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

a reply to: audubon

The person has no real understanding of science. An he wonders why he is baffled by this stuff.

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.

Yet he somehow manages to make impact just a few feet off the deck?

Nevermind whether he could, though. That's not the real question>

The real question is: why would he choose to?

Any impact would achieve his political objective. Fast, slow, high, low..... North, south......... none of that matters. Any impact with the Pentagon would do.

Why didn't he choose a simpler maneuver?

Why accelerate to 500+ mph?

Why would a pilot in that situation do anything that increases their chance of missing?


(A robotic pilot, of course, has very little chance of missing either way. And a fast impact that manages to make complete contact with the building's wall will leave behind the least useable evidence. )

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Why accelerate to 500+ mph?

Why would a pilot in that situation do anything that increases their chance of missing?

That seems easy to me
IE m.v^2/2 to maximise the damage

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Ha.....that's you.....

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

Indeed i do, but i haven't got the time to continue debating.

Why does the amount of damage matter, when we're discussing the Pentagon? He's not going to take the whole building down.



It does make sense when we're discussing the WTC, because a faster or slower impact can make the difference between merely damaging the WTC and knocking the whole building down.

But why with the Pentagon?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Why accelerate to 500+ mph?

Why would a pilot in that situation do anything that increases their chance of missing?


(A robotic pilot, of course, has very little chance of missing either way. And a fast impact that manages to make complete contact with the building's wall will leave behind the least useable evidence. )

If it was a robot, why not do the stright nose dive into the pentagon roof and stright down. There are gaps between the rings. Maybe Hanjour didn't want to risk ending up in the pentagon court yard which is as big as 4 football fields, or just crashing in one of the gaps between the rings. If the 757 nosed into one ring separated by gaps, would the damage have been as wide spread?

Would a nosedive destroy more evidence? Maximum speed means maximum destruction of the plane and its passengers.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Why does the amount of damage matter, when we're discussing the Pentagon? He's not going to take the whole building down.



It does make sense when we're discussing the WTC, because a faster or slower impact can make the difference between merely damaging the WTC and knocking the whole building down.

But why with the Pentagon?

Maybe it wasn't you then. But I have seen it argued by conspiracists if Hanjour wanted to do the most damage, he should have nosed flight 77 straight down through the roof.

Therefore, Hanjour didn't do a maneuver as interpreted in that it would cause the most damage, so it was proof of conspiracy to hit the pentagon from the side.

And maybe he just performed the attack as he'd practised in a simulator. The actual toughness of the building would be an unknown so maximum force for maximum success and he only had 1 shot at it after all.

Any ideas what this could be, off topic i know, but i noticed a flash of light near the area where the second plane hit the second tower. The flash of light is obviously bigger, the distance is far away. You can see the plane coming to attack.

Would he have feared being unable to breach the wall at a lower speed? In a 747?

Why would be practice a high speed crash instead of an easier crash?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Would a nosedive destroy more evidence? Maximum speed means maximum destruction of the plane and its passengers.

? ????? I didn't say it was a well thought out argument.

Now that I thought about it. The simple answer would be a side crash puts all the energy into the building. A crash straight down through the roof into the ground would put most of the energy into the ground. Then the straight down nose dive is supposedly a harder maneuver. Then there would have been the risk of crashing into the courtyard or a gap between rings?

a reply to: Jacobu12

It's not off topic in the proper thread.......

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

It's not off topic in the proper thread.......

I have to get off, but if you got answers what it could be i read them. On video it appears as a flash as the plane was coming in.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Would he have feared being unable to breach the wall at a lower speed? In a 747?

Why would be practice a high speed crash instead of an easier crash?

A 757? Seeing if people are paying attention? Or an implication.

The throttles were not worked to full until it seems the pilot of flight 77 thought the jet was lined up and starting the descent. I would say its simply human nature to use full ramming speed to be blunt. Do you go half assed when tackling the opposing team's quarterback, or give it your all?

Same light source? The plane hit about 2 to 3 seconds after this. Very odd both sides of the building.

originally posted by: Jacobu12
Same light source? The plane hit about 2 to 3 seconds after this. Very odd both sides of the building.

It's paper.

a reply to: Jacobu12

I think that paper has a blue tint. WTC standard issue paper is white. Must be a conspiracy........

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Jacobu12
Same light source? The plane hit about 2 to 3 seconds after this. Very odd both sides of the building.

It's paper.

My picture was a flash, not sure about this one just took from a youtube video. Why you think it's paper?