What hit the Pentagon? 9/11

[shawmutt]

Quote by: PatrickHenry ?

If the experts can't convince you, I certainly can't. All your questions have been addressed, the conspiracies debunked.

What you are doing is grasping at anomalies, much like the creationist who insists that evolution is a sham because there's "holes in the theory of evolution". Introducing a "missing link" merely produces two smaller holes--conspiracy theorists will always find nooks and crannies to settle in.

Maybe you can answer my question. How many people were involved in this "inside job"?

[ZNFYRH]

First of all, I find it funny that 3 hours after my comments about the website, someone goes and posts random pictures with no explanation to them. Must have missed the part where I said that the web site shawmutt posted proves 6 claims, 5 of which I already agreed with.

Quote by: shawmutt All your questions have been addressed, the conspiracies debunked.

The website you posted doesn't address something I've already stated, which PatrickHenry repeated:

It is physically impossible for even an empty, 60 ton 757 to accomplish the necessary maneuvers in order to strike the side of the Pentagon.

If it touched the ground there would have been damage to the ground way before impact.

If it hit at the any kind of speed above 200 MPH, there would have been wind disturbance, which I said, from one of the pictures, is clearly not present.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ZNFYRH The point, at least for me, is that it's impossible for the Pentagon to have been hit by a 757.

It is not. Hundreds of eyewitness accounts, as well as accident reconstructionists have said that is precisely what happened.

Merely because something is difficult or improbable does not make it impossible.

Quote by: ZNFYRH I'm saying it is physically impossible for a 757 to be traveling at 350 MPH and hit the Pentagon from the angle at which it struck.

You are incorrect. Again, hundreds of eyewitness reports agreed that is what happened.

Now if you want to address a conspiracy, it's just as easy for a planet to disappear into the ocean and be reported as the one that hit the Pentagon.

Situation 1: Hijackers take control of a 757 with crude weapons. They grab the controls and, with some flying experience, aim it at one of the largest buildings on Earth. They manage to successfully hit it. The plane is destroyed and the building damaged.

Situation 2: A vast government conspiracy dreams up and executes a plan to create a national environment wherein the government can pass questionable laws and get middle eastern oil. To do this, they figure they should attack a building in Washington, D.C. They want to blame it on terrorists. So, they take a plane with a diverse array of citizens on board and crash it - into the ocean. They THEN take an A-10, or a missile, or both, and crash them into the Pentagon. Despite the fact that it would not matter HOW the damage occurred to accomplish their goals, they choose to attack the Pentagon in a way that makes it questionable if a 757 could have accomplished the damage it did. Despite the fact that they already had control of AA flight 77 (to crash it into the ocean) and could have simply crashed IT into the Pentagon, they choose a vastly more complex scheme relying on hundreds more people keeping their secret for their entire lives and allowing nutjobs on the internet to question what really happened for years.

Ockham's Razor: A 757 hit the Pentagon.

Quote by: ZNFYRH And where is the strong evidence that says a 757 hit the Pentagon?

See above. Or the hundreds of eyewitness accounts. Or the computer simulation reconstruction from Purdue that I posted. Et cetera.

Your posts barely pass the laugh test at this point.

Shawmutt hit it dead on the head - you are like a so-called "creation scientist" who claims that evolution didn't happen because of a missing link. When a missing link is found, you now point to the two smaller gaps and say "ah HAH! Now there are TWO missing links!"

Show me how it's mathematically possible.

Again, view and read the report from the Purdue simulation. They showed that not only was it mathematically possible, but it happened.

If it was hit by an airliner, the piloting was done by someone who was an expert, probably not a novice like Hani Hanjour. A diving 270 degree turn in the brief moments before impact into the unoccupied section of the Pentagon screams for explanation.

Gee, do you think maybe he could have gotten lucky, considering it was literally a once-in-a-lifetime shot?

Again - Assuming there WAS a conspiracy, their goals would have been accomplished no matter how an object damaged the Pentagon. So why would they do it in such a way that makes people question whether the attack was "possible"?

What are the ground effects of an airliner at 500 miles per hour?

Assuming that the ground effects would have prevented the airliner from coming in like that assumes that a 757 cannot land. As someone who has flown on one, I can say that they can.

Why were there no Arabic names on the passenger manifest? Whose IDs were they using?

Again, Ockham's Razor: Vast government conspiracy, or terrorists getting fake IDs like so many college students? :rolleyes:

Where are the flight recorders?

Presumably destroyed. They're not indestructible, you know. There are many crashes in the history of flight where no data recorder was found. Are they all vast government conspiracies too?

Where are the videos confiscated by the authorities on 9/11 and what would they show?

What videos?

Why was Rumsfeld still killing time long after the second impact in NYC and not up to speed on an incoming bogey at his office building?

This one's easy: Because the administration is filled with bungling idiots. How anyone can look back at the last 7 years and not see that is beyond me.

What was the object covered and transported from the area by hand in the immediate aftermath? Why was a SAM system not alerted to defend the greatest military target on the face of the earth?

See above. Bungling idiots, remember?

Quote by: shawmutt What you are doing is grasping at anomalies, much like the creationist who insists that evolution is a sham because there's "holes in the theory of evolution". Introducing a "missing link" merely produces two smaller holes--conspiracy theorists will always find nooks and crannies to settle in. Maybe you can answer my question. How many people were involved in this "inside job"?

Brilliant analogy.

Quote by: ZNFYRH It is physically impossible for even an empty, 60 ton 757 to accomplish the necessary maneuvers in order to strike the side of the Pentagon.

It is not. I suppose you work in design for Boeing to make such a statement? I mean because right there, with nothing to support that, you just look as though you're pulling it out of your ass.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: tivodan Or the hundreds of eyewitness accounts. Or the computer simulation reconstruction from Purdue that I posted.

Eyewitness accounts and computer simulations?

The first have a history of inaccuracy.

The second aren't evidence. They are the imagination of one person.

Quote by: tivodan Assuming that the ground effects would have prevented the airliner from coming in like that assumes that a 757 cannot land. As someone who has flown on one, I can say that they can.

757's don't land at 350 MPH or 500 MPH. I misspoke... I meant to say "the effects on the ground" if a 757 had touched the ground at those speeds.

Quote by: tivodan Gee, do you think maybe he could have gotten lucky, considering it was literally a once-in-a-lifetime shot? Again - Assuming there WAS a conspiracy, their goals would have been accomplished no matter how an object damaged the Pentagon. So why would they do it in such a way that makes people question whether the attack was "possible"?

So you're basically saying that because a conspiracy would involve killing people and would be complicated then the answer that defies the laws of physics is the only correct one?

Quote by: tivodan Your posts barely pass the laugh test at this point.

That was unnecessary. At least I know when to show some fucking respect and not belittle someone. Why do you expect me to show your post serious consideration when you are unable to conduct yourself as you would in person? Do you honestly talk this way to someone's face? I doubt you do.

Quote by: tivodan It is not. I suppose you work in design for Boeing to make such a statement? I mean because right there, with nothing to support that, you just look as though you're pulling it out of your ass.

A complete lack of respect coupled with an appeal to authority.

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

Are you completely incapable of expressing yourselves with civility, or do you feel a pathological need to be assholes at any opportunity because you think it's okay to do it?

Instead of being presumptuous pricks and accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist or creationist or any of these other snipes, cut out the nonsense and read my posts for what they are: pointing out the flaws in the 757 argument.

Instead of saying, "You don't work for Boeing" or "Purdue said it's possible" maybe you could give something more substantial.

I'm holding each of you responsible for linking me to the actual video, not pictures of the video.

And I strongly recommend that it be an accurate simulation that correctly simulates drag, because those I have seen have yet to address the fact that a 757 doesn't pull out of a sharp dive, level off, and then yaw hard left without once touching the ground.

Do any of you think you are capable of suppressing your ego long enough to discuss the flaws in the argument and debate their merits without talking to me, or others, like any of us are better than each other?

I'm getting really fucking sick of you guys insulting each other as though there are no consequences to treating another human being like shit.

Yet the owner seems to want to make money attracting serious debate here while simultaneously allowing you guys to be consistently rude and disrespectful. It's an instant ban on the serious discussion boards, and I wonder why this one presumes to be serious when the kind of derision I've seen in the past few threads is allowed to continue.

Discuss with me... debate if you wish... but curb the fucking ego.

[The Decider]

Quote by: ZNFYRH A complete lack of respect coupled with an appeal to authority. What the fuck is wrong with you people? Are you completely incapable of expressing yourselves with civility, or do you feel a pathological need to be assholes at any opportunity because you think it's okay to do it? Instead of being presumptuous pricks and accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist or creationist or any of these other snipes, cut out the nonsense and read my posts for what they are: pointing out the flaws in the 757 argument. Instead of saying, "You don't work for Boeing" or "Purdue said it's possible" maybe you could give something more substantial. I'm holding each of you responsible for linking me to the actual video, not pictures of the video. And I strongly recommend that it be an accurate simulation that correctly simulates drag, because those I have seen have yet to address the fact that a 757 doesn't pull out of a sharp dive, level off, and then yaw hard left without once touching the ground. Do any of you think you are capable of suppressing your ego long enough to discuss the flaws in the argument and debate their merits without talking to me, or others, like any of us are better than each other? I'm getting really fucking sick of you guys insulting each other as though there are no consequences to treating another human being like shit. Yet the owner seems to want to make money attracting serious debate here while simultaneously allowing you guys to be consistently rude and disrespectful. It's an instant ban on the serious discussion boards, and I wonder why this one presumes to be serious when the kind of derision I've seen in the past few threads is allowed to continue. Discuss with me... debate if you wish... but curb the fucking ego.

Thanks for all the debate advice, but could you please provide evidence from Boeing or a Boeing pilot or a Boeing engineer that supports your unsupported opinion about the capabilities and limitations of a 757 Boeing aircraft? That would help your argument. The ranting doesn't.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Eyewitness accounts and computer simulations? The first have a history of inaccuracy.

Which does not render them any more or less accurate in this situation.

You don't think that the hundreds of people interviewed can tell the difference between an airliner and a missile? We're not talking about picking two similar-looking people out of a police lineup here.

The second aren't evidence. They are the imagination of one person.

Talk about irony... You mean exactly like all of the "evidence" that you have posted?

Furthermore, it is not the "imagination" of one person. The fact that you say this leads me to believe you do not understand how scientific evidence works.

WTC, 9/11/01

That website contains the videos of all of the simulations, along with the long list of people who worked on the problems.

Paul Boutin : "Hunt the Boeing" Answers

An engineer and physicist debunk the moronic "Hunt the Boeing" site.

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect

A scientist explains, in reasonably easy terms, how it was entirely possible for a Boeing 757 to hit the Pentagon.

THE AUTONOMIST

Among other things, very cool simulation of the crash.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

The excellent Popular Mechanics story on the issue.

So you're basically saying that because a conspiracy would involve killing people and would be complicated then the answer that defies the laws of physics is the only correct one?

The answer does not defy the laws of physics. See above.

My assessment is correct. Ockham's Razor, get it?

And you don't understand what I am saying. I'm saying that the attack involved killing people. So what? If the government wanted to create an attack and make it look like terrorists flew planes into buildings, why wouldn't they simply fly planes into buildings???????
I don't know how much more obvious that could be.

That was unnecessary. At least I know when to show some fucking respect and not belittle someone. Why do you expect me to show your post serious consideration when you are unable to conduct yourself as you would in person? Do you honestly talk this way to someone's face? I doubt you do.

In person? I laugh when someone posits a silly, unsupported theory that assumes a vastly complex government conspiracy requiring thousands of people to take a horrible secret to their graves, yes.

A complete lack of respect coupled with an appeal to authority.

Which is what you can expect when you say "XYZ violates the laws of physics. I'm not a physicist, nor am I an engineer, nor do I work for the company that designed and builds XYZ, but I am correct." I'm not appealing to authority, I'm asking you to show some besides your own gut feelings.

Instead of being presumptuous pricks and accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist or creationist or any of these other snipes, cut out the nonsense and read my posts for what they are: pointing out the flaws in the 757 argument.

Regardless of any so-called flaws, the fact remains that Arab hijackers commandeered American Airlines flight 77 and crashed it into the Pentagon.

I'm holding each of you responsible for linking me to the actual video, not pictures of the video.

I did. Now that I have, can you find some other reason to avoid admitting the outlandish nature of your theory as compared to what really happened?

And I strongly recommend that it be an accurate simulation that correctly simulates drag, because those I have seen have yet to address the fact that a 757 doesn't pull out of a sharp dive, level off, and then yaw hard left without once touching the ground.

Are you a pilot or do you have some expertise in this area? How do you KNOW that it doesn't?

Do any of you think you are capable of suppressing your ego long enough to discuss the flaws in the argument and debate their merits without talking to me, or others, like any of us are better than each other?

I think more than ego it is incredulity that someone could look at the evidence involved, apply principles like Ockham's Razor and other logic, and still believe such a steaming pile of crap.

I'm getting really fucking sick of you guys insulting each other ...

I'm not insulting shawmutt. In fact, I complimented him.

Yet the owner seems to want to make money attracting serious debate here while simultaneously allowing you guys to be consistently rude and disrespectful. It's an instant ban on the serious discussion boards, and I wonder why this one presumes to be serious when the kind of derision I've seen in the past few threads is allowed to continue.

Well then point me to a "serious" discussion board that permits the kind of completely unfounded spitballing you are engaged in here - claiming something violates laws of physics with no evidence as such - and simultaneously requires the highest amount of civility. :rolleyes:

[Praxius]

Quote by: ZNFYRH; First of all, I find it funny that 3 hours after my comments about the website, someone goes and posts random pictures with no explanation to them. Must have missed the part where I said that the web site shawmutt posted proves 6 claims, 5 of which I already agreed with. The website you posted doesn't address something I've already stated, which PatrickHenry repeated: It is physically impossible for even an empty, 60 ton 757 to accomplish the necessary maneuvers in order to strike the side of the Pentagon. If it touched the ground there would have been damage to the ground way before impact. If it hit at the any kind of speed above 200 MPH, there would have been wind disturbance, which I said, from one of the pictures, is clearly not present.

All of this, is very possible... just improbable.... as mentioned before, these guys who hi-jaked these planes, were trained specifically in what they had to do..... and they did it. These guys have had records of taking flight courses here and probably abroad.... what happened happend.... none of the footage I have seen as evidence holds any details that can be conclusive.... I stake my carrer on that, because I have tried everything with film and digital images to get certain details, and your precious CSI shows are BS'ing you if you think you can zoom in on a lame security camera still shot, focus on the guys sun glasses, and gather high quality detail to see the killers reflection, because it's BS.... check your physics if you like.... two sqaure black pixels, do not make a face..... all they do is take a high quality shot, and reverse the process in the movie where they show the crappy shot first and make it look like they got some magic crap to get that detail.... even they admit it's not true.... cripes...

There is not enough evidence, and based on the evidence, I'd have to throw this conspiracy out of court and hold the acusers in jail without bail for 30 days, 10 days of community service, and 2 weeks phrobation..... for wasting the courts time.

[Praxius]

Quote by: ZNFYRH; If it hit at the any kind of speed above 200 MPH, there would have been wind disturbance, which I said, from one of the pictures, is clearly not present.

Really?

From the previous evidence provided:



What's that? The walkway the guys at the Pentagon use to get to their cars quicker?

[ZNFYRH]

The ranting is so that those who prefer to be rude will not respond to me.

My opinion is not unsupported. It's based on personal experience, which I won't reference further since I don't believe it should be used as support in this matter (who would believe I'm a pilot?) and on basic physics.

American 77 (Pentagon) @ pilotsfor911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.bravehost.com/PentagonFDR.JPG

That alone gives me pause. But I'll play fair and stick with my original point about the alleged collision.

I watched the Purdue video.

I wouldn't use that as evidence of anything. It does not show the approach path (it focuses on angle and columns), nor does it specify what happened to two Pratt & Whitney PW2000 engines, whose combined weight of 3 tons should have at least done more damage than the wings.

Because those pictures that show the wing damage don't seem to show anything with the engines.

And at a minimum speed of 200 MPH, PW2000's don't get thrown to the side or behind the impact.

Also, I don't need Boeing to tell me what math tells me on its own.

At the most generous estimates, the 757 had to clear the buildings west of the Pentagon and descend to an altitude of 10 feet. The alleged speed was anywhere from 350 to 500 MPH, but I'll keep it at a reasonable and maneuverable speed of 240 MPH.

The shortest possible distance at which the plane could have an altitude of 10 feet is from 1/2 mile away. Any farther than that, the plane would have to be at 100 feet, or it would be hitting buildings.

At 240 MPH, the 757 would cover 1/2 mile in 9 seconds.

That seems reasonable.

But a 757's safe angle of attack is no greater than 3 degrees.

IF it hit the Pentagon at that same angle, we don't have a problem. 2,600 feet laterally, 90 feet vertically, 3 degree angle... simple.

But we don't. The plane was level enough to hit the poles on its approach. That means the plane was level at 1/4 mile from the Pentagon. That also means that the plane descended in 4.5 seconds, not 9.

So can a 757, 100 feet above the ground, 3 degree angle, 240 MPH, drop 90 feet and have 0 angle in less than 5 seconds?

Reports say that it was "see-sawing" and "wobbling" on its approach, so I'll take that to mean that when it leveled it still had rotational velocity leftover from its descent recovery.

So then the question is to ask if a 757 can recover from a 3 degree dive in 4.5 seconds and drop no more than 90 feet.

It gets worse. In order to do so, it would have to flare almost immediately after clearing the last building. So to counter gravity, the engines plus aerodynamic lift have to cancel out gravity in 4.5 seconds, without the tail hitting the final building or hitting the ground.

Again... not possible.

References used:
757.org.uk | 767 differences
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0274.shtml

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ZNFYRH My opinion is not unsupported. It's based on personal experience, which I won't reference further since I don't believe it should be used as support in this matter (who would believe I'm a pilot?) and on basic physics.

Personal experience in what? Flying a Boeing 757 15 feet above the ground? Because if you had personally experienced that and lived to tell about it I'm sure I would have heard about it.

American 77 (Pentagon) @ pilotsfor911truth.org http://pilotsfor911truth.bravehost.com/PentagonFDR.JPG That alone gives me pause. But I'll play fair and stick with my original point about the alleged collision.

Sure, the data was faked. Because we all know that taking a computer and flinging it against a concrete wall, and then burning it in a jet fuel fire for several minutes, and then burying it under hundreds of tons of wreckage for 3 days won't possibly distort any of the data within.

Oh yes, we also know that people with hacks they find on the internet are able to read the raw data coming out of a black box. :rolleyes:

Also, I don't need Boeing to tell me what math tells me on its own. At the most generous estimates, the 757 had to clear the buildings west of the Pentagon and descend to an altitude of 10 feet. The alleged speed was anywhere from 350 to 500 MPH, but I'll keep it at a reasonable and maneuverable speed of 240 MPH. The shortest possible distance at which the plane could have an altitude of 10 feet is from 1/2 mile away. Any farther than that, the plane would have to be at 100 feet, or it would be hitting buildings. At 240 MPH, the 757 would cover 1/2 mile in 9 seconds. That seems reasonable. But a 757's safe angle of attack is no greater than 3 degrees.

Alright stop. There's a problem right there.

The Boeing 757's "safe" angle of attack is irrelevant. You act as if that is the maximum possible angle of descent. It's the maximum possible angle... If you're landing cartons of eggshells on a runway.

They weren't trying to land it, they were trying to crash it.

IF it hit the Pentagon at that same angle, we don't have a problem. 2,600 feet laterally, 90 feet vertically, 3 degree angle... simple. But we don't. The plane was level enough to hit the poles on its approach. That means the plane was level at 1/4 mile from the Pentagon. That also means that the plane descended in 4.5 seconds, not 9. So can a 757, 100 feet above the ground, 3 degree angle, 240 MPH, drop 90 feet and have 0 angle in less than 5 seconds?

Again, your 3 degree angle is irrelevant. Look at the picture here that shows the arrangement of lampposts that were knocked down:

Reports say that it was "see-sawing" and "wobbling" on its approach, so I'll take that to mean that when it leveled it still had rotational velocity leftover from its descent recovery.

Or you could assume that an inexperienced pilot, knowing he was about to die, was sawing at the yoke in a rather amateurish fashion...

So then the question is to ask if a 757 can recover from a 3 degree dive in 4.5 seconds and drop no more than 90 feet. It gets worse. In order to do so, it would have to flare almost immediately after clearing the last building. So to counter gravity, the engines plus aerodynamic lift have to cancel out gravity in 4.5 seconds, without the tail hitting the final building or hitting the ground.

I don't think you're imagining the entire scenario properly. Are you saying that over a linear distance of 1/4 mile an object cannot fall 85 feet? Ridiculous on its face. You keep looking at it from the perspective of "safe" angles and approaches. This was not a safe approach, it was a guided crash.

Again... not possible.

Entirely possible. Your figures use assumptions not in evidence where it suits your needs. Not surprising.

9-11 Review: ERROR: 'Pentagon Attack Maneuvers Preclude a 757'
Why don't you use that and start from where the plane started, instead of picking a magical point in space at which the plane "had to" be level or "had to" have a 3 degree angle of attack?

[tivodan1116]

Also, I don't know where you're getting this "1/2 mile / 1/4 mile" notion from... A simple google map with a line drawn on it extrapolated from the impact map shown in my post above shows that the plane had at least 4000 feet from the last building (orange dot or thereabouts) to the pentagon.



Oh wait, but google is a corporation, maaaaaaaaan. The scale on their map is probably wrong just so they can prop up this conspiracy....

Of course, you haven't answered my main question which makes your entire theory seem like the ridiculous eye-roller it is: Why would the government go to the trouble of taking control of a plane, ditching it with everyone on board, and then firing something ELSE into the pentagon, when they could just launch said plane into the Pentagon??? Remember: No matter what the "angle of attack" coming into the building, the mission would be accomplished. They could have pointed it straight down and it would have worked.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: tivodan Why would the government go to the trouble of taking control of a plane, ditching it with everyone on board, and then firing something ELSE into the pentagon, when they could just launch said plane into the Pentagon???

You're pulling the whole, "Since you can't prove the opposite then I'm right" fallacy. I don't argue that. It's not part of the topic.

I mark 1/2 mile at the halfway point between the orange dot and the Pentagon. See those buildings in 7 columns with the 8th isolated? 100 feet high. The wing of a 757 would have to clear those buildings. If you quickly check the width of a 757, using your own line, there is a problem.

The point is that in the entirety of Washington D.C. there is not a shred of clear video footage of a 60 ton airplane striking one of the most secure buildings on the planet.

The lack of evidence to support the 757 argument means I don't readily agree with the 757 argument.

[The Decider]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I don't need Boeing to tell me what math tells me on its own. At the most generous estimates, the 757 had to clear the buildings west of the Pentagon and descend to an altitude of 10 feet. The alleged speed was anywhere from 350 to 500 MPH, but I'll keep it at a reasonable and maneuverable speed of 240 MPH. The shortest possible distance at which the plane could have an altitude of 10 feet is from 1/2 mile away. Any farther than that, the plane would have to be at 100 feet, or it would be hitting buildings. At 240 MPH, the 757 would cover 1/2 mile in 9 seconds. That seems reasonable. But a 757's safe angle of attack is no greater than 3 degrees. IF it hit the Pentagon at that same angle, we don't have a problem. 2,600 feet laterally, 90 feet vertically, 3 degree angle... simple. But we don't. The plane was level enough to hit the poles on its approach. That means the plane was level at 1/4 mile from the Pentagon. That also means that the plane descended in 4.5 seconds, not 9. So can a 757, 100 feet above the ground, 3 degree angle, 240 MPH, drop 90 feet and have 0 angle in less than 5 seconds? Reports say that it was "see-sawing" and "wobbling" on its approach, so I'll take that to mean that when it leveled it still had rotational velocity leftover from its descent recovery. So then the question is to ask if a 757 can recover from a 3 degree dive in 4.5 seconds and drop no more than 90 feet. It gets worse. In order to do so, it would have to flare almost immediately after clearing the last building. So to counter gravity, the engines plus aerodynamic lift have to cancel out gravity in 4.5 seconds, without the tail hitting the final building or hitting the ground. Again... not possible. References used: 757.org.uk | 767 differences Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect

Did you read this opinion from commercial airline pilots contained in your second reference?

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. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11

Your belated evidence contradicts your claims. Try again.

[The Decider]

Quote by: ZNFYRH The point is that in the entirety of Washington D.C. there is not a shred of clear video footage of a 60 ton airplane striking one of the most secure buildings on the planet. The lack of evidence to support the 757 argument means I don't readily agree with the 757 argument.

There are SCORES of eyewitness accounts of a large passenger airliner hitting the Pentagon. That is evidence.

There is an entire plane's crew and passengers unaccounted for in your conspiracy theory. Since you made the claim, you must prove that human remains and debris recovered from the crash site and family depositions and funerals have no relationship to the missing 757.

The absence of a clear YouTube video does not negate other evidence. Murder convictions have been obtained with less.

[shawmutt]

Maybe I'm just having blind faith in the charictar of a man I have never met, but I really don't bebleive our presedent wouldknowingly allow that many people to die.

<offtopic>

No offense, and this has nothing to do with 9/11, but this is a naive train of thought. People are capable of justifying many horrible acts. It is important to view world events with a bit of skepticism. It's a very short jump from "our countrymen" to "our enemies".

</offtopic>

More conspiracies-- YouTube - 9/11 conspiracy theory believers

[Mr.Vicchio]

PH GET OVER YOU ARE FAR TOO SMART TO BE THIS G** DA** STUPID.

IT WAS A 757 PILOTED BY ISLAMIC TERRORIST GET OVER THE BUSH/US GOVERNMENT CRAP AND GROW THE F*** UP.

Damn man, I love ya, but I'd jack slap ya for being so dense on this.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Paul What hit the Pentagon?

Either you have a very dark sense of humor, or your grey-cells malfunction horribly.