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

Originally posted by Choronzon

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

The photo you show doesn't prove anything, first off how fast is that plane travelling? Also, it needs to be much lower to hit the bottom floor of the pentagon!

If this was a closer example of Hanis 9/11 flying the engine should be a few inches above the ground and the speed should be approx +400 mph.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by Insolubrious]

Originally posted by Insolubrious
The photo you show doesn't prove anything, first off how fast is that plane travelling? Also, it needs to be much lower to hit the bottom floor of the pentagon!

It appears that he was doing around 322mph after he slowed down, and was only 28-30 feet above the ground, which would have hit the pentagon:

www.heraldnet.com...

Even if these 'stats' are not 'exactly' the same as what happened on 9/11, it is getting close enough for me to say it is 'plausible' which is cause for reasonable-doubt of your claim.

reply to post by Insolubrious


Insolubrious, this is a reply to your most recent post.

The Cathay Pacific B777 is not exceeding 250K, since that is the speed limit for airplanes below 10,000 in the US. What is more, it is fueled for a flight all the way from Seattle to Hong Kong...at least 8 hours, plus reserves. I didn't fly the B777, but with a fuel load required for a long flight such as that, in a B767, your minimum 'flaps up', or 'clean' speed is usually not much more than 245K. And sometimes, can be less.

You can tell by the pitch attitude, as it passes on the fly-by, that he is not going faster than 250K. Compare that to the C-32 in Boone's video, where it is obvious that it is going very fast (of course I don't know how much fuel was onboard THAT airplane). Also, look at the C-32, look at the pitch, compared to the Cathay 777.

Just to clarify, a jet in normal cruise config will have about 2.5 to 3 degrees nose up, on the EADI. We don't have AOA indicators on commercial jets, though I think it would be useful, just determined to be TMI for pilots, I guess, since the ADC and other computers take of it for us, behind the scenes, so to speak.

Sorry, was writing, but have to go run errands....

Originally posted by Insolubrious

Originally posted by Choronzon

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

The photo you show doesn't prove anything, first off how fast is that plane travelling? Also, it needs to be much lower to hit the bottom floor of the pentagon!

If this was a closer example of Hanis 9/11 flying the engine should be a few inches above the ground and the speed should be approx +400 mph.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by Insolubrious]

If either of you two bothered to click the links provided in my original post you would see that this plane you are discussing is the exact case I was referring to and included the news article as well as the video from Youtube.

jtma508: Thank you very much for your responses. That is exactly the type of information I was looking for and I would have to agree it is much like comparing "apples and wheel barrels" when you take into consideration the speeds, rates of descent, and obstacles. As I said in my original post the majority of my research has centered around the WTC. The Pentagon attack is really new territory for me. I have been having a lot of trouble finding information in this area, is there anything you can suggest that could help me in my search into this aspect of 9/11?

I was not aware that impact occurred at the bottom floor of the Pentagon, can anyone provide a source for this information?

reply to post by weedwhacker

The 757 video I posted is a Royal New Zealand Air Force 757 at an air show. It is traveling at 350kias. I found the information on this Airliners.net thread.

The RNZAF performs roughly 30 demonstrations a year with their 757. The flyby is just part of the demonstration, go to youtube and type in 'RNZAF 757' in the search box. Their initial takeoff is nothing less than spectacular!

now, I was always skeptical about the plane that hit the pentagon...

However, I recently had the chance to meet Mr. Stafford-Walter, a news anchor for CBS. He's actually my friends dad, i just never knew.
anyway, after talking to him about 9/11 (he even had the loose change guys over for dinner once) he told me that he was actually there and SAW the plane hit the Pentagon...

I dont know if that changes any mind, but he seemed sure of himself, so its made me second guess whether a missile or plane hit the Pentagon...

2 cents

reply to post by Odessy


Of course some self appointed expert is gonna call him a liar, because they "know" what happened.

reply to post by BlueRaja


well, its not really what he "knows", its what he SAW...
I imagine you couldnt mistake a missile for a plane, but he said he saw the plane hit, and was offended when I brought up that I thought it was a missile.
anyway, unless hes a fantastic actor, I ended up believing him, or at least believing that he thinks he saw a plane hit...
whatever thats worth

reply to post by Naboo the Enigma


Each plane hijacked on 9/11 had a specific taget that day - WTC towers
were labelled "JEWS TOWERS" by Bin Laden because of financial
firms housed there, Pentagon (TOWER Of WAR), Capitol (TOWER Of LAW)

American Flight 11 & United 175 - World Trade Center

American 77 - Pentagon

United 93 - Capitol

You make it sound like were on some aerial "joy ride"

Originally posted by Choronzon
It appears that he was doing around 322mph after he slowed down, and was only 28-30 feet above the ground, which would have hit the pentagon:

three twenty TWO? the skull and bones number? coincidence? most people would say 320, as it's approximate. what possesses people to add the 2, when it is probably not accurate?

anyway, schizophrenic paranoia aside, none of those planes are flying low enough or fast enough. they could barely knock down a light pole, AND they are not dealing with the slope that leads down to the pentagon(and they just didn't come out of a steep 270˚turn).
the fact that they are doing that as a 'maneuver' at an airshow should indicate that it's not an easy thing to do.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by billybob]

You dont need to "fly" the plane, you just aim it and let it crash into the building. The plane might deviate in height and need minor adjustments.

Originally posted by jtma508
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.

Arresting the decent is one of the keys too. This is different for every aircraft and different for the same aircraft depending on its payload. Then you have the ground effect of a terrain that varies and has obstacles. hen you arrest your decent, there is a time delay that will vary depending on the aircraft and the terrain.

Only an extremely skilled pilot could have done this.

reply to post by LoneGunMan


LoneGunMan,

Have you flown the B757 or B767? Do you know how the control wheel feels in your hand, how much force you apply...do you know how you FEEL the response as you move the control wheel? This is the much over-used phrase 'seat of the pants'.

An analagy...in a car, you can feel the effect as you press the brake pedal, right? You use that sense, plus your visual perceptions, peripherally, plus your binocular vision to estimate the point ahead where you wish to stop, and in the end you, hopefull, want to make it smooth...you modulate your foot pressure on the brake pedal, finally, a good driver will gradually release the pressure on the brake pedal as the car slows, to result in a smooth stop.

I had to write a whole paragraph to explain something that anyone who has driven a car understands in split seconds, because of experience.

How about this...you tend to instinctively know when you are approaching a curve in the road at too fast a speed...you feel it in the 'seat of your pants' and slow down. OK, bad example, since airplanes operate in three dimensions vs. carts in two, but it is an attempt to show examples...

Back to my point...and that is simple...put the target in the windshield, aim at it, and you WILL hit it.

[added]...assuming your 'target' is stationery...







[edit on 27-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

Allah is sufficient...

.. to make anything remotely possible for a dedicated terrorist to perform, even high flying stunts like crashing an airliner into a couple-story tall building, right smack into the side wall!

I think out of 10,000 chances of the terrorist hitting the pentagon head on it happened to be the 1 out of 10,000 perfect hit.

Originally posted by Dark_Ace
I think out of 10,000 chances of the terrorist hitting the pentagon head on it happened to be the 1 out of 10,000 perfect hit.

Dark....1 out of 10,000? And this is a number, a percentage, you came up with from where?

Dark, if I had the money, I would put you in a Simulator, let you fly around for a few hours...hopefully you would have a couple hundred of REAL hours before hand, in REAL airplanes....but still, let me put you into a Sim and bring up the Visuals...this is a Class D Sim, BTW...and I will tell you to aim at one of the buildings, just ignore all of the overspeed warnings, the GPWS warnings, just ignore everything, and focus on hitting that target. Bet you could do it!

I have played in a Simulator, many times. OK, I have thousands of hours, but even if you only have 500 hours, you can steer.

Point is, I have tried to teach some of these creeps who, according to some of the instructors, couldn't fly....but, they just went on to other Flight Schools!!! Even in the 1970s, I have told people that they had no business learning to fly, then heard later they went to another airport (I taught at Hawthorne, they would go to Torrance or Santa Monica), all in the LA area...and SOMEONE would teach them, because they were WILLING TO PAY!!

I would not put MY license on the line, for a crap student. We didn't expect terrorism, back in the 1970s, I just would NOT continue with a person who could not fly. After five lessons, I had a woman who could not even TAXI a Cessna 150!!! I told Nooshin Sarlotti (her name sticks with me, to this day) not to try to fly an airplane. I have her name in my LogBook, in cae you doubt my story. Who knows, maybe she went somewhere else and eventually soloed and got her Private...I don't know. I just know, I spent five hours with her, and she could not even comprehend 'straight and level'...I tried, but combined with the fact she couldn't even steer the airplane on the ground....lost cause, my ONLY lost cause in three year of instructing....

I do wish that people would get over the idea that crashing an aircraft is difficult. I am not prepared to rule out luck in terms of where the plane hit, but the basic principle of crashing an aircraft is very simple - keep the target in your windscreen. We trained pigeons to do it in WWII!

The basic flight controls of a large airliner are similar to those of any other civilian aircraft - all you need is the control column, the rudder pedals and the throttle, if you are planning a one way journey everything else is academic!

As for hitting the bottom floor of the Pentagon, was the aicraft straight and level when it impacted or in a dive? When did the hijackers up the airspeed? Could they have approached slower and accelerated when they had the target in their sights? If they flew straight and level at 55ft and 500kts for several miles then that would require some skill, diving to a target from a high and slow profile wouldn't.

The Pentagon is the largest building in the world, making it a pretty big target.

Besides, there are thousands of witnesses to it happening.

How can this still be a subject of debate Seven Years later?

Originally posted by Black Flag
How can this still be a subject of debate Seven Years later?

I suppose it would be more comforting to think that it would take years of planning, billions of dollars, or a very large government full of corrupt leaders to pull something like this off. That way when Bush leaves office, they can sigh and relax that the threat is finally gone. Maybe they don't like to admit that a group of fringe individuals could pull something like this off. It's sort of discomforting to think that just a few motivated people with an agenda could terrorize an entire nation.

Others don't do it out of fear, they just have a political agenda. If it makes Pres. Bush look bad, then it must be the right path to follow.

Lastly, some individuals seem to thrive on sensationalism.