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

a reply to: Jacobu12

I recall seeing that animation of FDR data a long time ago and it must have been done in a rush because the time is GMT (nothing terribly wrong there) but the FDR bearings used are magnetic while the map it was plotted on is aligned to geo (true) north so the buildings, streets etc are in the wrong place at the end of the animation. Probably not a biggee which most watchers wouldn't even notice but some did as the difference between true north and magnetic north in DC on 9/11 was about 11 degrees. That error could have added fuel to the NOC fiasco.

a reply to: waypastvne


In your book, how much time elapsed from the time he was overhead the target until he struck the target?

a reply to: Salander

He was never actually overhead but high enough and close enough to ID the building then commenced the big sloppy turn to lose altitude and line up for the strike. From commencing the turn to hitting the building took about 4 minutes. I could work it out to the second if necessary but I don't see the point of that.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Jacobu12

This animation was provided by the NTSB and is accurate in terms of the flight data recorder on board this aircraft.

What it shows is the flight path and shows how difficult this flying would be even for an expert. You see how hard that dive is to get down low enough to hit the target.. i just cant see how an amateur got lucky with this?

Thats what you see. I see a crappy pilot, make a huge crappy uncoordinated slipping turn, He doesn't maintain pitch attitude during the turn so his speed varies. He lines up with his target and fixates on it. Then makes crappy overcorrections all the way to impact. There was nothing skilled about his flying, there was nothing difficult in the manoeuvre. Target fixation is all he needed to hit the pentagon.

The NTSB own flight recorder data animation has Hani flying too high at the end to be able to get down and come in at the first floor. Again this is another inconsistency. Pilots disagree with you there was nothing skilled about he's flying.

Where the wings go? where did the back tail go? The whole plane fitted through that first floor, how big is the plane again! And miraculously survived to exit a hole?

a reply to: Jacobu12

Over simple analogy. Ever pull an arrow through a small hole. The feathers push back against the shaft. The wings and tail would be in the odd circumstance of either cutting through weak material, or being bent back whike still having forward momentum. The wing tips and tail probable bent back and found their way to the path of least resistance by momentum or being dragged.

The last hole was made by the denser landing gear that kept it's momentum while being protected by the nose as it was stripped away piece by piece.

a reply to: neutronflux

And mass behind the plane counts. Drop a foot long rod vs a 10 foot rod from the same height, which will penetrate the ground the deepest.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

Over simple analogy. Ever pull an arrow through a small hole. The feathers push back against the shaft. The wings and tail would be in the odd circumstance of either cutting through weak material, or being bent back whike still having forward momentum. The wing tips and tail probable bent back and found their way to the path of least resistance by momentum or being dragged.

The last hole was made by the denser landing gear that kept it's momentum while being protected by the nose as it was stripped away piece by piece.

The nose would have got shredded and broken up, you crazy if you think the nose survived the entry point. Do you believe the plane was hitting empty space. Never mind we don't find any tail damage 2th or 3th floor.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: neutronflux

And mass behind the plane counts. Drop a foot long rod vs a 10 foot rod from the same height, which will penetrate the ground the deepest.

You telling me landing gear survived the first entry point, survived the 50+ columns and wall interior and magically created a round circle hole at the end? Last time i looked the landing gear is not round or even big enough to make a hole that size?

survived the 50+ columns

You should know that is a misleading. The path wouldn't take it to every column in the area like a pin ball game.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

Over simple analogy. Ever pull an arrow through a small hole. The feathers push back against the shaft. The wings and tail would be in the odd circumstance of either cutting through weak material, or being bent back whike still having forward momentum. The wing tips and tail probable bent back and found their way to the path of least resistance by momentum or being dragged.

The last hole was made by the denser landing gear that kept it's momentum while being protected by the nose as it was stripped away piece by piece.

The nose would have got shredded and broken up, you crazy if you think the nose survived the entry point. Do you believe the plane was hitting empty space. Never mind we don't find any tail damage 2th or 3th floor.

Quote where I said the nose survived, but it did first breech the wall to start a path of least resistance.

a reply to: Jacobu12

Might want to think about how many sets of landing gear there are. Where they are located. And that they were up in the fuselage. And the difference in design between the fuselage and landing gear made to impact the ground to protect the fuselage.

a reply to: Jacobu12

You have almost half a jet leading and clearing a path for the mid point landing gear. And a building is usually design to maximize open space.

a reply to: Jacobu12

The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact
First Published January, 2011. Version 3, April 2016.
By John D. Wyndham (PhD, Physics)

www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

The Interior Columns Damage and Debris
The pattern of interior supporting column damage47 indicates the forward motion (from building exterior to the interior) of material traveling at high speed. Some columns were missing, bent, or otherwise damaged.
Many columns showed shredded or wrecked pieces of metal wrapped48 around them or stacked beside them. In one photograph49 of the interior, there is a massive amount of debris below an intact ceiling. This debris could not have occurred due to a cave-in of the floor above. Both these photographic observations of the interior point to plane impact rather than bombs. It took at least two days to remove most of the debris, so if this debris had been trucked in as part of a staged event, it would likely have been noticed.
Based on a diagram50 of the column damage, Dwain Deets51 states that there is “no penetrator path” without intact columns between the impact point and exit hole. However, the author has analyzed the column damage and penetration path in Appendix D, and finds no significant impediment to debris reaching the C ring wall and punching a hole there. Major column failure ends about 160 ft in from the impact point. However, since the plane was fragmented, it could pass columns. See the F4 Phantom experiment52 where a plane propelled at high speed into a massive concrete wall was completely fragmented. See Appendix D.
The interior damage weighs against the flyover theories. The width of the damage pattern weighs against the small plane theory. The missile theory cannot explain the width of the damage to the supporting columns. The bomb theory would imply a complicated group of simultaneous explosions. A staged event is required to explain the large amount of debris mixed with plane parts.
Requirement: Those who hold to any of the above alternative theories must produce a credible alternative explanation for the interior damage and debris, in order to still claim that these theories are viable. If no credible evidence or explanation can be produced, these theories must be discarded.
Status: Requirement not fulfilled.

Unfortunately guys i have got the time anymore to carry on, i have to go away to work for awhile and not sure when i be able to get back on. Good debate, i be back again just don't know when that will be good luck guys!!

originally posted by: Jacobu12

Pilots disagree with you there was nothing skilled about he's flying.

Do you not understand what the english word crappy means. I said he was a crappy pilot.

originally posted by: Jacobu12
Unfortunately guys i have got the time anymore to carry on, i have to go away to work for awhile and not sure when i be able to get back on. Good debate, i be back again just don't know when that will be good luck guys!!

I don't think anyone was seeking any approval............

originally posted by: Jacobu12
Where the wings go?

Of all the arguments against a plane strike at the Pentagon, this is by far and away the daftest. Where do you think a Boeing 767 stores most of its fuel? And what would you expect to happen to that fuel in the event of a head-on crash?

Ha.....that's you.....

He has social skills, nice of him to chat with us

Starr....no I'm trading the euro right now

a reply to: waypastvne