From your perspective as a pilot, would you be willing to testify in court under oath, that this mode of attack is more likely than not to succeed in hitting the Pentagon? Relatively small likelihood of aiming too low and hitting the ground, or aiming too high and overshooting the Pentagon? (Okay, if he overshoots, he can circle around and try again -- assuming he doesn't crash just beyond. It's not as if anyone were trying to stop him.)
Yes, I would offer the informed opinion that given the poor/low pilot skills in that model of aircraft, a low angle descent (with only an aircraft as an attack weapon) has a much higher pK TO HIT than a high angle descent attack, given airframe limitations and chance of small over corrections causing a miss or a glancing blow.
One thing I've noticed from both sides -- a highly competent person in a particular field has often long forgotten how a noncompetent person would think. From the perspective of a non-pilot, but with knowledge of geometry and targeting, I view the actual mode of attack as extremely likely to fail.
Fail at doing what? Hitting the building? It hit the building, so the attack succeeded. The robustness of the building went a long way to mitigating the damage done, as well as the multiple avenues of evacuation for those not within the impact zone.
www DOT defenselink DOT mil SLASH news SLASH Sep2001 SLASH 200109115k DOT jpg. Again, as a pilot, would you attack from the horizon, aiming at a side? Or would you attack the roof?
With a bomb or a plane? There are five rows of rooves. There is space between each series of offices, each ring. The E ring (outer) holds some of the most important offices. The face of any of its (E RIng's) walls is the easiest and largest target in cross section to aim at and hit.
This might address how the plane flew level into the Pentagon. It doesn't address the rest of the issues -- attacking this way in the first place, leveling out, and hitting the Pentagon where it would do by far the least damage.
Your assessment is incorrect. The horizontal attack would do the most possible damage for the weapon chosen, by hitting all building, and none of the space in between buildings. An attack from a high angle, vertical dive would have been faced with: hitting some building and some space in any of the five "rings" of the Pentagon.
What is funny is . . . he might have missed his intended target. Hanjour might actually have been aimiing at the roof of E or D ring, with the aim of penetrating into A ring top down, and slightly over controlled the nose and hit the face of E ring. Again, low time pilot, trying to sweeten the shot to hit his target. But I think he went for the KISS principle: ensure a hit by aiming at a large cross section target full of offices and people.
I also had concerns about three issues in that paper, two of which don't apply to this subject, but which I may discuss in another thread. (The third in part is below. This quote and other eyewitnesses' quotes in the article are suspicious. They could only have watched for two or three seconds before the plane hit the building.
You are suspicious of the eyewitness statements why? Your own predisposition to having come to a conclusion that their observation does not coincide with? I accept that eyewitness statements have to be viewed with care, as they are subject to some erroros in interpretation and verbalization. Any cop or lawyer here can expand on that as needed.
A simple detail like a large plane tilting its wings back and forth is easily discernable, from the road. (I have driven that road) I have also spent many hours watching planes maneuver close to the ground. Even a novice observer can pick up a gross detail like wings tilting back and forth.
You missunderstand. You don't rebut an attempted refutation of a theory be re-reciting the theory. Now who's reasoning bad here?
That wasn't a rebuttal. It was a use of your own terms, tossed into your face and then linked to the next piece to fit "real terrorists" in a plane with what we seem to agree on as typical terrorist behavior: using a vehicle to attack a building.
Okay, your conception of a "real terrorist" is perfectly fine -- consistant with mine. They don't go out of their way to minimize damage in any of their attacks. Which means that the attack on the Pentagon was not a real terrorist attack.
Your second sentence is false, since you offer no proof of their intention other than a statement of your belief. I have offered you a reasonable linkage of factors that suggest why the attack was aimed at where it hit. (See above on my "he might have missed his intended target" and how that would really make the joke on me!
)
Your assertion of "go out of their way to minimize damage in other attacks" flies in the face of the intention of attacking a building: to damage it. Your assertion ignores the limitation of the single weapon attack on that (massive) building. The strength of the Pentagon, and the fact that maximizing the attack potential of the 757 on it was achieved (direct hit) points to a successful execution of an attack.
To sweeten the shot, IMO, he would have flown at a higher airpseed, and inceaased the kinetic energy at impact. Choosing that profile adds risk, in aircraft handling for a 757 novice, that I spelled out quilte clearly in my aircraft handling discussion.
See also my remarks above about "the spaces between the rings" of the building as being wasted kinetic energy transfer at impact on empty space. Maximize damage? Hit ALL BUILDING at impact.
I agree. 60-90 degrees is unlikely. You may recall, I suggested 30 degrees. 10-20 degrees is acceptable as well. I envision an elliptical trajectory into the roof of the Pentagon. And that's the ridiculous target. The empty spot in the center of the building is less than one-fifth of the total area, and he could have aimed halfway between the middle and one side of the roof, making the likelihood of a miss low. But instead, he chose a target and mode of attack that had very low likelihood of success. And the target he chose was the one spot under construction, being built to shield the Pentagon against that kind of attack
That last line of bull has been addressed already by others. We have discussed the roof attack, also a more difficult attempt for a novice in model. Ease of holding the aircraft on course, and on target, was critical to getting a direct hit anywhere on the building. He made a direct hit. What more do you want out of this guy? He's not Chuck Yaeger. If I were aiming at E Ring's face, I'd aim at the middle or second from top row of windows with my cockpit, to ensure the middle and bottom of my jetliner hit the middle of the building without touching any ground/losing any airspeed at impact. All weapon KE applied to target. Maximize damage.
But let's not pretend to know why he chose which of the five faces to attack. I assess why I think the West face was chosen by the pilot attacker. Any of the five faces of the building was the simplest way to make a direct hit on the building, based on his mission planning, his contingency planning, and his own route of approach.
If, for example, he originally intended to attack the south east face, but over shot and came back around from the west, or if he originally intended to attack a northern face, but over shot and had to turn around to re attack, he'd still pick a face of the building: each of which presents the largest possible cross section to him as a target. To do damage YOU HAVE TO HIT.
Let's presume an originally intended a 30-40 degree dive, aimed at a C-ring, (the middle of the five rings) Whichever segment of C-ring he hits, he smacks through, and his engines hit air, the wing tips hit parts, perhaps, of B and D ring, and more of the fire is outside the building SINCE THE FUEL IS IN THE WINGS than on the inside of the building. It's a trickier shot. That makes for a larger fire from a visual perspective, but less actual damage to the building overall.
So, your steeper dive is not a good max damage attack profile, but it might have made for a bigger visual spectacle, and perhaps that was one of the mission intentions.
Let's look at another angle. For one reason or another, he realizes he over shot, or made some error and has to reattack, all the while descending since he wants to minimize the time US has to react. He picks the closest face based on his reattack maneuver, and glides her in. His plane and wings ALL PENETRATE BUILDING to the max extent his weapon at impact airspeed allows, hits no "Space" at impact, and then goes as far as Kinetic Energy allows. Fire follows. Note that whatever he hits after penetrating the entire E (Largest) ring SEE YOUR PICTURE is additional damage to another, inner ring of the building, which funnily enough is consistent with the higher risk attack that would have been harder to pull off. Hey, bonus damage, easier shot. What a concept!
The glide in attack is A) an easier hit pK, and B) maximizes Kinetic Energy transfer to the building with the greatest part of the weapon: the plane.
Are you aware of who inhabits the E ring of the Pentagon? Do a little research, OK? Killing leadership is a big deal.
Who's reasoning bad? I saw an example of illogic above, where you re-recited the official theory in reply to an attempt refutation of the official theory.
I threw your own words into your face, and then backed it up with what we agree on as a terrorist MO. I did not engage in fallacy.
Would you testify under oath that his mode of attack was likely to succeed? That it would not have likely hit the ground at any point in the attack? That it wouldn't have even touched the ground?
I'd be happy to tell anyone clueless about flying, and choosing weapons for damaging a building, how a pilot with limited skills in model could maximize the kinetic energy transfer of his weapon, an airlier, to a large building, while minimizing his risks of missing and failing at his mission.
Okay, if they were real terrorists, they might not have known. Assuming they tried the horizontal approach attack and actually hit (very unlikely), there is at most a one-fifth chance they would have hit the point under construction. (That one-fifth assumes it's the whole side. If only a fraction of the side were under construction, then the probability is smaller.)
Already answered by others.
On the other hand, it's possible that they did research and discovered that that part of the Pentagon was indeed under construction. (Or maybe the alleged hijackers who lived across from one of our intelligence agencies would have known.) If they did know which side was under construction, they would have avoided it.
Why?
Two ways to consider that from an attack option.
Under Construction means weaker, so YOU PENETRATE FARTHER INTO THE INNER RINGS AT IMPACT. Maybe
under construction is a good place to attack in order to MAXIMIZE damage (to multiple rings rings.)
Down side; likelihood is fewer dead bodies in the under construction wing, but that is offset by the chance for greater casualties in the inner rings you'll hit by PENTERATING the weaker (not finished yet) face of the building and wrecking more spots further in.
Looks to me like a trade off, with a probably higher payoff, and a thorny "min max" problem during mission analysis.
The probability of such a mode of attack is far greater if the purpose were to minimize the damage done to the Pentagon and to minimize the casualties. And that only makes sense if it were not a real terrorist attack -- a pretended one instead.
A pretend attack would have hit just short of the Pentagon, and done little to no damage. The actual attack hit. As to your ability to assess and mission plan, see my above comments.
"... and risk a miss." What a laugh! Chance a near certain miss in order to avoid risking a miss.
What are you talking about? Could you please elaborate on that remark?
From the photograph that I mentioned above, the north seems like a perfectly fine attack approach. All directions that I can see seem perfectly fine. And if they can attack the Pentagon the way they did, they have no trouble avoiding any of the obsticles.
The choice of approach path over suburban Virginia is logical, since they were coming in from the West. Approach and departure corridors already in the ATC structure gives him better "masking" as the flight path looks (on rader) more like a blip in an expected place to ATC, and thus less chance that a controller smells a rat.
Depending on the prevailing wind that day, one would want to appear to be near a discernable approach or arrival route until the last minute, to increase the odds of not being detected as anything other than just another airliner flying into DC. Wind from south? Approach from the North is the expected flow, and so on depending on the wind.
So, while to the layman any of five faces is a good idea in a completely unconstrained environment, a pilot would analyze all of the standard instrument and visual approaches and, if he were clever, pick one that allowed procedural masking and better odds of successful sneak attack.
Nonsense conclusion. The theory that a greenhorn in the 757 attempted an attack that (to an ordinary competent human being) looks ridiculous, succeeded against long odds, and yet minimized the damage on the Pentagon is highly unlikely.
His attack maximized the damage of his a mamageable, maskable attack profile, as I have continued to point out, due to making a direct hit, considering the limitations of his weapon.
It is only nonsense to you since you either know little about flying, or have already convinced yourself of your hypothesis.
You and I will both agree, however, that had me flown as fast as possible for the altitude, (probably a hundred knots faster, maybe more, than he actually hit the building at) he'd have imparted greater Kinetic Energy to the building, done more damage, and possibly killed more people. Why he chose the airspeed of impact that he did he'll never tell us, he's dead, but it allowed him to CONTROL the plane up until impact and hit what he aimed at.
Minimize the damage? Don't hit the building. Your argument is all about "being a little bit pregnant" to a certain extent. Your position, that the only consideration he had was minimizing damage, ignores his mission imperative to hit, not miss, his target.
A plan to maximize the chance of mission accomplishment is simply to dive into the Pentagon -- okay, at an angle of 10-20 degrees, by your numbers.
Yay, we see eye to eye on something!
The proper conclusion is that the following theory is more likely than the official story:
[*]Pentagon: The self-injury making the criminal look like a victim
[/LIST]
The proper conclusion is that you have convinced yourself of 2, and have no desire to understand otherwise, regardless of the tools and mission the pilot faced. I repeat, to "minimize the damage" on purpose, you miss the building and crash near it.
DR
