How did an inexperienced pilot fly a 757 at 500mph just a few feet off the ground?

This is what Hani Hanjour supposedly did at the Pentagon. :shrug:

Before crashing into the Pentagon.

It was fully intact as it rammed into the building.

http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci_13142253

Weird shit happens sometimes. He was committing suicide, I don't think he much cared if he drove it into the ground in front, into the middle of the roof or where he did, into the side.

Everyone knows that's how odd stuff happens. It's never an anomaly.

Muslim physics

Newtonian Physics so their flight patterns are somewhat unpredictable to non-Muslims.

"How did an inexperienced pilot fly crash a 757 at 500mph just a few feet off the ground?"

Answer it's easy. It takes only marginal skill to crash a plane into a building.

to crash a huge plane into a tall building like the WTC at a high rate of speed, much less hit the first floor of a smaller building.

And they think it would have taken someone with a great deal of experience to perform the maneuver into the Pentagon. Not Hani Hanjour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78

What makes you think that he was TRYING to hit the first floor?

That's what is silly about this argument.

He was trying to hit the largest office building on the planet. He succeeded. If your target is the largest thing of its kind in the world, you are likely going to hit it somewhere.

And then, years later, some joker comes along and says, "It would be really hard to hit that exact spot."

Look up "Texas sharpshooter fallacy".

For all you know, he wanted to come into the center and hit one of the inner rings, and he failed miserably.

Or perhaps an aeronautical engineer?

Did you even watch the video link?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

except the particular field of law which one practices.

...with an undergrad minor in physics was a real waste of time.

but then I thought, "why spoil jberryhill's fun?"

educated person in the room. Perhaps you need to read up on the Fallacy of Expertise.

assumed anything.

So, make up your mind.

Do you want to stick with "an attorney is an expert in NOTHING"?

Or do you want to go with door #2 - "advanced degrees in engineering renders one subject to 'the fallacy of expertise'".

I hadn't raised the issue of my identity or qualifications here, my friend, because they are irrelevant to the question of whether a plane can hit a building.

And JB never said he was the most educated person in the room.

However, I would have to say that advanced training in engineering and physics should give him an edge in evaluating engineering issues.

Either way his arguments are at least coherent while yours are nothing of the sort.

You OCTers keep making these off the wall claims!

http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/what-is-the-largest-office-building-in-the-world

The Pentagon, which is the headquarters of the United States government's Department of Defense, has been the world's largest office building since it opened on January 15, 1943.

http://activerain.com/blogsview/339319/65-years-as-the-largest-office-in-the-world-relocating-to-work-in-the-pentagon

For 65 years, The Pentagon has remained the largest office in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon

The Pentagon is the world's largest office building by floor area.


It's a 29 acre building. As targets go, it's something of a can't-miss.

...not the largest. Not by a long shot.

At the bottom of the first link it talks about the building that is now the biggest office building in the world.
Its in texas. Not Washington DC.
But anyway my post was mainly a jest at SDs expense over a stupid thread dispute over the pentagon being the most defended building in the world.

Pentagon is largest office building at 6.6 million square feet

USAA building is largest private office building at 5.5 million square feet.

That you are seeking answers.
While you should have conducted your own quick Google search to confirm hacks claim you quite reasonable asked for proof (though in an unreasonable tone).
He provided it.

So why are you still fighting? Even if hack were incorrect (which he is not AFAIK) we would still be looking at ONE of the largest office buildings in the world. How would that change the substance of the argument.

Give up. Hack backed up his claim. Something I have never seen you do. And any silly arguments over it are not going to change the fact that is being discussed, that being that the Pentagon is a very very large target and truthers routinely apply the Texas sharpshooter fallacy to the impact point.

The headline in your own damn link says Pentagon no longer biggest building.
So you post the link that shows how correct you are and than dispute it yourself and get on my case for not researching YOUR LINK???
You guys having amazing arrogance not to be matched.
Its a big reason many here do not trust the stuff you link up here.
If you are gonna make the kind of hard ass your stupid we are brillant type arguments you guys love to make you better get your frigging shit right damn it!

Aside from the fact that the USAA building is smaller, do you understand the meaning of the term "no longer", and the fact that we are discussing an event which occurred in 2001?

But, oh, I guess your point, even if the USAA building was larger, is that hitting the second largest office building in the world, at 29 acres, is a really, really tough shot.

link said the pentagon was no longer the worlds biggest building. Its not my fault you posted a misleading link is it?

Seeing as that part of that link was wrong.

but you should try to keep track of who you are responding to.
None of those links were posted by me.

And the link in question showed an update date in 2009. How does that effect what was true in 2001?

The fact is you were provided with ample evidence to support a claim.
It turns out the evidence does support that claim.

You have made a number of claims such as 'The Pentagon is the most heavily defended building in the world' and 'The Pentagon has an anti-aircraft missile battery'
Now can you provide similar evidence for your claims?
I promise to at least read the headlines of the first link before I post back.

From jberryhill's link:


Hey that is just like what you said except...
it is dated 2009, and is a comment on the end of the article.

Also jberryhill provided some other links lets pretend we are intelligent and visit more than one of them.


Oops. 6.6 million > 5.5 million. Looks like jberryhill posted plenty of information to back up his claim. Certainly a lot more than you have ever backed up your claims with.

Now are you ready to admit it was a REALLY big target or do you want to continue playing games?

Why the fuck can't you back up your claims with a simple google search instead of wasting bandwith?

The last expansion of the USAA building (which is still not as large as the Pentagon) was being done in 2001.

If I told you about a man in 1940 who "jumped off of the tallest building in the world" would you think I was referring to the Empire State Building or the Burj Dubai?

I was subjected to a reaming out by SD and others for saying it was the MOST defended building.
You guys cannot get all pissy pants on me if I give you the same inane tactics back.

dude.

Prove my claim wrong!

dude.

you're funny and consistently wrong, dude.

Do you think it is appropriate in a reasoned discussion to point out when someone commits a logical fallacy?
When there is an error in their reasoning?

The Pentagon is located in the middle of a bunch of public highway interchanges, and right smack dab next to a major airport.

What "defenses" does it have other than access controls common at a lot of other buildings.

special security passes, retinal scans, ect .You guys are not helping your position with this lame brained kind of debate.
The fact is there is no good reason most people with any common sense can come up with as to why the building was not defended.
If it is not the MOST secure building in the world its certainly was defended enough to have stopped that jet from hitting it.
An air force base with fighters to defend it minutes away.

For example, where are the missile batteries you cite? Do you have any proof of that at all?

I'm pretty sure you're correct about the security passes and retinal scans. Could you explain how those would have made one fucking bit of difference on 9/11?

and satellite surveilance. I assume you know about them so you do not need me to" prove" them to you. I will look for the missle battery info I found while looking at how the pentagon was defended.

When hundreds of aircraft go into and out of the airport next door every day.

tracking the plane headed your direction that had its transponder turned off.

After all, what's the risk of shooting down a civilian airliner with a malfunctioning transponder, between friends?

I mean it really could just be a big misunderstanding. Anyway one supposes one could track the plane without shooting it down unless it turned out to be heading right at the pentagon.

Over a densely populated area? Do you ever think these things through?

Any way when planes come down they just leave little smoking craters like in Pennyslvania so I don't know why you would say such a thing?

you know that Andrews only maintains "combat-ready" fighters and not "on alert" fighters, right? That's why fighters were scrambled on 9/11 from Langley and Otis.

Additionally, make sure that whatever "evidence" of missile batteries for the Pentagon you provide predates 9/11.

Specifically:
Missile batteries
radar
satellite surveillance
steel reinforced walls**
security cameras*
special security passes*
retinal scans*

* These are not uncommon outside of military installations.
** I assume you are referring to the outer wall and though steel might not be the reinforcing material many buildings have very hard to penetrate outer walls.

Now can you provide corroborating evidence for them in the same way that JB did?
Specifically these which are in doubt:
Missile batteries
radar
satellite surveillance

Come on Reality hack waste your own time if really believe the pentagon does not have satellite and radar.
I mean what were we spending those 2.6 trillion tax dollars on that got lost.And were being looked for in the offices in the wing of the Pentagon that happened to be hit.
After the terrorist went out of his way to perform a difficult flight manuever just so he could hit that one specific area?

First, here is a link to the video of rummy talking about it on 9/10:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU

Now, first thing you have wrong is the amount, it is 2.3 trillion, not 2.6. Perhaps minor but truthers so rarely get facts correct.

Next up... The money is lost. That is not what was said, what was said is that the money is not being tracked, there is difference. See... the DoD does business with thousands of different companies and the DoD does not have the resources to audit all of them. Make no mistake, it is a huge problem that should be addressed but truthers like to make it out as though the whole 2.3 trillion was suddenly missing on 9/10 and that is not the case. Rummy's announcement was simply one more in a very long line of pentagon announcements that they had accounting issues and were going to get tough on them. The problem of not being able to track all the money the pentagon spends as well as contractor mis-deeds has been going on a long time... and still goes on today.

You then go on to make a few claims I would like to see you back up.
1 - The money was being looked for in the wing that got hit.
2 - That the plane hit the specific area it intended to.

What I read was to the effect that the workers in the area where the plane hit were to be working on auditing where that money went.
And that a lot of files were lost in the attack. Much like the Enron files lost in building 7.

I've seen the same thing on a few CT sites but never with any source for it. I have a few problems believing it though. Firstly, because DoD audits are not really done at the pentagon. DoD has auditors all over the country and they generally go "on-site" (to wherever a given companies headquarters is) to perform the audits. Once completed, all audit reports are filed at the regional DoD office, on computer and sent electronically to the pentagon. Now, I certainly can believe that people at the pentagon were reviewing reports to look for mistakes to find "lost monies" but they would be working on the DoD mainframe, not hard copy originals that if lost had no replacement. It just does not work that way and it has not since way before 9/11. So for this to be true, the DoD mainframe and all disaster recovery back-up would have to have been where the plane hit... I really have a hard time buying that, so much more would have been lost beside accounting files.

I've heard the same about enron in building 7 and have not seen any reliable source for that either. I have a hard time buying it as well and for the same reasons. The source of the enron rumor seem to come from Barry Zwicker in The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw, Global Outlook magazine (Issue 9, Fall/Winter 2005). On page 19, he says "Now this was late 2001. This was at the height of the investigation into Enron, so the majority of Enron's SEC filings were likely destroyed when world trade center 7 came down". It is true that the SEC had offices in building 7 but Mr. Zwicker never explains why he think enron's SEC filings would have been lost (the SEC had lots of other offices) or why there would have been no back ups. Even if it were true, enron would be in possession of originals and more copies could easily be had but of course, I see no reason to believe it is true. I mean... it is not like the investigation of enron stopped.

Source of Barry Zwicker comments:
http://www.greatconspiracy.ca/pdfs/TGC_transcript_GOIssue9.pdf - page 19, bottom right side.

I look at things like this from a tech point of view. I'm a mainframe programmer and have been involved in disaster recovery efforts for about 20 years now. The losses that are being claimed just don't sit right... it's just not how things work.

...as is "satellite surveillance" and "special passes".

Why, my goodness, without a "special pass" no aircraft can hit the building. Why a satellite is needed to watch the Pentagon, when there are actual people, with eyes, right there, is anybody's guess.

Of course, for the umpteenth time, since you have zero familiarity with the area, what's even closer than an airbase is a civilian airport (National) with a runway that requires approaches of low flying jets to go right over the Pentagon:



And how do you get a picture like that?

Out the window of an ordinary flight:



Yeah... every time a flight comes into or leaves National, there's some guy at the Pentagon with a twitchy finger on a missile launcher. Suuure.

Something tells me they would have a hard time getting those fighters in the air to intercept one of those airliners if they suddenly dove on final.

Remember the one that landed smack dab in the Potomac?

Maybe I should have included the sarcasm icon.
That is a good set of images to help people understand the area we are talking about though.

we've missed you. Are you ready to gety back to "truth suppression"?

But thought I'd stop in for some low hanging fruit.

we've got plenty of that but the "truthers" do a pretty good job of shaking the low-hanging fruit off themselves but complaining the debunkers aren't holding the ladder steady enough.

if you're really accusing us of deliberate falsehoods, you'd better be prepared to back it up.

you'd be wise to quit accusing people of disinformation, dude.

Sometimes, the penis mightier than the sword.

desending loop so they could hit the part of the pentagon the brass wasn't in.

Hint: he was too high as he approached the Pentagon, so he had to circle. So, which do you think would be easier? To go out ever further, do a sharp u-turn and aim at the side he was on, or do a slow descending loop around the Pentagon and reposition himself to crash into it?

As far as which side he targeted, why wouldn't it make sense to target the side he did since it was the closest to the direction he was approaching and, once he overshot (again, because he was too high) it would be the easiest to re-target?

You honestly think someone trying to inflict the most damage and destruction possible should attack vertically? I'd love for you to show how that would inflict more damage than they actually did. Another fucking stupid post.

more damage than hitting through the roof.
Have fun show your work and don't forget to put in plenty of colorful links.

you make a stupid fucking claim, then demand your opponent disprove it. Typical. Do you have proof that hitting the roof would have done more damage? For example, can you point to a longer damage path?

....the building by avoiding the walls on the building that are steel reinforced and hitting the roof.
Do you know the roof to be steel reinforced?? SD are you holding out on me you knucklehead!

How many rings were affacted? How many do you think would have been hit in a vertical dive?

was he supposed to know what walls were reinforced, and be able to tell from the air.

Because you realize only part of the Petagon was renovated with reinforced walls...

Q. What's the difference between the TV detective character "Columbo" and a "no-planer"?

A. Columbo is only PRETENDING to be totally incompetent.

Thank you, thank you...I'm here all week.

easier or harder to identify them?

you're the one accusing them of deliberate incompetence.

your writing is so poor, half the time I have no idea what the fuck you are yammering about.

Missile batteries or radar in the Pentagon.

After 9-11 Mobile Avenger anti aircraft units were placed temporarily around the Pentagon.

I have NO IDEA why anyone would think there was "missile batteries" in the Pentagon...except perhaps in the movie GI Joe.

"Truther": "Man, if only THOSE guys had been in charge on 9/11!".

Me: "You realize that is just a movie, right? It was a work of fiction, dude.".

"Truther": "Why are you suppressing the truth?".

to back up your claim?

Or did you just keep repeating it and saying 'it stands to reason' and such garbage, then try to shift the burden of proof.

Oh wait. I remember it was that second one.
The claim regarding the pentagons size was backed up with more than enough references. Your claim was backed up by your personal musings.

fault for not researching the claim you made to see it was not true?
YES!!

I have no idea what your post is saying or asking.

Why don't you describe the Texas sharpshooter fallacy and why you think it does not apply in the case of the pentagon.

who thinks flying a 757 into the Pentagon at 500mph 30 ft above the ground is not hard at all.

None of the ones I talked to (about a dozen) thought it would be difficult.

Can you find one link of a professional pilot saying this on tape?

As far as I know not a single pilot has been able to recreate this event in a flight simulator.

the most unintentionally ironic "truther" post ever

you can't bore us all with your fucking stupid questions.

How is a question fucking stupid exactly? How would a question be knowledgable about reproduction? Should you expect it to be?
Do they even reproduce? have you seen one actually fucking?

dude.

And they told me you couldn't find your joy stick!

It's easy to see from the sky, since it has an unusual shape and is really, really big. Fly over it sometime - there are scheduled commercial flights out of National* that do this daily - and see how easy it is to pick out. Same for the World Trade Center towers: they were bigger than anything around them and stood out.

If mass destruction, confusion and chaos is the goal rather than a survivable landing, close counts.


*I don't care what it's official name is, it'll always be National to me.

That should be all that needs to be said.

:rofl:

so tell me. Should I stop being a PITA before or after you explain how the Texas sharp shooter fallacy is not applicable to this situation?

Many of you have felt this just as a passenger plane comes in to land. Just before hitting the runway, it seems to "float" above the landing strip. It's more noticeable in the smaller planes. Part of that sensation is due to ground effect.

What happens is that once a plane gets within about 1.5 times its own wingspan from the ground, wingtip vortices can no longer be created, resulting in higher speed, more lift, and less overall drag. Once Flight 77 was below about light pole level (just about the time it knocked those poles over on I-395), it was in ground effect, which probably made lining up the target a little easier, and made it harder to auger in short of the target.

Edit: Ground effect is an often overlooked phenomenon. American intelligence officials reputedly crapped their pants when they learned of the purpose of the Caspian Sea Monster, a Soviet ground effect vehicle designed to fly in an entire battalion of troops below the radar and just off an undefended shore at 500 mph.

I'm happy that I have at least one useful insight to offer after spending all those years hanging around the Air and Space museums. If you'd like to know why I know about ground effect, I'll tell you.

My old man and I were taking the tour of the Paul Garber facility, which is sort of like the attic for the Air and Space Museum in DC. It may have since been closed down or closed to the public since the opening of the Udvar-Hazy center at Dulles Airport.

Most of the planes were stored with their wings removed, but there was this one cute little old biplane hanging from the rafters. I think it was called a "kitten" or "kit." Our guide explained that this plane was a one-off design specifically made to reach the Zeppelins which were bombing British territory at night. Its creator claimed it would be able to reach the Zeppelins at their amazingly high altitude (for the time), but when it came time for testing it was realized that it was absurdly underpowered and couldn't get above ground effect, which for that particular plane couldn't have been more than about fifteen feet.

"So," said the guide, "it's somehow fitting that the plane is currently hanging at an altitude that it never reached in actual flight."

So naturally, my old man gave me a dissertation on ground effect, and that in turn spawned a few years of considering building my own GEV for use on lakes. I'm glad I didn't do it, as they tend to be death traps in practice, especially the small ones. The second you drop a wing to turn, it's all over. That, and I don't know how to fly, anyway.

is the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

Aerodynamics, hydrodynamics, fluid mechanics, and all those other similar things I wished I could learn but obviously can't. The fish have the cooler wing markings and better camouflage, though.

but, other than that, yeah.

Much better question: Why would an experienced pilot make a slow, wobbly loop to lose altitude rather than diving straight toward it (which would have required the skill to "slip" the plane sideways to avoid gaining too much speed), and why would an experienced pilot make such an unnecessarily risky low-level approach that almost ended in a lawn dart instead of hitting the target? Answer: They wouldn't; Hanjour was obviously a crappy pilot.

"just few feet off of the ground".

I seem to recall that among inexperienced 757 pilots, it's actually known as the "Hani Hover" maneuver. Yep. Named for THAT Hani.