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.

 

Why they didn't use a 757 to hit the Pentagon.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   
For those who say:

"Why would the government hijack a 3rd plane, Flight 77, but not crash it into the Pentagon when they took the trouble to hijack two other planes and crash them into the WTC?"

and

"Why would they want to crash a plane into their own defense headquarters?"


Here is why they didn't want to use a Boeing 757 to crash into the Pentagon:


ACCURACY!!!



What do you think would be the easiest part of the Pentagon to hit, the huge rooftop that looks like a giant “bull’s-eye” from the sky, or the side of the Pentagon that is only about seven stories tall? I’d say the roof.

www.defenselink.mil..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

But what if you had to hit the side of the building that is only 2x taller than a Boeing 757 and not only that, but a certain side and certain section of that side?

The government conspirators needed to hit the exact section of the Pentagon that was hit. A Boeing 757, even flown via remote control or computer guidance, would have been too risky for them to use because it is too big and cumbersome to chance its accuracy, especially having to fly what they wanted to hit there super fast so most witnesses on the ground wouldn't be able to see what exactly it was, and a plane that size could cause more damage than they wanted too. They needed to use something very accurate to hit the small side of their building, like a missile or UAV, that also wouldn't cause too much damage to the Pentagon.

Can you imaging them trusting a remote controlled 115 ton Boeing to perfectly hit that small section without overshooting high and flying over the low sitting Pentagon, or bouncing off the lawn sending it in who knows which direction? They had to use something much smaller and accurate and that's why it hit edition.cnn.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> directly into the first floor and didn’t hit the lawn, why no mark was left on the 3rd story wall where a 757's tail should have hit, why there wasn't as much damage to the Pentagon as one would think a mostly fueled 757 would cause, and why this aircraft flew in such a fast and agile way that abcnews.go.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink"> made experienced air traffic controllers monitoring it think it was a "military plane". I really doubt Hani Hanjour could fly like that when his flight instructor said "he could not fly at all" and was refused to rent a Cessna the month before the attack.





The ‘Lucky’ Section

It should be self evident enough that the section of the Pentagon hit was hit on purpose. The section hit was the only section in the entire Pentagon that was being retrofitted and it was being retrofitted, of all things, to help “bolster it against attack”. What are the odds of that? And not only that, but it was hit “almost in the middle” of that renovated section in which they had just installed a new sprinkler system. Hitting this section “lowered the number of potential victims” because this section was not yet fully repopulated and a fire truck had just been pulled out from the firehouse that was coincidentally right next the section that was hit. Another coincidence is that side was the only lawn side that didn't have a parking lot or other things built next to it that would have made it much less accessible for the rescue crews to fight the fires and rescue the injured. Another factor that was in the Pentagon's favor was hitting their own building ensured the availability of military doctors, nurses, and first aid responders for all the injured.



So think about it, the “Arab terrorists” hit the worst section for them and the best section for the Pentagon.

(Continue on to Part 2; The Motive)




posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Motive for Hitting the 'Lucky' Section

So what was so special for our military to take the added risk of hitting that specific section at their defense headquarters when hitting the WTC would surely be enough to cause a wave of world wide indignation for their master plan?

Check out what the head of the Pentagon announced less than 24hrs before his place of work got hit:



On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said.

Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11-- the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.

"According to some estimates www.cbsnews.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. (CBS)


Now I don’t know about you, but if I had to announce a bureaucratic nightmare that I wanted to be buried as quickly as possible from the minds of the American people, what better time to announce it than the day before every American’s mind will be distracted by a most horrible event?

So now we know why Rumsfeld announced this outrageous news the day before the attacks, but they needed to do a little more than to just bury the story, they needed to bury the evidence and what better way to bury the evidence than to blow up the section that housed the paper trail and people trail who would be able to figure out where all that missing $2.3 trillion went:


- The impact area included both the Navy operations center and the office complex of the National Guard and Army Reserve. It was also the end of the fiscal year and www.arlingtonva.us..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> important budget information was in the damaged area. (Arlington County After-Action Report)

- Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, www.s-t.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck. (South Coast Today)


Now think about it, less than 24hrs after Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld (who was on the safe side of the Pentagon when it was hit) announces his agency lost track of a mind-blowing $2.3 trillion dollars, the section that housed the people and paper trail that would know where all that money went was blown up in the most bizarre events in America's history. Again, the Pentagon benefitted from this section being hit.

What also adds to the interest is the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense who is in charge of all the Pentagon's money was Dov S. Zakheim, who not only is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations as well as an ordained Orthodox Jewish rabbi and some say is a dual Israeli/American citizen, but who is also a member of the PNAC, along with Donald Rumsfeld, and was a contributing author of the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that essentially talked about needing a "new Pearl Harbor" to build up American's military might exactly one year before it happened.

www.defenselink.mil..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Some of Zakheim's former jobs are interesting too. He was vice president of a defense contractor, System Planning Corp., which made "remote control and flight termination" products and was chief executive officer of SPC International Corp., a subsidiary specializing in political, military and economic consulting.


So that is why they hit that section of the Pentagon and why they didn't use a Boeing 757 to do it.


Info mostly found at: Where The Pentagon Was Hit and Rabbi Steals $2.3 Trillion!


[edit on 4-6-2006 by diggs]

[edit on 4-6-2006 by diggs]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   
A problem I see with the "757 not hitting the Pentagon issue" is where the plane went? Are there any accounts of seeing the plane anywhere else after it took off?

[edit on 6/5/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
The only problem I see with the whole "757 not hitting the Pentagon issue" is where the plane went? Are there any accounts of seeing the plane anywhere else after it took off?

That's "faulty logic" on your part. Just because no one knows where the plane went, doesn't mean it crashed at the Pentagon. It just means the plane is M.I.A.

77 lost all radar contact around Ohio/Kentucky boarder. Start looking there.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   
I'm not implying that the theory doesn't hold because no one saw it after the transponders went off, I'm just saying if it didn't hit the Pentagon, then where did it go, that's all.



Edit: Actually, I guess I mis-worded my previous post that would give accredidance to such an impliment.. hmm.. will fix that. (Sorry it's late).



[edit on 6/5/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Good post, but I can't accept the argument of accuracy. Those aircraft manage to land on runways, and the sweet spot to hit a runway is comparable to the pentagons side.

ILS I hear you say? Why would that be so hard to install on the building, I hear someone else say.

A wall of the Pentagon is 921 feet long. Your average runway is about 140 feet wide.

The height of the walls is, as you said, seven stories. A commercial airliner has about (rough comparison here) 9-10 stories to play with, taking into account glide slope, and can be exacted to 1-2 if necessary.

Take carrier pilots. They have to hit a tiny little deck, and have about a story lee-way.

Carrier Landing



Humans land on those aircraft carriers. Computers are not good enough for it.

So, you see, this argument of 'accuracy' is not very convincing.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
Good post, but I can't accept the argument of accuracy. Those aircraft manage to land on runways, and the sweet spot to hit a runway is comparable to the pentagons side.

So, you see, this argument of 'accuracy' is not very convincing.

Are they landing going over 500mph?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Meh. 158 mph is average landing speed as far as I can work out. Add another 342, and you'll have your impact speed. All it means is less reaction time. I'm not sure if this is a great comparison, but fighter pilots managed to maneuver their planes exactingly all through the 20th century with bugger all reaction time at speeds far greater than 500mph, so if we now move on to a much more clumsy aircraft at a slower speed it translates nicely.

Yeah, all speed is is reaction time. Aim it right, and you'll make the govt. happy.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   
A better comparison than landing on the carrier would be a Kamikaze attack on one of those. Or even on a destroyer or minesweeper. Heck, there was even Kamikaze attack on a landing boat if you want accuracy. And in many cases the planes were flown by pilots with even less training than 0911 hijackers, in dive reaching comparable speeds to the 757 maximal, without any computer-assisted Fly-by-wire system, they had to use real physical strength to steer the craft at high speeds and guess what, they were hitting targets sometimes. I'd guess the 757 has many obstacles removed (for example you don't have to concentrate so much on the force applied to controls etc.). It is indeed possible to hit such a target as the Pentagon.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Ahh, yes, that is a much better comparison.

btw, 757's don't use fly-by-wire controls (ta zaph), but the controls are fully hydraulically assisted. So whatever the pilot does, the plane does; which is unlike the FBW systems, where a computer analyses every move the pilot makes (yes, making it much easier to hit a building).



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:56 AM
link   
... plus, of course, a 757 is screaming at you "pull up, pull up"!



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
Ahh, yes, that is a much better comparison.

btw, 757's don't use fly-by-wire controls (ta zaph), but the controls are fully hydraulically assisted. So whatever the pilot does, the plane does; which is unlike the FBW systems, where a computer analyses every move the pilot makes (yes, making it much easier to hit a building).


Whoops, mea maxima culpa
Mistaken the first Boeing jetliner to use FBW number


But even then the hydraulic assist makes steering (and thus hitting) much easier than WWII steering mechanisms.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

But even then the hydraulic assist makes steering (and thus hitting) much easier than WWII steering mechanisms.


Much? It's like comparing a go-cart to my lamborghini.



yes, youre right. I dont have one



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
A better comparison than landing on the carrier would be a Kamikaze attack on one of those. Or even on a destroyer or minesweeper. Heck, there was even Kamikaze attack on a landing boat if you want accuracy. And in many cases the planes were flown by pilots with even less training than 0911 hijackers, in dive reaching comparable speeds to the 757 maximal, without any computer-assisted Fly-by-wire system, they had to use real physical strength to steer the craft at high speeds and guess what, they were hitting targets sometimes. I'd guess the 757 has many obstacles removed (for example you don't have to concentrate so much on the force applied to controls etc.). It is indeed possible to hit such a target as the Pentagon.

Possible? Yes, anything is possible. Probability of hitting that exact spot without hitting the lawn or fly over and all the other coincidences tied to it (you guys left that part out)? Nill.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
Meh. 158 mph is average landing speed as far as I can work out. Add another 342, and you'll have your impact speed. All it means is less reaction time. I'm not sure if this is a great comparison, but fighter pilots managed to maneuver their planes exactingly all through the 20th century with bugger all reaction time at speeds far greater than 500mph, so if we now move on to a much more clumsy aircraft at a slower speed it translates nicely.

Yeah, all speed is is reaction time. Aim it right, and you'll make the govt. happy.

I'd love to see a 757 try to land at over 500mph, especially with a pilot with the feelings of about to die.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Good read diggs
I haven't heard anything about this under-sec before. It does kinda tie in with some of the other threads I've read involving Isreal.
Good job
Now I'll be up all night checking this guy out
peace



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:27 AM
link   
It would perhaps be better if you made your mind up about what the thread is about before you start it. We're now talking about pilot mentality? Coulda sworn this was about technical feasibility . . . and if it is, perhaps this image would be a better one to illustrate my point, and not your image of a tiny little wall thrown against Washington's massive backdrop:




posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
It would perhaps be better if you made your mind up about what the thread is about before you start it. We're now talking about pilot mentality? Coulda sworn this was about technical feasibility . . . and if it is, perhaps this image would be a better one to illustrate my point, and not your image of a tiny little wall thrown against Washington's massive backdrop:

the pilot mentality part was for those who think an Arab terrorist was at the wheel. Feasibility wise, as I said, anythings possible, but not always probable.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:54 AM
link   

This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11


Source



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
I'd love to see a 757 try to land at over 500mph, especially with a pilot with the feelings of about to die.


Land? Why land? HIT THE TARGET! The feelings of the pilot would be comparable to the feelings of those Kamikazes, don't you think? They also knew they're gonna die. What's the difference?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join