A thought on the Pentagon strike.

[catnhatnh]

Many of the arguments on the Pentagon strike revolve around the difficulty of flying an airliner at high speed,at so low an altitude, at the end of a steep descending loop.I have seen arguments that in fact this would be impossible due to ground effect from the wing vortices.But no matter what side you support, the strike described would be the most ridiculous possible approach and the most likely to fail....
Think for a moment like a planner,you are sending relatively inexperienced pilots on a suicide mission against the pentagon.You look at a scale model of the building....a five pointed building perhaps 60' tall of 5 concentric rings each 2 office suites and a corridor wide...maybe 50-60'???with gaps between the rings of maybe 50',and repeat???Lets guess 500' from outer wall to center of the innermost courtyard.That means that the easiest approach, a 45 degree suicide dive directed at say, the outer edge of the roof or c-ring with a 150' wingspan and 120' length would allow an error of well over 100'in any direction with no deterioration of strike intensity.But instead you decide on the direct sidewall hit,confident that your men will have no problems with the necessary extreme last minute maneuvers.If you figure your airliner at 45' tall and your building at 60', an optimal strike allows an error of-get this-7 1/2 feet or 90 INCHES!!!! Higher than that and some of the tail passes harmlessly over the rooftops and lower than that and parts of the aircraft strike the ground and lose inertia (at least!!!).In short,if this was the strike AS planned,than Al Queada has planners every bit as good as the neo-cons,if somewhat luckier....
My point being that the sidewall strike only makes sense if you are trying to hide something or to deceive eyewitnesses by limiting their exposure to the attack.Otherwise the straight in, 45 degree approach to the breadth of the roofs makes much more sense....

[petgoat]

1. Much more sense. You want to dive through the roof at Rummy's

office.

[iconoclastNYC]

6. His office was on the opposite wall of the building

And the 9/11 plotters should have known that the airliner coudln't go thru many walls.

[HamdenRice]

34. Are you aware that Rumsfeld's office was in the flight path?

In other words, the plane made the 270 degree turn thereby not hitting Rummy's office and instead hitting the nearly unoccupied part of the building undergoing construction.

[greyl]

2. Still more thought

Your supposition that the terrorists would have done a better job if they were real, is illogical.
How do you know they hit their exact target, exactly as planned? You don't.

Furthermore, approaching from a higher altitude wouldn't have provided as many witnesses to the attack.
It's fair to presume they wanted witnesses.

[catnhatnh]

12. Actually,a suicide dive from altitude would probably have

delivered more witnesses....If you see an airliner start diving at 45 degrees you will have your attention riveted to it.All across the city,hundreds if not thousands would have observed the entire final act for quite some time if the dive started from above 6000 ft.Instead fifty to a hundred people reported a 2-3 second impression of something passing at high speed and saw a fireball.

[Debunking911]

3. They used the washington monument as a Landmark

It's hard to see small buildings from miles away. They most likey used the Washington Monument from miles away just to line up with the pentagon. That would explain the path nicely.



Note the Washington Monument in the distance.

You are asuming the plane traveled miles skatting off the ground. This plane did nothing more than a typical landing approach but at a much higher speed. It's even easier to point a plane going 500 miles an hour than one going 200 while landing.

[Ezlivin]

4. The plane did NOT do a "typical landing approach"

I've flown more than a few typical landing approaches in real aircraft (not simulators) and to say that the only difference between a typical landing and the Pentagon strike was speed is patently ridiculous.

You have to LOWER your speed to land or else you'll never overcome the ground effect (you can float halfway down the runway by being too fast on final - and the pilot had to get "beneath" ground effect to strike the Pentagon so low). The pilot of Flight 77 supposedly approached the Pentagon at over 300 mph and struck several light poles on "approach". This means that the aircraft was close to the ground for about a half mile. (And this does not get into the discussion of how the pilot was able to maintain control of the aircraft after not 1, not 2, but 5 aluminum light poles slammed into both wings - which at that speed should have destroyed the wings and caused a spectacular crash.) The light poles were simply knocked over, as if pushed, not slammed into at a high speed.

Too many anomalies and too little evidence to back the official story should make you more skeptical.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. Yes, hitting the light poles

even at low speed, should have done serious damage to the plane, causing large chunks of the plane to fall off before going through one concrete wall no less 4 or 5.

[hack89]

14. If I remember correctly

the poles were light weight aluminum and designed to break off at their base when hit. They are designed to minimize damage when hit by cars.

[mirandapriestly]

17. well, then this guy is wrong

you should let him know.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html

[LARED]

9. Question about ground effects

Ground effects will cause a plane to float if its speed is too high on an approach. When landing a plane various parameters are configured under pretty tight restraints. The speed needs to be within parameters, the flaps are in a particular position, the position of the aircraft is nose up. If I'm wrong about this please correct me. In fact it seems ground effects are somewhat controlled to land softly.

Now to my question. Is it possible to overcome ground effect if the flaps and other parameters are not in the correct position? It seem to me if you wanted to drive a plane into the ground one could easily overcome ground effects because the aircraft is not configured to land.

[Ezlivin]

11. Overcoming ground effect is easy

Just pick an acute angle in relation to the ground and drive 'er in!

In fact, I did that with a Piper. While I was a student, I was making a series of "touch-and-goes" to hone my landing technique. It was a good day, with a fairly strong, but variable, crosswind component. My approach was to runway 16 at Arlington Municipal Airport. On my last approach (number 15, IIRC), I had a good case of the "get-home-itis" and was ready to land that bad boy!

I kept a too much airspeed as I crossed the threshold and rather than go around, I tried to push the yoke forward and just bring the plane down. I managed to get the plane down, but porpoised it off the runway and right back in the air. (I fly with hand controls, by the way, as I'm paralyzed from the chest down, so I'm rather busy on final and during landing!) Anyway, I ended up porpoising twice more. It was a classic beginning pilot mistake, trying to overcome ground effect.

I ended up with a broken front strut, but didn't know it when I finally decided, with runway fast running out, to do a go around. The guys in the tower were relieved when I finally gave up on landing. :) I proceeded to go around, line up and nail a beautiful, picture-perfect landing despite a 15kt crosswind and a heart that was about to leap out of my chest. (My CFI later said it was because I was insanely focused on landing and I no longer had "get-home-itis".)

If you approach the ground as if to drive right into it, you can overcome any ground effect. But if you want to fly "contour of the earth" you can only get so close before the cushion of air we call the ground effect pushes up on your aircraft.

I have no problem with a 757 hitting the Pentagon, but it can't have made a low approach at high speed. Something has to give: Either the high speed or the low approach. (Unless you're a fighter jet, naturally.)

[LARED]

39. If I understand you correctly

If a plane is making a low approach (ie flying basically level verses an acute (< 90 deg) angle)there is no way possible for the plane to overcome ground effects due to it's speed; no matter how the flaps, elevators, ailerons, or other wing devices are manipulated. I must say I find this rather fantastic.

Also is it safe to assume that ground effects would force the aircraft to fly higher off the ground than where flight 77 hit the pentagon?

[Twist_U_Up]

7. Typical landing approach ? This is an INSANE post

Do your credibility some good and edit that statement.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[iconoclastNYC]

5. And what of the satellite photos days before the attack

With the marking on the lawn that closely follows the supposedly airliner path?

This is from Loose Change.

[catnhatnh]

13. I recently saw the marks you refer to in photos....

and while they could be used to indicate a desired flight path they could not even have been discerned at less than 500 ft and certainly only a fraction of a second before impact....

[iconoclastNYC]

15. So the photos are faked?

Why is there a marking on the lawn? Is it just a coincidence that this is the flightpath? It sure is odd.

[file83]

16. That "stripe" in the lawn may have served a VERY functional role for...

...this bad boy:



It's called the "Storm Shadow" - and it's a cruise missle. According to this BBC article:

As it enters its final approach, Storm Shadow jettisons its nose cone to reveal a high-resolution infra-red camera.

The target recognition hardware then compares what is coming up on the ground with the stored image of the target.

In theory, the missile constantly adjusts its course and angle of attack so that it hits the target as accurately as possible, reducing collateral damage and unintended deaths.

If that "stripe" in the lawn was some sort of "marking" for this final approach optical gear?

[Jazz2006]

18. Storm Shadow? Are you saying it was the Brits wot dunnit? n/t

[mirandapriestly]

23. So could the line be infra-red?

If so, it wouldn't show up except on camera, right? Gosh I wonder if there was anyone who saw the area that day and did not see the line in person. Hmmmm. Except it's a line how would the cone not know to target the beginning of the "line". Maybe it was instructions for whomever placed the infrared target.

[file83]

24. It's just speculation of course, but perhaps it's some sort of...

...spray that has infra-red emitting characteristics. Notice too that the pattern not uniform, it's got a unique spotty signature that would insure it's distinction from any other potential IR "hot" lines that may be in the area (roads, metal buildings).

I don't know why they would prefer that specific vector though. I mean, why was it important that whatever hit the building (plane, global hawk, cruise missle) hit it at that exact angle?

Were the "knocked down" light posts an important part of the cover story and so it was important that the impact zone made it appear as though something big came in low from that direction? (suggesting of course that the posts were "prepared and placed") Did they need the light posts to sell that plane story?

Was it important to know EXACTLY where the vehicle would impact so that they would know beforehand EXACTLY what video tapes to confiscate from the surrounding areas, as did happen?

[Jazz2006]

26. "It's just speculation of course"

Of course.

Speculating that it's the Brits wot dunnit with a Storm Shadow.

Jesus.

[Jazz2006]

35. And the other "stripe" over to the right...

of the circled area on that photo (beginning at the right of the H shown on that outbuilding and travelling so nicely and neatly to the lower right), was that also a flight path marking?


On edit: I don't know how to photoshop so I can't circle it, but the other "stripe" is pretty clear, too. Good thing the Brits didn't set the Storm Shadow to follow THAT stripe or they'd have missed the building entirely.

[KJF]

19. Height

The Pentagon is 77 feet high, not 60 feet, as you suggest.
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pentagon/facts.html

A Boeing 757 is only 45 feet high when it's standing on its landing gear.

Why would one expect the flimsy tail to do much damage to the building? In relation it only chipped the limestone and smashed a window.

[canetoad]

20. In this case,

if the tail did not penetrate the building, would we not expect to see it outside?

[Jazz2006]

21. I certainly can't speak for anyone else and do not for a nanosecond....

purport to speak for KJF or anyone else, but personally, I would expect it to be shredded on impact.

[KJF]

22. The tail was mashed

Assuming the plane was going as fast as it is supposed to have been going (350-500 mph), then it's not really surprising the tail shattered on impact. The tail isn't heavy (and, in contrast to the wings, doesn't have any fuel inside it) and it is no surprise the upper part didn't even penetrate the limestone facing, let alone the layer of brick under it.

Remember the jet F-4 being flown into the wall?

[file83]

25. Two things to consider....

One being that the tail of the aircraft is one of the strongest parts of the plane (besides the wings).

Remember the incident in Italy when a US military jet flew below a cable car cable in the mountains and the tail struck the cable and simply cut the cable? You'd think that opposite would have happened - that they cable would have cut the tail, but no. The people in the cable car plunged to their deaths.

The second cosideration is concerning that F-4 crash test. The "wall" it hit was more a block of specially designed concrete used to protect a thermonuclear reactor. That block was designed to do that to airplanes - the Pentagon was not. The Pentagon is not a solid piece, it's not nearly as thick, and it's made of a different blend of concrete than that test block.

It's like comparing the stopping of a bullet into a bullet proof vest to the expectation of the same stopping power with a leather coat.

[mirandapriestly]

27. Ah, I knew there was a catch with that F14 video, thanks for that

tidbit. And, yes, I have seen pictures of crashes and the tails are one of the most commonly remaining pieces. I do not think there is any basis for "expecting" the tail to be "shredded", it's only a possibility. How likely is it that ALL the tails were "shredded" that day, not very.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

28. Considering is good....

But getting it dead wrong is bad.

Where did you get the idea that the tail of an aircraft is particularly strong?

[Jazz2006]

29. And where did you get the idea that....

comparing the F-4 experiment was like "comparing the stopping of a bullet into a bullet proof vest to the expectation of the same stopping power with a leather coat"?

[KJF]

31. Strongest parts?

The tails and wingtips are actually the weakest parts of a plane, not the strongest, as they are made from aluminium and composites, whereas the engines are made from steel, and the lower part of the fuselage (which supports the rest of the plane's weight) is pretty tough too, as is the landing gear.

What we see at the Pentagon is that the hole corresponds to the stronger parts of the plane (fuselage, inner wing sections), but there is no hole (except for the odd broken window) where the weaker parts hit the facade.

This is highly similar to the holes in the WTC, where neither the wingtips nor the tail were able to sever the perimeter columns, although the fuselage and inner wing sections were, and to the crater at Shanskville, where the fuselage made a crater, the inner wing sections made "trenches" and the tail and wingtips just made imprints.

[file83]

32. First of all, don't mix "wing tips" with "tails"....

...I never mentioned "wing tips", and why you are trying to put the two into the same category is simply a rhetorical device, because contrary to what you are suggesting, they are not the "same".

For you to claim that the vertical stabilizer is "weakest part of the plane" does more to discredit your argument than I could at this point.

[KJF]

33. Tail and wingtips go together...

... because they didn't go into the Pentagon (the hole is clearly not big enough to admit them).

I would break the plane down into the following parts:
(1) Fuselage;
(2) Inner wing sections;
(3) Wingtips;
(4) Tail.

I'm saying the wingtips and the tail are made of aluminium and are weaker than the fuselage and the inner wing sections. What are you saying the tail is made of?

[Yatar]

38. Here are some pictures of a broken AA tail...

They don't look particularly strong to me (that is, when impacting at 400 or 500 mph).

These pictures are, btw, of AA587, which crashed in Queens in 2001.

[catnhatnh]

36. Ok...I described an "optimum strike"

and 45' high includes landing gear...so let's take off 10 feet for that...now we have 35 feet vs. 77 feet allowing an error of +/- 21 feet....not a large allowance for error at 500+ mph WHILE MANEUVERING....with some maneuvers completed less than 5 seconds before impact...I stand by my original post-unless there was some purpose served by the sidewall strike,the rooftop hit was a much better plan....

[KJF]

37. Not being a terrorist...

... it's kind of hard for me to say what they should or shouldn't do. Some stuff is relatively easy - like the teams for the different planes shouldn't mix (and especially members of different teams shouldn't stay in the same hotel the night before the raid), but some is difficult. There's talk that it's difficult to dive at 45 degrees into a building in a Boeing 757, but I wouldn't know about that. I actually went to the Pentagon about a year ago to see why they did it like that and what struck me is that the flight path is remarkably similar to that of planes approaching Ronald Reagan National. Maybe they were trying to copy that and then bring it in low to avoid the missiles they (and David Ray Griffin) thought were there. Maybe it was just one of a long line of screw-ups they made. Who knows?