Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Could you fly down to 20 feet for the length of a runway, with landing gear up, at 400 knots, and hold a steady course?

Go ahead and commit that Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. You're already alluded to it so go ahead and give us a great big belly laugh.

By the way, I suspect you mean altitude as measured in the vertical as opposed to a course which is measured in the horizontal. .....Just to help you in asking the proper question.......

I have hundreds of hours flying below 500' AGL rarely below 500 MPH and on occasion at or above Mach 1. Your example of 400 knots down a runway is rare, but it is rather routine for an airshow. On the other hand taking-off, retracting the landing gear and remaining level for the length of the runway while building up speed to 400 knots or more for a spectacular pull-up was not that uncommon in years past. Actually, it's more in the vicinity of about 5' AGL as opposed to 20'.

The period of time AA 77 was at extremely low altitude was mere seconds. It was a clear day and still early in the morning. The turbulence generated by heat waves from different types of reflective surfaces would have been negligible. However, if you examine the FDR the pilot over controlled and the ride was indeed extremely rough. In fact, the pilot enter a Pilot Induced Osculation (PIO) on more than one occasion indicating a very inexperienced pilot at the controls.

Low level flying is not all dare devil exploits by crazy pilots. It was a routine tactic during the Cold War to avoid detection by radar and radar controlled missiles. Virtually all NATO Forces (to include USAF and US Navy) used this technique even in large bombers and Transport Aircraft which had to fly in high threat areas. Pilots use a combination of eyeball and a Radar Altimeter (accurate to about 1' or less to maintain a safe distance from the ground or obstacles.

Your real question obviously is could a pilot with approximately 700 hours and a Commercial License steer a B-757 descending to extremely low altitude for a second or so and crash into the largest Office Building in the world? The answer is YES. The final altitude shown in AA 77's FDR was 4' AGL. Before you ask, that 4' is measured/calibrated to show the distance from the ground or obstacle to the wheels on the landing gear, so that it will read zero (0) when the aircraft is sitting on the ground.

reply to post by Reheat


Is this Fantasy Island, where do you guys keep seeing planes?

How many times have you pilot types skipped light poles when you're hot shotting around at 500 knots 20 feet off the deck?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Cool video! you're right it is a fun one

so three or four exceptional pilots could fly low enough to make it in a top 10 video and hit the first floor of the Pentagon in a small fighter jet... the only larger plane to make it in the video was at around 40+ feet altitude...



nuf said!

could some untrained dude from Afghanistan, who could barely fly a cessna, even come CLOSE to flying into the Pentagon? No.

reply to post by Reheat

I have hundreds of hours flying below 500' AGL rarely below 500 MPH and on occasion at or above Mach 1. Your example of 400 knots down a runway is rare, but it is rather routine for an airshow.

Obviously you were flying a fighter jet and not below 20' at that speed..
As for airshows, the fastest reasonable low pass I've seen was from a NZ air force 757 and that was 350knots and a fair bit higher than 20'..

reply to post by Thermo Klein

could some untrained dude from Afghanistan,

Saudia Arabia actually..
Just that they are mates so we bombed Afghanistan instead..

i know, reheat, you already have a canned answer for everything and you won't change no matter what.

tell me, what kind of planes do you fly while routinely being over 500 knots and under 500 AGL? (what's AGL - A Graphics Language, flight simulator?? )

This is yet another of those same old argument that six OSers argue is everyday flying. I don't buy it. I can go on different websites and talk to other pilots who all say it couldn't be done, but the very few OSers left continually say the same old cut-n-paste job.

Do you ever have a unique thought of your own? I might as well be conversing with some sort of automated simulator...

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

could some untrained dude from Afghanistan,

Saudia Arabia actually..
Just that they are mates so we bombed Afghanistan instead..

I stand corrected - thanks for heads up

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
so three or four exceptional pilots could fly low enough to make it in a top 10 video and hit the first floor of the Pentagon in a small fighter jet... the only larger plane to make it in the video was at around 40+ feet altitude...

It may be 40' AGL (above ground level if you really don't know what that is) but it's not 40' above the obstacles, note it's flying over brush and not a runway. If it was flying over a runway I'm sure it could go lower.

Also I'm not sure the pilots are exceptional, except for perhaps their nerve, all they are doing is flying low and straight (though one of them is executing a turn at a pretty low level, that may take a little more skill). More comments regarding the skill of the pilot:

www.aerospaceweb.org...

That brings us to the question of whether an essentially untrained pilot like terrorist Hani Hanjour could have made these adjustments to fly the Boeing 757 into the Pentagon. While such fine corrections do require some degree of finesse and familiarity with an aircraft's flight characteristics, the level of expertise required is not excessive. We have shown that any influence of ground effect would have been quite small on Flight 77 given its high rate of speed and small angle of attack. The 757 was apparently in a shallow dive as well, further reducing its angle of attack such that any impact of ground effect would have been extremely small....

These factors make it clear that ground effect could not have prevented a Boeing 757 from striking the Pentagon in the way that Flight 77 did on September 11. Nevertheless, we are still left with the claim that the pilot Hanjour flew a suspiciously "perfect" flight path on his approach to the Pentagon despite his lack of skill. It is unclear what has prompted this belief since very few eyewitnesses even describe how well the aircraft flew. The majority instead focus on the impact and aftermath. Even so, those few who did make statements regarding pilot ability indicate that Hanjour flew in a somewhat erratic manner as one would expect.

And Pilots have done it in a flight simulator which you probably already know but choose to ignore:

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.

It seems like a ridiculous argument to me too, made mostly by people who seem to know little about flying.

reply to post by rhynouk


So how do you account for the (rather expensive) missing jetliner and the hundred or so people on board? To believe in the conspiracy you have to believe the pilots were in on it, the airline was in on it, the air traffic controllers were in on it, the authorities who identified passenger bodies on the scene were in on it. Basically you have to believe a whole lot of crap that doesn't add up. Google Mark Roberts and watch his videos. He answers pretty much all the conspiracy theories that have been floating around.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

And Pilots have done it in a flight simulator which you probably already know but choose to ignore:

If simulators were that good then pilots wouldn't need more training in the REAL thing...
But oddly they do...

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Honestly, for the moment, we should all just let this go.

Yes, the official story is complete and total B.S., that's for sure. The Pentagon as well as the towers were a complete set-up. Those who don't believe this, shouldn't be convinced. Let them sit and enjoy their little fairy tale until it comes out otherwise.

The mere fact that 9 out of the multiple "hijackers" are alive and well should be indicative that, "someone told a fib," but, you can't expect people to use the same common sense that are others are obviously simply endowed with. Lets face it, the mediocre rule the world at the moment, and those weaker than the mediocre will believe anything out of the mouth of...the mediocre.

One monkey teaches another how to wipe its butt, and soon, all the monkeys think that this is the only way to get a good butt wiping done. That's the way of the world.

Originally posted by Qcuailon
The mere fact that 9 out of the multiple "hijackers" are alive and well should be indicative that, "someone told a fib," but, you can't expect people to use the same common sense that are others are obviously simply endowed with. Lets face it, the mediocre rule the world at the moment, and those weaker than the mediocre will believe anything out of the mouth of...the mediocre.

One monkey teaches another how to wipe its butt, and soon, all the monkeys think that this is the only way to get a good butt wiping done. That's the way of the world.

Yes I'm sure there are 9 men out there who share the same name as the hijackers.
That doesn't mean the hijackers are alive. Their dead, all of 'em.

Commercial airplanes’ frames are constructed with a very light aluminum material, in order to make it easier to fly. Theorists maintain that there is no possible way an airplane can do as much damage as it did to the Twin Towers as it did.

reply to post by Qcuailon


We all have different reasons for being here. I know I will never have an efficacious conversation with some of the OSers on here for various reasons. But, I am a Psychologist researching denial in traumatic events and worldview - every conversation/argument I have on here helps me to teach better, I get more insight into denial, more insight into reactionary behavior.

I know the scientific facts show it was an inside job - what I want is a way to bring those facts to the general public in a manner they can hear.

Originally posted by backinblack
If simulators were that good then pilots wouldn't need more training in the REAL thing...
But oddly they do...

In 2001 that may have been true, but the FAA actually allows simulator training to count as of October 2009 when new rules were issued regarding the use of flight simulators for pilot training:

Flight Simulator in Aviation Training

On August 21, 2009, the FAA published revisions to 14 CFR Part 61 (the rules that govern the certification of pilots and flight instructors), including the use of FTDs and flight simulators for training and to maintain instrument proficiency. The new rules become effective in October 2009.

The new rules (specifically §61.51) offer greater flexibility in the use of FTDs (including ATDs) and flight simulators in training for certificates and ratings and to maintain instrument currency. The FAA's comments in the Federal Register also clarify the agency's interpretation of the regulations....The FAA's comments on the new rules elaborate, thus:

Subject to certain limitations, a pilot may choose completing his/her instrument experience requirements in an aircraft and/or through use of an FS, FTD, or ATD. The simulation devices must be representative of the category of aircraft suitable for the instrument rating privileges that the pilot desires to maintain. Under new §61.57(c)(2), a person may use a flight simulator or flight training device exclusively by performing and logging at least three hours of instrument recent flight experience within the six calendar months before the month of the flight.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Subject to certain limitations, a pilot may choose completing his/her instrument experience requirements in an aircraft and/or through use of an FS, FTD, or ATD.

That's just for instrument ratings, not accreditation..
They still MUST fly the REAL thing...

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
FIRST FLOOR COLUMNS PUSHED OUTWARD (from NIST report, p. 14)

When I look at this picture I can't comprehend why ANYONE would argue an airplane hit here... there's no big hole, there's no airplane wreckage, and no damage to the ground... but ALSO the columns are pushed OUTWARD!!!! so obviously some sort of explosion went off INSIDE the buidling as evidenced by BOTH NIST pictures posted here.

The security cam also shows a fireball exiting the pentagon.

But why do you find this puzzling? Isn't that what you'd expect? Do you think the combustion of all that fuel is going to create an implosion rather than an explosion?

I also ran across this which if it was mentioned earlier, I missed it, but it seems interesting and relevant:

B-25 Empire State Building Collision

The Empire State Building crash of 1945 also offers insights into the Pentagon attack on September 11. Both buildings are reinforced masonry structures built using similar methods and materials, although the Pentagon has been considerably upgraded to survive impact damage. One topic often used to promote conspiracy theories is the size of the hole in the exterior wall of the Pentagon created by the Boeing 757 that struck it. The 757 has a wingspan of almost 125 ft (38 m), yet most conspiracy sites suggest the impact hole is only 15 to 65 ft (4.5 to 20 m) wide. The same can be said of the Empire State Building where a plane with a wingspan greater than 67 ft (20.5 m) created a hole no more than 20 ft (6 m) across.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4d3c1a85f279.jpg[/atsimg]

Both aircraft caused damage consistent with the size of the plane and the structural materials used in the facade. Most of the mass of a plane is contained within the fuselage, inner wing structure, and engine nacelles. These portions of the aircraft have the greatest power to penetrate a wall upon impact, and the sizes of the impact holes at both the Empire State Building and the Pentagon are consistent with the dimensions of the fuselage and nacelles of the B-25 and 757, respectively. The outer wings and tail surfaces are much lighter structures consisting mostly of a thin skin enclosing empty space. Upon colliding a thick wall composed of a dense material like stone or concrete, these light aerodynamic structures simply disintegrate. The impact often produces surface gouging and perhaps small, localized holes, but the lighter aircraft structures generally cannot penetrate a reinforced masonry wall. Close examination of both buildings shows gouges extending outward from the central impact hole as would be expected from the collision of wings.

Interesting similarities between the Empire State building crash and the Pentagon crash.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

But why do you find this puzzling? Isn't that what you'd expect? Do you think the combustion of all that fuel is going to create an implosion rather than an explosion?

No but you'd expect the kinetic energy of a 757 hitting those walls at 500mph would have pushed the walls in, not out...

Originally posted by backinblack
That's just for instrument ratings, not accreditation..
They still MUST fly the REAL thing...

I didn't claim otherwise. But some of the simulators are pretty good at demonstrating pretty closely what would happen with a real plane, and in the case of a dangerous maneuver being discussed here of 20' AGL at 400 mph, few 757 owners would be thrilled with the idea of testing it with their real plane.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by backinblack
That's just for instrument ratings, not accreditation..
They still MUST fly the REAL thing...

I didn't claim otherwise. But some of the simulators are pretty good at demonstrating pretty closely what would happen with a real plane, and in the case of a dangerous maneuver being discussed here of 20' AGL at 400 mph, few 757 owners would be thrilled with the idea of testing it with their real plane.

Of course not..
But that just makes you question more the expert pilots that come on here and say it would have been easy..
I mean, how the frik would they know??
No pilot is allowed to even go close to testing that scenario,
but they are all more than happy to sprout crap on here about how easy it would be..