evidence. That is why, though I do speculate to identify key facts and to find topics worthy of further investigation, I try to avoid theorizing about 9/11 and restrict myself mostly to asserting facts that need to be explained, and calling for new, thorough, honest investigations that are not afraid to use subpoena power.