It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

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: 23
40
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The energy to do damage increases exponentially as velocity increases.

The faster the jet hit the pentagon, more energy to spread and atomize the fuel for a a bigger explosion.

Hanjour maximized damage by maximizing kinetic energy by hitting a jet full of fuel into the pentagon with maximum throttles.

I don't think Hanjour was after a glory shot. I think Hanjour was after creating as much damage as possible to the great evil he saw as the US military.




posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




Point the nose of the jet at a building larger than 24 football fields


Except that his target wasn't a building larger than 24 football fields, it was one wall of the building not much higher than the aircraft itself.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: neutronflux




Point the nose of the jet at a building larger than 24 football fields


Except that his target wasn't a building larger than 24 football fields, it was one wall of the building not much higher than the aircraft itself.



One: the foot print of the pentagon is over 26 acres.

Two: the wall that was hit was 70 feet tall, and over 900 feet wide. The wing span of a 757 is only 14 percent the length of one pentagon wall.

Three: where flight 77 hit the pentagon, there was still more than 900 feet of building deep with a court yard over 3 football fields large in the middle.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat

The people space of a 757 is 14 feet in diameter. That is not even two percent the length of one pentagon outer wall.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
What is more important is asking what he would have been confident of his own ability to do. A kamikaze situation you only get one chance to get it right.

Most criminals stick to what they know.

I'm more interested to know why he would choose to do such a maneuver?


From a conspiracy standpoint, the reason would be because the conspirators wanted to hit a specific part of the building. It would be suspicious for the plane to adjust its course prior to reaching DC, because it would be taking a longer than necessary route.

So if the side of the building you want to hit isn't facing the direction you plan to be approaching the city from, then the only way to clearly justify hitting it would be to take a wide turn as part of the descent.


But from a non-conspiracy standpoint, there just plain isn't any good reason for him to have done that. Hitting the building straight on would have made more sense, been easier, and created less possibility to screw it up.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Nvm.
edit on 7/4/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

You are trying to rationalize the way an individual committed murder on his quest of jihad and giving a score on the way he dove into the pentagon?

The terrorists jihadists were after bragging rights, striking at the great Satan, browning points with their god, not finesse.


By ever indication, he was lucky in his goal of even hitting the pentagon. By every indication he almost hit the lawn first.

I really don't think the hijackers at the end had a specific target in the pentagon, just getting the jet to hit.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

You are trying to rationalize the way an individual committed murder on his quest of jihad and giving a score on the way he dove into the pentagon?


Crazy != Stupid

His method wasn't a smart way to achieve his lunatic goals. But in all other respects the plan would have failed if the perpetrators weren't very smart. So I'm left with the question of why they are being selectively stupid.



The terrorists jihadists were after bragging rights, striking at the great Satan, browning points with their god, not finesse.


By ever indication, he was lucky in his goal of even hitting the pentagon. By every indication he almost hit the lawn first.


So why would he make his odds worse than they already were by executing a complicated maneuver?

Hitting the building straight on would be less chance of making a mistake.




I really don't think the hijackers at the end had a specific target in the pentagon, just getting the jet to hit.


Which... is ...why... the question of hitting a specific target on the pentagon only applies to the conspiracy theory....

(In which case, the plane wasn't being flown by hijackers to begin with.)
edit on 4-7-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: elaborating about crazy != stupid



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Again, over shooting an airfield and coming back around is a known procedure for landing an aircraft with no control tower.

The terrorists probably worked with what they knew, and adapted what they learned to ensure they could line up the jet on the pentagon and hit it.
edit on 4-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording

edit on 4-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Removed face placed by accident



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Is it evident that he "overshot the airfield"? I haven't heard anything to suggest he had began any kind of descent until he began the circling maneuver.

So either he figured out he had overshot prior to even beginning a landing descent, or he had always intended to overshoot and come back. But why would he plan things that way?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

What is the completed maneuver.

Over flying the pentagon to get the lay of the land, the pentagon, visibility, conditions, and get their bearings and speed in check. Conduct a five mile radius turn on low throttle. See the pentagon, point the nose at the middle of a wall, dive, and when you think you are on target work in full throttles. And they almost hit short.

Like you pointed out, the only had one change.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Your posts continue to be filled with passing off your utter speculation as fact. You were in the minds of the terrorists?

"The terrorists probably worked with what they knew, and adapted what they learned to ensure they could line up the jet on the pentagon and hit it. "

Except the record shows the pilot didn't know how to fly, so had he stuck with that he would have just stayed home.

It is easy for anyone to speculate after the incident and mold a perfect narrative to match. However, nobody can prove Hanjour was a good enough pilot to maneuver a plane that was larger and faster than anything he had handled before.

It is the equivalent of hitting a home run in a major league baseball game when the highest you ever played was tee ball.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Is it evident that he "overshot the airfield"? I haven't heard anything to suggest he had began any kind of descent until he began the circling maneuver.

So either he figured out he had overshot prior to even beginning a landing descent, or he had always intended to overshoot and come back. But why would he plan things that way?



It is a standard practice to overshot airfields when there is no control tower to assess the area and conditions before committing to a dive that you are totally committed to and may not be able to pull out of. Normally for landing, flight 77 for crashing.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Like everone said they had one chance...

And what is this impossible or complicated maneuver?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry

I quote items that said otherwise.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I did not read all 23 pages...

Just my 2 cents worth on the Original post.

Flying a plane is actually quite easy, the only difficult parts are landing safely and taking off safely... if you are not concerned about crashing into a building it would not be that hard at all.

Plus to much training would put safety standards into their heads and they would start to worry about banking to far to maintain lift etc...

The limits pilots fly at are not the limits of the airplane, not even close in most cases... they make the limits more strict for the pilots for a couple reasons;

1: increase the life of the air frame.

2: to give some wiggle room to the crew when things go sideways.

I am sure there are many more but those two jump off the top of my head.

Is it possible certainly.. I have yet to see anything definitive that will prove to me that a missile hit the pentagon.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   
So? we went from the argument Hanjour did not have the skills to crashing a jet, to Hanjour didn't crash the jet with enough finesse as in a diving competition. The lunacy.

Hanjour overshot, completed a lazy turn to line up best as possible on the pentagon, and he almost missed.

Now you are complaining somebody lucky in their sick goal didn't crash with enough precision.

Lunacy.
edit on 4-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   
It is true it's not a very tall building, unlike the WTC towers. If they couldn't see it from far enough away to make a direct approach, I can see that making sense.



|However, as you can see in this picture, the Pentagon is a pretty easy target to spot from the air.







Also according to wiki, he didn't overshoot. He began the maneuver when he was still 5 miles west/southwest of the Pentagon (he had approached from that general direction.)

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Again, probably wanted to overshot for a number of reasons to assess the situation before totally committing to a dive they would not be able to pulll out of on their one shot.

Is it false to say your argument is based on terrorists lucky in their sick endeavor did not in your opinion crash with enough flare?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

So? he circled around with a lazy turn to assess the area and conditions before totally committing to a maneuver he would not be able to pull out off.
edit on 4-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording




top topics



 
40
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join