How "impossible" is it to fly low enough to hit the Pentagon?

There have been a million arguments made about weather or not a plane hit the Pentagon. One of the top arguments is that it would be impossible to fly a plane so low to the ground. The Pentagon has a height of 77 feet and we have all been lead to believe that a plane traveling at 500mph crashed into the Pentagon according to the official story.

Now for the record I believe 9/11 was an inside job. Most of the research I have done on the topic has been centered around the events in NYC and the WTC complex. Admittedly, my research is lacking in regards to the attack at the Pentagon as well as the the hole in the ground in Pennsylvania.

Today I came acrossTHIS interesting story. It is about a pilot who has been fired for flying too low and performing a fly by at Everett's Paine Field.

Now according to this story he flew his 777 between 28 and 30 feet from the ground at a speed of around 322 mph. In my opinion this pokes a HUGE hole in the argument that a plane can not be flown low enough at high speed to actually hit the Pentagon and I am basically submitting this to get the opinions of others who probably know much more than I do in this regard.

Without a doubt the ATS community has done an unbelievable job at dissecting every aspect of the events of 9/11 and I am really looking forward to hearing what some of you think about this story in relation to the events at the Pentagon.

editted to add: For some reason I am having problems embedding the video so here is the link to the youtube video HERE

[edit on 26-2-2008 by MrWendal]

[edit on 26-2-2008 by MrWendal]

That's the Paine Field standard departure picking up a new aircraft

This thread should be of interest, it's long but well worth the reading:

www.pprune.org...

The problem isn't so much a passenger jet won't fly low to the ground, was the terrorist pilot capable of flying a passenger plane that low?
It's not impossible, but it's not easy either. Why do you think it's such a big deal when it's done at air shows? It takes skill beyond what a rookie pilot would have.
You can't see the ground from the cockpit. Low altitude and over speed warnings would be going off. Then there's the physical handling of a plane that at that speed would be really hard to keep level at any altitude. It takes finesse and skill, something a nervous terrorist about to kill himself would not have. One little push too hard on the stick and they would have instantly hit the ground, or flown right over the pentagoon.

Not only that but if the plane had hit where claimed then the port engine cowling would have hit the ground. Yet we see no damage to the lawn and no engine, wing, or empennage parts to be found.

Just too many holes in the story, and not a big enough one in the pentagoon imo.

Originally posted by ANOKsomething a nervous terrorist about to kill himself would not have.

And who told you that he was nervous?

He probably had painted a mental picture of the 72 virgins on the Pentagon wall right at the aiming point


[edit on 27-2-2008 by Freaky_Animal]

reply to post by Freaky_Animal


I'm not sure how pleased Allah would have been with the hijacker's antics the days and weeks leading up to the attack: alcohol, gambling, strip bars etc
Not a very Islamic thing to do, especially shortly before meeting their maker.

If it were me, they wouldn't receive anything - let alone 72 virgins..


edit sp.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by cams]

reply to post by ANOK


Well if you believe Alex Jones, then yes the hijackers did have the training. Of course you also have the flight instructors who say that they could not manage to fly solo in a prop plane.

I agree it is not impossible and does require a high level of skill. I also agree that the lack of markings on the ground is an issue as well. That being said, the Pentagon is 77 feet high from what I have learned. This plane was 28-30 feet off the ground. Depending on the angle at which flight 77 came in it might actually be possible. That is IF it was actually flight 77.

I have always found it interesting that of all the videos collected by the FBI, why would they only release 2? Why only release poor quality videos that do not show an actual plane? I have to wonder that maybe a plane did hit the Pentagon and eventually the PTB will release a video that shows it in an attempt to finish off all 9/11 truth movements. I can't think of a better way to discredit 9/11 truthers than by picking one aspect of their arguments and proving it false beyond any reasonable doubt. Maybe I just have a lot more research to do in this aspect of 9/11.

Is it possible that none of those surveillance cameras captured anything worth showing due to frame rate and effective shutter speed?
If that's the case they could decide to withold the videos because it would only bolster the 'no-plane' claims even moreso than hiding them.

Another thing is those cameras wouldn't be aimed at the sky, they were covering the surrounding grounds for intruders so the time an object at the speed of the 757 was in frame would be extremely short just like that released video that only shows a trail of white smoke.

A bluff is only good as long as your hand remains concealed.

Planes can be flown fast and low but it takes a delicate touch at the controls to avert disaster - the alleged pilots had disaster in mind didn't they.

[edit on 27/2/2008 by Pilgrum]

[edit on 27/2/2008 by Pilgrum]

As a pilot I have to object to comparing the fly-by executed by the Cathay Airlines pilot and the alleged Pentagon 'hit'.

First, the reported airspeed of the Cathay fly-by was significantly lower than that of the Pentagon plane.

Second, the Cathay pilot was flying a structured, programmed approach course that was entirely clear of any and all obstacles. The pilot only had to fly the course and not concern himself with avoiding ground obstacles.

Third, at no point was the Cathay pilot required to execute anything but standard rate turns. The Pentagon plane executed a dramatic flight path prior to establishing the ground proximity final approach. Stabilizing that course and arresting decent (most especially in the immediate proximity of all manner of ground obstacles) is immensely difficult. Not an issue in the Cathay pilot's fly-by.

Finally, the Cathay pilot was one of the airline's most senior pilots ($500k/year?). He had just picked up the new aircraft and therefore had just completed a 777 simulator course. Not so for the Pentagon pilots.

Apples-and-wheelbarrows comparison in my opinion.

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by ANOK

 

I have always found it interesting that of all the videos collected by the FBI, why would they only release 2? Why only release poor quality videos that do not show an actual plane? I have to wonder that maybe a plane did hit the Pentagon and eventually the PTB will release a video that shows it in an attempt to finish off all 9/11 truth movements. I can't think of a better way to discredit 9/11 truthers than by picking one aspect of their arguments and proving it false beyond any reasonable doubt. Maybe I just have a lot more research to do in this aspect of 9/11.

I believe they are withholding all the videos because it does show flight 77 hitting the pentagon. If they released the footage truth hunters could put the no-plane theory to bed and concentrate on other, possibly more damaging scenarios.

What better tactic than to have the truth seekers battling over whether a plane hit the building than focusing on the hijackers and plane's ability to pull off those maneuvers.

Just my opinion.

The pilots of the two planes below probably don't think that it's impossible.





It's kind of strange to think that an airplane can't crash into the ground because it's too close to the ground. Am I alone on this?

reply to post by Boone 870


Every plane that has ever crashed was 'too low to the ground' just moments before. The 'ground effect' you are suggesting is a great deal less for larger A/C than it is for a C-172, for example.

My earlier post points out some of the problems using the Cathy Airlines fly-by as evidence to support the Pentagon scenario. The former is being executed in entirely clear airspace by a senior pilot highly trained in the A/C on a stabilized, published approach course. The latter by a significantly less trained pilot who executes a significantly unstable approach while simultaneously having to arrest a serious descent rate and avoid ground obstacles all at a much higher speed.

Not quite the same thing.

Flying an aircraft at low level is relatively easy, simply get the control trim right and you're sorted! RAF Bucaneer pilots used to trim the ac right back so that you needed full forward pressure on the control column to keep it straight, if you let go then the aircraft would automatically climb. By proper use of trimming very fine adjustments can be made to the aircraft's attitude to come down to low level at high speed.

It is also quite easy to hit something in an aircraft, simply keep the object in the centre of your windscreen!

The assumption is made that the hijackers were intending to hit the Pentagon, we must not forget that they could have been heading for somewhere else and were just plain lucky. I consider it quite likely that there was no plan to specifically target any building, simply hijack the planes, fly to New York/Washington and hit whatever you can. The second aircraft to hit the WTC was probably guided in by smoke from the first impact making target finding much easier. I would suggest that hitting the twin towers would be more difficult than hitting the Pentagon.

reply to post by Naboo the Enigma


I'd suggest there is a huge difference between an RAF pilot and the hijackers in terms of training and familiarity with their A/C. I've seen amazing feats of airmanship but always by pilots with immense amounts of time in their A/C.

Naboo, have you personally done this maneuver?

Originally posted by Freaky_Animal

Originally posted by ANOKsomething a nervous terrorist about to kill himself would not have.

And who told you that he was nervous?

He probably had painted a mental picture of the 72 virgins on the Pentagon wall right at the aiming point

[edit on 27-2-2008 by Freaky_Animal]

Who told you he probably painted a mental picture on the pentagon wall?

See, it goes both ways.

I still don't believe a plane hit the pentagon, no marks where the engines would have hit, and a nice round hole deep inside the building, supposedly made by the nose of the plane, nope I don't buy it.

reply to post by jtma508
The videos I posted were in response to the OP saying,''One of the top arguments is that it would be impossible to fly a plane so low to the ground.'' I took that as 'aerodynamically' impossible.

The latter by a significantly less trained pilot who executes a significantly unstable approach while simultaneously having to arrest a serious descent rate and avoid ground obstacles all at a much higher speed.

He didn't arrest the descent, all he had to do is keep the nose pointed at the Pentagon. Also, he didn't avoid ground obstacles. He hit five light poles and a generator before he hit the Pentagon.

reply to post by MrWendal


Well if you're not concerned about crashing, then it's certainly not impossible to fly low. How far were they supposed to have flown at extreme low altitudes though? They only had to be extemely low long enough to crash the plane.

Well, seeing as how this guy just performed the very task that we're debating, i would say case closed:

www.cnn.com...



He got properly fired too.....lol....

reply to post by Boone 870


That second video posted by Boone 870 was bloody awesome. (I can say 'bloody' on ATS, right? )

That was a C-32, military version of the B757, likely flown on a military airbase somewhere and definately going faster than the 250K speed limit for civilian jets!

Kinda sorta like AA77 would have done just before impact....

So, impossible? You decide.

reply to post by Boone 870


No it's not impossible top fly close to the ground. Anyone who has been to an airshow can attest to that. The flight profile of the plane hitting the Pentagon showed that it did, in fact, have to arrest a significant rate of decent and at high speed. Also, I wasn't suggesting that the Pentagon pilot didn't hit anything on the ground but that unlike the Cathay pilot who knew he was flying in obstruction-clear airspace, the Pentagon pilot, in addition to controlling the aircraft, had to deal with manually avoiding obstacles at the same time and at high speed. I think some people are attempting to make this easier than it actually is.

I have seen these boeing stunt videos a dozen times however you neglect several key factors that make the argument seem somewhat invalid:

The videos above show a stunt pilot with probably decades worth of experience and have trained to perform that particular move hundreds of times over,

The pilots aren't overspeeding like the planes were on 9/11, an overspeeding plane is far more difficult to control and less accurate (may even wobble)

The planes aren't dive bombing into position like the extreme descents made on 9/11

The planes are not under the control of suicidal hijackers under stressful situations!

And furthermore, the plane that hit the pentagon hit the bottom floor, none of these videos show a plane flying low enough to do that.