A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

a reply to: Realtruth

I'm not debating what was actually stated by the pilots nor am I stating they are wrong. I don't know about flying an airplane, I don't pretend I know and I haven't recently slept in a Holiday Inn.

I will say that what the radar replay shows is slightly different, the 360 degree turn took 2:45 to complete. Half way through the turn the targat was tagged and a ground speed indicated 270kts. The ground speed fluctuated at first, 290-260 then settled on the 270 kts, normal for this to occur, the radar was adjusting.

The other speed I see on the radar and I don't have any doubts about the accuracy, I see a final Ground Speed of 370 knots.

The other thing I can't argue with or against is how much experience you need to fly a B757 and what Hanjours ability was, because I don't know but it does seem to me that the reports aren't accurate, even in your comment the FDR is inaccurate with the impact speed.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Realtruth

Hani Hanjour was more experienced than people realized. He was a certified commercial pilot, which is at a minimum 250 hours, with 40-50 of instrument time, including tight turns. After receiving his commercial rating, he went to Arizona, I believe it was, where he was working on his 737 type rating, flying the simulator, including tight turns.

He was no expert pilot by any means, and it shows during his descent when you watch the animation. He was all over the place with the controls, and the nose was wandering a lot. It wasn't coordinated by any means. But he also wasn't some guy that jumped in a plane for the first time that day and pulled off an incredible maneuver perfectly.

Hanjour was a clown at best he couldn't even rent a 172 because he was rejected, and you're trying to convince us that he pulled the impossible off, when expert pilots with 100's of thousands of hours combined say it is BS.


Let's look at Hanjour and what he was made of according to all of his flight instructors.

Hanjour's Flight Training Background Timeline

Sawyer's simulator is in a closet-sized room that students and pilots alike use to practice the basics of instrument flight. Fults remembers Hanjour as "a neophyte. ... The impression I got is he came and, like a lot of guys, got overwhelmed with the instruments." He used the simulator perhaps three or four more times, Fults said, then "disappeared like a fog." Washington Post, 10/15/2001

August 2001 - Freeway Aviation Bowie, Maryland QUOTE Hanjour, always an uncertain pilot, showed up at flight school in Bowie, Md. Three times, he attempted to rent a plane.

Each time, a different instructor took him on a test flight and deemed him incompetent to fly alone. "We have a level of standards that we hold all our pilots to, and he couldn't meet it," said the manager of the flight school.

Hanjour could not handle basic air maneuvers, the manager said. Hanjour was also reluctant to provide his address, a standard part of the plane rental application. Source

So in conclusion, we have multiple flight instructors say Hanjour couldn't handle basic air maneuvers right, or rent a 172 right up to 2001, but yet he did the impossible, which master pilots say is nearly impossible to pull off, even with their years of training and skills.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes, but a plane at a 90 degree angle is the nose straight in the air. So context kind of matters if you want to break apart specific details. What are you saying other than walls are built at 90 degree angles? Seriously. The angle the plane actually hit the building was also no where near 90 degrees, but you have no idea what you're saying. The angle the plane hit the building was around 40 degrees. It was reported at 45 by some.

originally posted by: MacK80
The angle the plane hit the building was around 40 degrees. It was reported at 45 by some.

And neither one of those is a 'perfect' angle to run into something you are looking to damage. You don't want to hit something obliquely.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: roadgravel

It does wonders for the whole "They can't fly that low at any kind of speed" debate though.

Well, isn't the real debate whether they can fly that low at 530 mph?

(I do not claim to know the answer, but let's not reframe the debate as a strawman.)

MME .. Let me know if there is anything in particular that you have questions about, I'm still going through more tapes and data. I only reviewed the data I would understand but if there is a burning question, let me know.

There was actually another VENUS22, I didn't really focus on that flight but he was doing some practice air work way southwest of ADW. I'll look at this one again probably tomorrow. See what it was doing out there.

a reply to: Realtruth

And most of those instructors agree that his big problems were English and takeoff and landing. Some of them were also from before he got his rating. You can't just go to a simulator facility and start getting your type rating without the accompanying qualifications. And you don't get those qualifications if you can't pass the tests.

Other instructors and pilots had very different things to say. One person said that she knew immediately the Hanjour was involved. Another pilot said he had no doubt that once the plane was going he could have flown it into the Pentagon.

Chevrette said that the school's student, Hani Hanjour, lacked adequate English skills to gain his pilot's license. An FAA official responded to her concerns by suggesting that Hanjour could use an interpreter even though mastery of English is a requirement for a pilot.

Chevrette said that when the Sept. 11 attacks occurred, she knew Hanjour must have been involved.

"I remember crying all the way to work knowing our company helped to do this," she said.

www.cbsnews.com...

Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida, told The New American, "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports.


Lamp posts taken out by Flight 77 were too far apart to have been done by a missile or a fighter jet, say witnesses and experts, including General Benton K. Partin. [Source: Library of Congress] George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams told us. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do."

web.archive.org...://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml

There are also portions of the 9/11 report that talk about Hani Hanjour taking a flight into a difficult airport with an instructor and landing there on his first try, as well as renting aircraft on multiple occasions with no trouble.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Then let's see all the multiple camera angles from the cameras that were installed, on the top, ground, and the ones from multiple places outside the pentagon.

When trying to see what happened why not lay all the cards on the table?

One angle, one camera speaks volumes.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Ah, so it should have done a spinning flip with it's belly into the side then.

The angle is in representation of the plane at the moment of striking the building Augustus. Not the angle of the building the plane struck.

originally posted by: MacK80
The angle is in representation of the plane at the moment of striking the building Augustus. Not the angle of the building the plane struck.

And at the moment it struck the building, for the angle to be 'perfect' (your word), it would need to be a 90* to hit it flush, not on an oblique angle. You don't strike a wall at an oblique angle to maximize damage, your statement is hyperbolic and uses flawed geometry. If you want to have people take you seriously, don't make things up or try to invent scenarios that have no basis in fact or application.

The other speed I see on the radar and I don't have any doubts about the accuracy, I see a final Ground Speed of 370 knots.

And from what I have read the FDR showed 470 knots. So what's with a 100 knot difference.

a reply to: roadgravel

Ground speed and airspeed are totally different. Radar measures speed in ground speed, which is affected by outside factors. The FDR measures airspeed, which isn't.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: roadgravel

Ground speed and airspeed are totally different. Radar measures speed in ground speed, which is affected by outside factors. The FDR measures airspeed, which isn't.

How do you get 100 knots on that day. Wouldn't wind be the only real factor.

a reply to: roadgravel

It depends on if it's displaying Indicated or Calibrated airspeed. Indicated airspeed can have errors in it due to air density and pressure. Calibrated airspeed adjusts for the errors.

If it recorded indicated airspeed, then in addition to the difference between airspeed and ground speed, being that low, there may have been an error in the reading.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So not setting for the correct barometric pressure might be a factor?

a reply to: roadgravel

Yes. It would affect the reading because the pressure was off.

From what I can find, the FDR data "shows" the pressure reset to local pressure during decent. I had thought if that wasn't done it might explain some of speed difference.

But then many have questioned the validity of the FDR data. I suppose that's been beat to death.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
90* is completely absurd. That's esstentially Nose up, Nose down, or if counting the wings completely sideways.

The pitch angle is indicated by a series of calibration lines, each representing 5° or 10° of pitch depending on design.

In general the altimeters and the airspeed is real accurate....I never thought a friggin altimeter could be so accurate.....I worked at air Dallas instruments for two years.....the K Mart of instrument repair......in the Air Force all the instruments and weapon controls and attack radar...TFR

This 90 degree thing.......not pitch I hope.....

a reply to: Realtruth

Reason Hanjour was turned down was because he did not speak ENGLISH well enough

Instructor though would not be able to understand ATC instructions, not pilot skill.......

originally posted by: Realtruth
a reply to: Zaphod58


Then let's see all the multiple camera angles from the cameras that were installed, on the top, ground, and the ones from multiple places outside the pentagon.

When trying to see what happened why not lay all the cards on the table?

One angle, one camera speaks volumes.

Can you make a diagram showing where all the cameras were and what areas they covered?