It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# What Level Of Skill Was Required To Fly A Plane Into The Pentagon ?

page: 19
42
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:37 PM

Which is 3 degrees per second.
One full circle in two minutes.

If you do the math, get out your calculator:
At 500knots that equates to a turn radius of 2.6 miles.
Since the FDR shows a radius of 5 miles, he was banking LESS than a 'standard rate turn'.
No big deal.

But go ahead and ignore the facts and make up any ol thing you want.
That's how the truth movement have maintained their faith.

posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 11:14 PM
I don't think that adds up. Centripetal acceleration is equal to ( V^2)/R (velocity squared, divided by radius.)

Converting to metric, 5 miles would be 8,085 meters. 500 knots is approximately 250 meters per second.

(250^2)/4183 is 7.3 meters per second. 1 g is 9.8 meters per second. So that means he was being pulled sideways at 72% of the normal force of gravity.

An experienced pilot could probably do that, but these guys supposedly trained on simulators (which probably didn't simulate the g forces). He's got to do this while he's under quite a lot of pressure (in fact, he has to do it knowing he is about to die.)

posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 11:33 PM

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I don't think that adds up. Centripetal acceleration is equal to ( V^2)/R (velocity squared, divided by radius.)

Converting to metric, 5 miles would be 8,085 meters. 500 knots is approximately 250 meters per second.

(250^2)/4183 is 7.3 meters per second. 1 g is 9.8 meters per second. So that means he was being pulled sideways at 72% of the normal force of gravity.

An experienced pilot could probably do that, but these guys supposedly trained on simulators (which probably didn't simulate the g forces). He's got to do this while he's under quite a lot of pressure (in fact, he has to do it knowing he is about to die.)

This is your mistake: 500 knots

Put in 280 Knots and recalculate.

Also any significant G's are vertical in the pitch axis. You only get lateral G's in a slip and that is normally less than .1 G.
edit on 30-6-2017 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-6-2017 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 01:18 AM
Too hypothetical, guys.....think in terms of it didn't happen.....really.....you know

Refuse to be a victim of misinformation with an agenda

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 07:41 AM

An experienced pilot could probably do that, but these guys supposedly trained on simulators (which probably didn't simulate the g forces). He's got to do this while he's under quite a lot of pressure (in fact, he has to do it knowing he is about to die.)

This is a very good point, trying a Top Gun Pilot style maneuver, when you know it's a suicide mission adds another level of difficulty. However if all you have to do is strap into the pilots chair, and do nothing then yeah Hanjour could have been in the pilots seat, when automation took over.

Look at this

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 07:55 AM

Which required significant modification that would have been noticed my multiple people. Pilots and maintenance notice when things like cameras and extra antenna are added to an aircraft.

Interesting how you're ignoring that it wasn't a "Top Gun maneuver". Even ignoring the FDR data, the radar data shows that it was less than a standard rate turn. There would have been negligible G force on the aircraft, and it was far from a precise maneuver.
edit on 7/1/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 08:04 AM

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: neutronflux

Two, what was the argument with the FDR being bogus for the actual jet that hit the pentagon.

He's a follower of Dennis Cimino. Dennis was PF911T's... FDR specialist.

All of Dennis's evidence for a fake FDR fell apart in 2011 when the missing 4 seconds was decoded.

After it was discovered that his FLEET IDENT and A/C NUMBER parameters claim was a total lie, he blew a fuse, refused to answer any questions that would back up his claims, called everyone a mossad agent, and disappeared. I haven't herd anything new from him in since.

And still such blind faith in the truth movement con after years of exposing their falsehoods, willfulness to hiding facts, and exploitation of 9/11.

This thread is not about the truth, Hanjour's pilot's license, 600 hours of flight time, his FAA commercial certificate, simulator training, Hanjour's overall piloting skills and opinions mostly based on his English skills, Hanjour turning to evil to dedicate all his abilities to crashing into the pentagon, radar data, FDR data, or actually referring to the speeds logged by radar and FDR.

This thread is about trying to change an event that was recorded in specific parameters by radar, FDR, and physical contact evidence to an opinion based judgement.

For the sake of a real argument to get to the truth:

One, why should the radar data be discredited. Why do conspiracists ignore the logged data.

Two, why should the FRD data be ignored. Why do conspiracists ignore referencing the specifics.

Three, what does the contact evidence from the antenna, light poles, trees, concrete lip mean?

Four, what were the impossible maneuvers outlined by referring to the specifics of the radar data, FRD data, and the contact evidence.

If you only have false authority opinions that are not even a consensus, and cannot discredit the radar data, FRD data, contact evidence, and cite the specifics of the flight data, then its obvious you have no argument. This thread is a sham, not in good faith, not about the truth, and a waste of time.

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 08:30 AM

Tell me why all those pilots for 9/11 truth say otherwise, there are so many of them, what are they seeing that you aren't ?

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 08:36 AM

They're entitled to their opinion, just like all the pilots that say he could have done it. One of the problems with the Pentagon story is that everyone assumes that he hit the building exactly where he planned to, which made his maneuver some incredible feat of flying.

But when you look at the actual radar data from the airport, you see a pilot that couldn't even do a two minute turn. Add in the FDR data, and he couldn't even hold his altitude during the decent. This was a pilot with basic skills that got lucky and hit wherever he could on the building.
edit on 7/1/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 08:37 AM
Cool video up there....the starboard wing had movement and the other had none......cool

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 09:05 AM

originally posted by: Zaphod58

They're entitled to their opinion, just like all the pilots that say he could have done it. One of the problems with the Pentagon story is that everyone assumes that he hit the building exactly where he planned to, which made his maneuver some incredible feat of flying.

But when you look at the actual radar data from the airport, you see a pilot that couldn't even do a two minute turn. Add in the FDR data, and he couldn't even hold his altitude during the decent. This was a pilot with basic skills that got lucky and hit wherever he could on the building.

Exactly.

9/11 was an inside job believers use the Sharpshooter Fallacy as a starting point and build from there, making everything they believe false.

Start with a more reasonable assumption- that hitting the Pentagon anywhere was gonna be a win - and the piloting skills diminish.

If anything, it could be argued that since he was pulling up some at the end, he realized he was coming in too low, demonstrating his poor piloting skills, and that crashing into the roof top might have been his actual goal, for that would of resulted in widespread fires being started all over the place.

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 09:09 AM

What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
Frank Legge (BSc, PhD)
www.journalof911studies.com...

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”.
At 10 minutes into their G Force video58 we hear: “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 that 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.
We see in the following image that the path they assume for the plane is a straight line from the top of the VDOT antenna to the first light pole. The plane is thus required to confine its pull up to the very short vertical distance from the impact point on the pole to

Firstly, there is no consideration that the course may have been a few feet to one side or the other of the antenna, thus permitting a lower, and hence less stressful, entry than depicted. Secondly, there is the assumption 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.

My calculations show that the force required to avoid collision with the ground, following this hypothetical straight line descent to the first light pole, would vary widely, depending on the assumed height of impact with the pole. At 20ft up from the ground it would be 7.5g; at 30ft up it would be 4.6g. The lower estimate is nearly twice the legally permitted force and very likely to destroy the aircraft. Even though these values are substantially below the erroneous value of 10.14g calculated by Pilots, as shown in the image, they are still so high that the pilot would know in his bones that this delayed pull-up would risk a crash, and failure of the project, and would use some means to avoid it.
Logically the pilot would avoid overstressing the aircraft simply by aiming a little higher and passing over the light poles, probably aiming directly for the desired impact point on the Pentagon, as implied above by Rob Balsamo. However, if there was some reason why he wanted to make the final impact near horizontal, as the damage trail indicates did occur, he could still avoid the risk of failure by starting a little steeper and pulling up sooner, spreading the load out over a much wider arc, as shown in the table of possible flight paths. Naturally, if the course was determined by an on-board controlling device, it would be programmed in such a way as to avoid a high g-force and a curved path would be chosen. Why Pilots for 9/11 Truth restrict calculations to the improbable straight line approach path from the antenna to the poles is unclear.
Turning now to the g-force calculation, we find the following diagram in their G Force video. It shows a sector of a circle, the bottom of which is the arc which is followed by the plane as it pulls up from the straight line descent.
The Pentagon is to the right, so the left end of this arc is the point where the pull up commences. If we assume that the plane is heading for a point 30ft up from the ground on the first pole, the approach path will be 5.6 degrees from the horizontal, and will be the tangent of the arc at that point. The left line is a radius of the circle so should be drawn at 90 degrees from the tangent to the circle at that point, hence it should be 5.6 degrees from the vertical, but we see that the line is about 10 degrees from the vertical. This discrepancy will almost halve the length of the radius and therefore will result in the calculated g-force being almost double the correct value.
It is clear that the basis for the Pilots’ claim that the 757 could not have hit the Pentagon is without foundation as it depends on a flawed assumption about the path the plane would follow and an incorrect g-force calculation. As the Pilots assert 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, as quoted above, is contradictory. To hold that the plane did not hit the Pentagon is to adopt the only remaining position, namely that it flew over the Pentagon. This would appear to be an uncomfortable position for a team which has done much good work to obtain and analyze the FDR data files.
Members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth have had over a year to address these concerns, but so far have not shown themselves to be willing to consider doing so. Whether this represents the position of the majority of members, or just the executive, is not clear.59 It appears likely that the majority of members have not carefully examined the claims in their own website.

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 12:48 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux

Prove the FRD was not from whatever jet that struck the pentagon. You are saying a clerical error equals the FDR was not the one on the jet that hit the pentagon and recovered from the crash site? A clerical error is you best attempt to discredit the 100 plus eyewitnesses that attest to a large jet hitting the pentagon. Accounts backed by trial evidence, trial testimony, DNA analysis, Radar data, and the physical evidence at the pentagon that could only be from a large jet strike. What theory would be backed by no interior of the pentagon on the front lawn.

What is your logic on the FDR again. How does it disprove a large jet hit the pentagon. How does it disprove the FDR recovered did not hold the flight data for the jet that hit the pentagon?

Seems your argument is based on false logic.

You prove the FDR was legit.

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 02:53 PM

The flight data recorder recovered from the pentagon was the recorder of the jet that hit the pentagon. There you go, proven by your standards....

Conspiracy is you cause, you make the case.

Still waiting on on rebuttals to:
www.journalof911studies.com...
www.journalof911studies.com...
www.scientistsfor911truth.org...
www.911truth.org...

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 02:56 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 05:09 PM

Conspiracy types make up all sort of stories claiming Hanjour was aiming for that particular wedge of Pentagon to
destroy records

Reason he hit it was that was section of Pentagon was facing when came out of turn

Known as a TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER - aka where shoot at side of barn. Find closest grouping of bullets
Draw target around group and claim to have hit target !

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 05:23 PM

Every truther has their own opinion of what happened - there is no coherent narrative

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 07:38 PM

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I don't think that adds up. Centripetal acceleration is equal to ( V^2)/R (velocity squared, divided by radius.)

Converting to metric, 5 miles would be 8,085 meters. 500 knots is approximately 250 meters per second.

(250^2)/4183 is 7.3 meters per second. 1 g is 9.8 meters per second. So that means he was being pulled sideways at 72% of the normal force of gravity.

An experienced pilot could probably do that, but these guys supposedly trained on simulators (which probably didn't simulate the g forces). He's got to do this while he's under quite a lot of pressure (in fact, he has to do it knowing he is about to die.)

This is your mistake: 500 knots

Put in 280 Knots and recalculate.

Also any significant G's are vertical in the pitch axis. You only get lateral G's in a slip and that is normally less than .1 G.

Oh. Ok. I was going off the numbers the other poster had given. But now looking it up, 237 meters/second was the velocity at impact. Presumably it was going much slower than 237 m/s throughout most of the turn, because it gained a lot of that speed during its descent, and because it was accelerating at the last part.

Still very impressive flying. Accelerating to such high speed as one approaches the ground, and still hitting (some part of) the desired target.

originally posted by: firerescue

Conspiracy types make up all sort of stories claiming Hanjour was aiming for that particular wedge of Pentagon to
destroy records

The conspiracy story is that Hanjour wasn't even flying. It would be the conspirators who wanted to destroy records (which is also the proposed reason for them to take down building 7. ) And also perhaps intended to minimize casualties (just like attacking the WTC in the early hours minimized them.)

originally posted by: MrBig2430

If anything, it could be argued that since he was pulling up some at the end, he realized he was coming in too low, demonstrating his poor piloting skills, and that crashing into the roof top might have been his actual goal, for that would of resulted in widespread fires being started all over the place.

Or, we could wonder why indeed he didn't hit the building from above?

Al Qaeda had engineers in their numbers, who could have pointed out the benefit of doing that.

Why would a terrorist want to minimize casualties? Especially when he is attacking a target that is unambiguously military in nature (mitigating any dishonor associated with causing lots of death.)

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 07:47 PM

Diving a 757 into the top of the building would have been almost impossible. Diving any aircraft like that is incredibly hard and he would have been lucky to hit near the building.

posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 09:01 AM

The Pentagon takes up a huge area.

Your saying it's easier to hit just off the ground at high speed than hit a target that is 583 acres in size, sorry not buying that one.
A runway is only 26 feet wide(small) I have landed many times in an aircraft it descends at an angle and at about 150 MPH.
If he was in full control of the cockpit he would have slowed and come in at an angle just like the simulators train you to.

He either hits the grass and bounces or he hits the target deeper, I am not saying hitting this target was hard given it's massive size, just the way the plane came in and the type of plane flown with the level of expedience this pilot had.

The OP challenges these 5 points

1)The speed of the maneuver
2)The trajectory of the maneuver
3)The skill of the pilot
4)The ability of a standard commercial liner to pull that maneuver
5)The height of the final strike/crash

edit on 2-7-2017 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

42