Plane shredded to pieces

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Shadow Herder

To hit the roof they would have to dive down into it. Otherwise they would have just clipped the top, or hit the top floor. If they weren't careful they would have gone right over the top of the building. Hit low and guarantee that you hit the building.

No, hitting the roof like you're suggesting would have been harder.

Not according to seasoned pilots. They say the exact opposite of your beliefs. Watch what the professionals say.
youtu.be...

at 1:04:22 The link above will take you there.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

There are professional pilots on both sides. Some that say it would be easier some that don't.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Shadow Herder

There are professional pilots on both sides. Some that say it would be easier some that don't.

Oh ya? It would be easier to fly a commercial airliner mere feet off the ground clipping poles? I think and know not.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

It's called ground effect and he was only a few feet off the ground for a couple seconds. It's not like he flew at ten feet for miles.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Shadow Herder

It's called ground effect and he was only a few feet off the ground for a couple seconds. It's not like he flew at ten feet for miles.

No but corkscrewing out of the air at fighter jet speeds and agility to come skimming along the ground hitting the only blast resistant wall installed on the pentagon. As the professionals have stated that crashing from atop would of guaranteed mass casualties and damage. This was not case as common sense gave birth the official story being a pack of lies.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Shadow Herder

It's called ground effect and he was only a few feet off the ground for a couple seconds. It's not like he flew at ten feet for miles.

No but corkscrewing out of the air at fighter jet speeds and agility to come skimming along the ground hitting the only blast resistant wall installed on the pentagon. As the professionals have stated that crashing from atop would of guaranteed mass casualties and damage. This was not case as common sense gave birth the official story being a pack of lies.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

Have you watched the FDR animation? That spiral was messy as hell and he was all over the place during it. What exactly is "fighter jet speed"? Fighters are jet powered so they fly at the same speed as commercial aircraft.

Have you read the full quote from the folks in ATC that said they thought it was a fighter? They said commercial aircraft didn't do that because it wasn't comfortable for the passengers.

The only way to hit the top the way you're talking about that wouldn't require spiraling down first is to dive into it, which comes back to my original comment about diving.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

Truthers like to state that the pilot (Hani Hanjour) was a lousy pilot who could possibly fly

So now you are claiming this alleged "lousy pilot" should have dived the plane into the roof of the Pentagon

What is it ....? Lousy pilot who could not hit anything ? or kamikaze who should have crashed into roof ...?

By the way Hanjour took course in a 737 (very similar to 757) jet simulator . His instructor signed off as
making "tight turns'

No indication of taxing or landing .......

As per usual I will take the opinions of the professionals. youtu.be...
Link takes you to 1:09:44.

The opinions of armchair opinionists are cool but like I said, I prefer to listen to experts in the field.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

So you're going to listen to the FAA that certified Hani Hanjour as a commercially rated pilot? And the instructor that was teaching him to fly the 737 and signed off on various things similar to what he did? And the ATC folks at Dulles that are constantly misquoted?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Shadow Herder

So you're going to listen to the FAA .....

Did you watch the video at this point? www.youtube.com...

Flight 77's flight path was ridiculous and unnecessary, he increased his chances of losing his target, increased danger of being intercepted, would of limited his target to a small strip of reinforced concrete, he could maximized the damage by plunging the plane onto the roof. That would of cost thousands of lives and killed generals or the secretary of defense.
The area that was hit was just reinforced to withstand a terrorist attack

Watch this part of the video and explain. www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Shadow Herder

Once again, go get a computer flight simulator and dive down on anything. I'll wait.

You have a much bigger chance of missing in a dive than you do by spiraling down. Yet another example, the Japanese kamikaze attacks in WWII. The attacks that dove down, in unmodified aircraft missed far more often than they hit. The attacks that came in flatter were the ones that hit more often.

In a dive you have to constantly correct, and have less time to react because you're accelerating, no matter what you do. The more speed you have, the more wind and other minor events affect your trajectory.

Spiraling down added a couple minutes to the time he could have been intercepted. If he hadn't been by that point, even spiraling there was no way to stop him even if they showed up while descending.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I spoke from experience, it is easy to hit the Pentagon in a flight simulator, it was almost impossible to hit that one reinforced wall.

So I speak from experience and also listen carefully to what the experts say. Did you not watch the video clips?
If you watched them you would not ask redundant questions.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

It's not redundant, it's the truth. Diving any aircraft not designed for that is a lot harder to do than a spiraling descent with a flat approach.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Shadow Herder

Diving any aircraft ..... is a lot harder to do than a spiraling descent with a flat approach.

Really?? That is your opinion.

The professionals, experts, pilots all disagree with you. That is where my knowledge and information is based on as well as experience.

Listen to the expert here www.youtube.com...

I think what Zaph means is that it's a LOT more difficult to hit an exact point on the ground when descending vertically at 500 MPH than it is when you're flying over it and descending at maybe 1000 feet/minute or what ever a normal rate of descent is for a civil airliner.

I'll say this again as it's been completely ignored every other time I've said it on here,but what if he wasn't aiming for that exact spot on that side wall? How about if his mission was just to fly a plane into any part of the Pentagon,or maybe even less specific than that and his intention (or orders) were to fly it into an occupied district of Washington,and he hit the Pentagon by chance?

a reply to: Shadow Herder

So according to you, and them, when they built dive bombers in WWII they didn't have to put dive flaps, and bigger control surfaces on them? They could have used a B-17 to do the same job with no problem? Silly aerospace engineers and their maths.

I'm sure all of them dove an actual 757 too right? To prove their point?

the thread title....yes to pieces....the first news crew with video said........not enough pieces to fill a suitcase....
no one flies a heavy over 400 in the ground effect I can't....and I'm a gunfighter...366th TAC

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Shadow Herder

So according to you

Anyone with basic understanding of gravity would know that you don't need anyone at the controls or engines on a plane to put a plane in a dive, come on, this is elementary. I listen to experts and experience. Lets agree that some people have opinions.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Shadow Herder

So according to you

Anyone with basic understanding of gravity would know that you don't need anyone at the controls or engines on a plane to put a plane in a dive, come on, this is elementary. I listen to experts and experience. Lets agree that some people have opinions.

Besides no one said diving the plane, it would of caused more damage to hit the roof then it would of been to skim the ground hitting poles then aiming for the just renovated and terrorist / blast proofing wall.


Do you think it was a coincidence that the craft hit low on an empty wedge that was just recently reinforced with blast proof walls and the only wedge to receive such reinforcement.