Loose Change - Part IV

[chran]

There was another plane on the way (Flight 93). It's likely that 93 was supposed to target the White House. So, he didn't think he needed to go on to other buildings.

That makes sense - especially since flight 11 and 175 came from the south and the north to impact the twin towers. Probably so they wouldn't hit each other in mid-flight.

Imagine how we'd laugh and laugh at the terrorists if that happened

 

[Belz...]

This is a case of not responding to what I actually wrote. You disregarded what followed that statement. I presented the proof. The logic goes like this: The attackers went out of their way to do the least possible damage to the Pentagon, at a virtual certain risk of complete failure to the mission. They would not have attacked the Pentagon that way, if the attackers were terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon. Therefore, they were not terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon.

Please present proof that they went out of their way to do the least possible damage. Perhaps you'd care first to try and understand their flight path before making any such assertion.

Balderdash. What makes it any harder for a secretive cabal in the US to do something in the US than a secretive cabal in Afghanistan? What can they possibly do in Afghanistan that they can't do in the US -- and leave out "doing things in Afghanistan." What makes it "one of the most complex undertakings of its kind" for the US goverment, but not for a secretive cabal in Afghanistan?

The fact that everything they do is secret ? The fact that they all have the same agenda and that the chances that one of their operatives will talk beforehand is minimal ? Surely, this should be part of the reason.

Sarcasm noted. As is noted that the first response I encounter (outside the introductory thread) is precisely what I complained about. I presented the evidence. You disregarded it.

It's standard procedure to welcome people to this forum, though I won't do this for you.

 

[gumboot]

Others have already covered this, but I'll reitterate anyway just for fun...

The logic goes like this: The attackers went out of their way to do the least possible damage to the Pentagon, at a virtual certain risk of complete failure to the mission. They would not have attacked the Pentagon that way, if the attackers were terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon. Therefore, they were not terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon.

You make three assertations here

1) They went out of their way to do minimal damage
2) There was virtual certain risk of complete failure
3) Terrorists would not attack the Pentagon in this way

To respond:

1) You provide no evidence
2) False
3) You provide no evidence

Balderdash. What makes it any harder for a secretive cabal in the US to do something in the US than a secretive cabal in Afghanistan? What can they possibly do in Afghanistan that they can't do in the US -- and leave out "doing things in Afghanistan."

To begin with, the "official story" operation is incredibly simple. I have yet to hear an alternative version that is even remotely similar in simplicity. More complicated = harder to keep secret.

Secondly, all those involved in the "official story" version are religious zealots. Religious zealots are more likely to adhere to secrecy rules than government officials and federal employees.

What makes it "one of the most complex undertakings of its kind" for the US goverment, but not for a secretive cabal in Afghanistan?

The nature of the actions themselves. Do you have a "US Government" version that is very simple? I have never heard one myself.

Maybe you were unaware that the Pentagon was hit where it was under construction. Maybe you were unaware that less than 200 persons were killed in the Pentagon attack, instead of thousands.

The section of the Pentagon that was hit was fully staffed at the time. The reason only 125 people died at the Pentagon was because of the incredibly effective renovations which minimised the damage done to the building.

-Andrew

 

[milesalpha]

Consider this...

The Mitsubishi A6M Zero is significantly harder to fly than a modern airliner, yet throughout the latter days of World War 2 the Japanese managed to train hundreds of pilots in a very short space of time.

These Kamakaze pilots, if they were not shot down, were usually successful in hitting their targets - the largest ships; Essex class Carriers and Iowa class Battleships, are both significantly smaller than the Pentagon.



-Andrew

Sorry to jump on this late but I really do have to quibble with these points.
First the pilots, the Japanese trained very few pilots in the last 6 months of the war. Those that were trained, were trained to standards far lower than the pre-war, and early war years. The Japanese were limited to a very poor quality of fuel (known as A-G0 if memory serves) that had two effects. Engine stalls killed a lot of trainees, and trainees were limited to very basic flight instruction. The Zero would have been one of the easiest fighters to fly in WWII. Stable, easy to land, and contained very few of the "modern" extras of other fighters (self-sealing tanks as an example).

Kamikazes had a lousy success rate for their main mission. Slightly over 14% of all kamikazes managed to hit a target. However, consider the fact that their goal was to hit the carriers and battleships, then their success rate drops to under 1%. The picket line destroyers were the primary victims but certainly not the intended targets. If I remember correctly, not a single carrier, battlehip or cruiser was lost to a kamikaze attack (not good considering 5000 odd planes were used).

I also must note that you ignore the fact that all kamikaze planes were landed in Cleveland and their pilots replaced with Canadians (snowbirds intercepted on their way to Arizona and Florida) who were promised "Canadian dollar at par" if they succesfully hit a ship. Some Canadians will go a long way for an at par deal.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I also must note that you ignore the fact that all kamikaze planes were landed in Cleveland and their pilots replaced with Canadians (snowbirds intercepted on their way to Arizona and Florida) who were promised "Canadian dollar at par" if they succesfully hit a ship. Some Canadians will go a long way for an at par deal.

 

[Obviousman]

I volunteer!

 

[Big Les]

With the exception of the 911 call from the bathroom, when United 93 was only at 7000 feet or so, all the calls were made from airfones anyway.

Acky, you're quite right. Wasn't there some question of one of the flights having calls made from it at around 30k feet though?

Either way, its bollocks. Sorry for the interruption!

 

[Darth Rotor]

Sorry, I wasn't claiming it was more maneouverable. The 9/11 attacks did not require any significant level of maneouverability.

I disagree. If you are hitting the face of the Pentagon and probably aiming for the middle of that face of the building, (a much smaller target relative to the WTC) your ability to be precise depends on fingertip control, and aircraft responses to fingertip control.

Fly much?

If Hanjour was very well versed with the 757 GPS coupled approach system, and put in a waypoint (with correct altitude and Lat Long) and programmed the GPS to fly him down an ILS style approach with a touchdown point on the West Face of the Pentagon, he could just push all the buttons and let it fly itself into the Pentagon. Again, he was a novice 757 hand. Pilots tend to try and control their aircraft. The better you know the AFCS, the more comfortable you are with its nuances and limitations, the more likely you are to be able to exploit them to their fullest. A rookie is not likely to have that confidence.

The evidence available suggests that he was flying it by hand, not via AFCS, all the way to impact, which most carrier pilots do as well when trying to hit a pinpoint target -- the deck of a carrier.

Note: it is of course true that an F-18, for example, has a coupled approach mode that virtually flies it to the three wire, but I don't know how many pilots use it. If you don't keep your landing skills sharp, they get rusty and that can lead to Bad Things(TM) around the deck.

But A modern airliner is easier, in general, to fly.

At altitude, at cruise, modern aircraft have a lot of features handy to massively reduce pilot work load. That is irrelevant to aiming your plane as a missile, where the ability to make fine corrections is paramount.

Many WW II era aircraft can be flown hands off, by use of a simple mechanical device (a series of cables, bell crankc, pulleys, and control wheels) called a trim system. I flew T-28's in flight training, which were basically late model WW II era, prop driven, fighter bombers. Similar to a Zero in vintage, but considerably better for having been designed with lessons of early WW II fighters and fighter bombers incorporated. Trimming them up to "hands off" was not all that hard after one got the hang of it, and after that their responsiveness to fingertip control became the driving factor in controllability. That, and pilot monkey skills.

A big bus, be it a B-17, P-3, KC-10, or 767, isn't designed to be that responsive, nor is it.

In the terminal landing phase, it is far easier to fly a small, maneuverable single seat fighter aircraft to a precise spot, a target, than a larger airliner.

Of course, the Captains at most Airlines have some thousands of hours, and can squeak one of those beasts down in a very small landing box. Mastery does not come from Microsoft Flight Simulator, though FAA Class IV sims are fantastic training aids, and quite cost effective.

The automated systems, the warning alarms, the auto-corrections on the control column, navigations systems, etc, all make flying one easy.

So do electro hydraulic mechanical servo systems (boost) for flight surface control, which is the critical assist during the landing phase. Much of that other stuff is great for reducing pilot work load, but its wonderfulness is irrelevent to the task we are discussing: a VFR shallow dive to a point target.

Not so for a WW2 era fighter aircraft.

Fly much?

People grossly underestimate the size of the Pentagon, in my experience.

I agree. In person, it is a monster of a building.

One outside wall of the Pentagon was considerably longer than both the Essex carriers and Iowa battleships, and of course the Pentagon has FIVE sides.

Yes indeed.

The hijackers also had the advantage of knowing where their targets were in advance, and having geographic features to follow.

And thus the ability to do detailed mission planning. You still have to hit the target to accomplish the mission.

DR

 

[Brainster]

This is a case of not responding to what I actually wrote. You disregarded what followed that statement. I presented the proof. The logic goes like this: The attackers went out of their way to do the least possible damage to the Pentagon, at a virtual certain risk of complete failure to the mission. They would not have attacked the Pentagon that way, if the attackers were terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon. Therefore, they were not terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon.

That's not very logical of you. First, and most obviously, there are five sides to the Pentagon, so the odds of them hitting any particular side are one in five, before considering factors like terrain and nearby buildings.

Balderdash. What makes it any harder for a secretive cabal in the US to do something in the US than a secretive cabal in Afghanistan? What can they possibly do in Afghanistan that they can't do in the US -- and leave out "doing things in Afghanistan." What makes it "one of the most complex undertakings of its kind" for the US goverment, but not for a secretive cabal in Afghanistan?

What makes it harder? Maybe the fact that in the latter instance you're asking people to go against their native loyalty to the country, whereas in the other you're asking people to go with their existing loyalty. This is somewhat similar to Fetzer's ridiculous argument that conspiracies can be kept a secret--look at the Manhattan Project for example. But that's ignoring that the people working on the Manhattan Project were doing something that coincided perfectly with their loyalty, and that some (whose loyalty lay elsewhere) clearly blabbed to the Russians, as Stalin was well aware of the effort.

As for evidence and proof "dropping from the trees like over-ripe apples," all it takes is for the evidence and proof to be persistantly disregarded and its presenters demonized as "conspiracy theorists." The persistant tendency of the press to minimize coverage of things that damage the Bush Administration is another factor.

We have not disregarded the "evidence" you folks have provided. We have rebutted it, with sites like this and 911 Myths and SLC.

Or maybe you didn't recognize that my post was a reply to a long post talking about the circular dive of the plane, pulling out and skimming the ground without touching it. Maybe you were unaware that the Pentagon was hit where it was under construction. Maybe you were unaware that less than 200 persons were killed in the Pentagon attack, instead of thousands.

Again, one in five chance.

 

[gumboot]

First the pilots, the Japanese trained very few pilots in the last 6 months of the war. Those that were trained, were trained to standards far lower than the pre-war, and early war years.

I think you missed my point. Which was, the Kamikaze pilots were not trained very well (hence why they could train so many so quickly).

I would imagine all of the 9/11 hijacker pilots had more extensive training than any Japanese Kamikaze pilots did.

The Zero would have been one of the easiest fighters to fly in WWII. Stable, easy to land, and contained very few of the "modern" extras of other fighters (self-sealing tanks as an example).

So are you saying a Zero is easier to fly than a modern airliner?

Kamikazes had a lousy success rate for their main mission. Slightly over 14% of all kamikazes managed to hit a target.

Yes but Kamikaze pilots also got shot at by allied aircraft and AA batteries on their targets. How many Kamikaze pilots that were NOT shot down before impact missed their targets?

(For the record the vast majority of "failures" were shot down by allied aircraft before they reached their targets)

The picket line destroyers were the primary victims but certainly not the intended targets. If I remember correctly, not a single carrier, battlehip or cruiser was lost to a kamikaze attack.

I believe you're talking about Okinawa, where Kamikazes attacked the destroyers before taking on the capital ships. You are right, in that engagement no capital ships were destroyed.

However, the Pentagon was not destroyed either. The objective, for the purpose of comparison, is hitting the target (also bear in mind any damage done by a Kamikaze that put the ship out of action for any period of time should also be considered a success).

In any event, some capital ships were destroyed by Kamikaze. Including the following Casablanca Class aircraft carriers:

USS St. Lo
USS Ommaney Bay
USS Bismark Sea

In addition a very large number of Aircraft Carriers were damaged by Kamikazes - many of them were either out of the war permanently or for very long periods of time.

-Andrew

 

[milesalpha]

As for evidence and proof "dropping from the trees like over-ripe apples," all it takes is for the evidence and proof to be persistantly disregarded and its presenters demonized as "conspiracy theorists." The persistant tendency of the press to minimize coverage of things that damage the Bush Administration is another factor.

This point simply does not reflect reality. The mainstream press has been the one outing stories such as Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, CIA prisons, Bush's wiretapping, etc. Bush's popularity has plummeted in response. The clear difference is all of these scandals have actual evidence in support. You want to be believed? Have those 9/11 scholars pony up a few bucks from the fees they make speaking to the true believers and comission their own study, hiring real experts (those pesky structural engineers again) to do the work.

 

[gumboot]

I disagree. If you are hitting the face of the Pentagon and probably aiming for the middle of that face of the building, (a much smaller target relative to the WTC) your ability to be precise depends on fingertip control, and aircraft responses to fingertip control.

But this is the exact same lack of logic that CTers apply. It assumes Hanjour had any specific intention to hit that precise spot. We don't know that. Presumably hitting the Pentagon anywhere was enough.

That's a block with a horizontal surface of 135,000m^2 - over 33 acres, with five walls 921ft by 77ft. Hitting a precise spot is difficult, sure. But just hitting it? Anywhere? Easy.

A rookie is not likely to have that confidence.

Certainly he was a rookie, but to suggest he didn't lack confidence seems a bit silly, considering he was a suicide pilot.

Of course, the Captains at most Airlines have some thousands of hours, and can squeak one of those beasts down in a very small landing box.

Most of the commercial airline pilots who have commented on AA77 seem to think a complete novice could be brought up to almost a 100% mission success rate in a matter of hours.

What I am trying to emphasize here is what Hanjour achieved wasn't really that hard. Much is made about the difficulty of achieving what he did, but I don't think I've seen a single commercial airline pilot who was even remotely surprised or impressed (unless, of course, you include JohndoeX )

-Andrew

 

[JohnM307]

John:

*deep breath*

Not a pilot, are you?

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.)

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.

Here's an actual picture of the Pentagon from the air: 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?

Read Here. [Aerospace Web site removed]

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.

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.)

A note, regarding Hanjour: "Even so, those few who did make statements regarding pilot ability indicate that Hanjour flew in a somewhat erratic manner as one would expect"

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.

Four Real Terrorist teams did just that, plan and attack (oops, one team was foiled in PA) buildings with airliners.

You missunderstand. You don't rebut an attempted refutation of a theory be re-reciting the theory. Now who's reasoning bad here?

What is the "would a real terrorist" line, Mister True Scotsman? A suicide attack with an airplane is sort of like a huge, flying car bomb, conceptually. Real terrorists use car bombs all the time. These guys thought big.

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.

Point 1: Pentagon is a short squat building, unlike WTC which is a tall building. As you note, that makes it a tricky target. This "inexperienced-in-757's-pilot" needed to attack the building. He could only be sure to hit it by maintaining control of the aircraft. That means he'd want to fly at an airspeed he could control. Above a certain airspeed, you can start to lose control authority due to aerodynamic loading, not to mention that as airspeed approaches Mach 1 near sea level (DC is less than 1000' above sea level) in an airliner, the plane will likely start to crack up.

So, from the get to, the 60-90 degree vertical dive is a non starter. His odds of aiming it perfectly were very small in that profile, since he was going to fly by hand, and any correction in close woud be amplified by too much airspeed and lift on the wings . . . if the plane didn't crack up before 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.

I'd suggest he'd need a 10-20 degree nose down attitude (10-20 degree dive angle in other words) to ensure his ability to control (up to the last few seconds) the trajectory of the plane, to ensure he didn't over shoot, and ensure he didn't lose flight control effectiveness by exceeding design velocity.

Had he landed in the middle of the building, an empty space, he'd probably have done less damaage. He had to pick a target, so he targeted the West face of the building.

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
.

He performed a very straightforward attack, I don't understand your assertion that he did not. If he had gone too fast, even at a low angle of approach, any last minute correction that was an over correction would have caused a ballooning effect, common in a flare maneuver, or in any abrupt raising of the nose with a lot of airspeed on, and thus an overshoot/miss of the Pentagon.

Exactly the same problem exists with your "straightforward" attack -- any correction is an overcorrection, especially facing a narrow target area. Also, leveling out from the descent was a huge problem.

2. The reason he hit his target, in my professional opinion as a pilot, is that he didn't overload his lightweight pilot ass -- unlike what you are doing with your reasoning power in this conversation. He chose a profile that allowed him to control the aircraft within his talent level right up to impact. He succeeded.

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.

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?

3. What makes you think they knew which wing was under construction?

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.)

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.

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.

I'd have to look at a chart, but Rosslyn, near the Pentagon to the north (see the map) has a lot of high rises. Dumb idea to approach from that side and risk a miss. I'd suggest to you that they chose an approach path (well ahead of time) that allowed the pilot to have the least possible trouble with obstacles, and to approach from the West (where 77 was going to come from in the first place) which is the side of the Potomac River away from Washington DC. (Pentagon is in Virginia)

"... and risk a miss." What a laugh! Chance a near certain miss in order to avoid risking a miss.

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.

Summary: He was a greenhorn in the 757, so he built a plan that maximized his odds for mission accomplishment.

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.

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.

The proper conclusion is that the following theory is more likely than the official story:

• WTC: The Spectacular Attack
• Pentagon: The self-injury making the criminal look like a victim
• UA93: (I am very unsure) The heart-warming story of tragic American heroism and self-sacrifice

 

[Kent1]

Thanks, Kent.

Have now clarified.

ETA: For all the work Avery has put into 'research' in this thing, I'm shocked that he made such a mistake.

From the hints they have been giving I suspect they were looking into putting that one in the new LC movie.

I just caught merc's reply. Not a happy camper....
Wikipedia also has had the new photo up for a couple months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour

 

[milesalpha]

I think you missed my point. Which was, the Kamikaze pilots were not trained very well (hence why they could train so many so quickly).

I would imagine all of the 9/11 hijacker pilots had more extensive training than any Japanese Kamikaze pilots did.





So are you saying a Zero is easier to fly than a modern airliner?





Yes but Kamikaze pilots also got shot at by allied aircraft and AA batteries on their targets. How many Kamikaze pilots that were NOT shot down before impact missed their targets?

(For the record the vast majority of "failures" were shot down by allied aircraft before they reached their targets)






I believe you're talking about Okinawa, where Kamikazes attacked the destroyers before taking on the capital ships. You are right, in that engagement no capital ships were destroyed.

However, the Pentagon was not destroyed either. The objective, for the purpose of comparison, is hitting the target (also bear in mind any damage done by a Kamikaze that put the ship out of action for any period of time should also be considered a success).

In any event, some capital ships were destroyed by Kamikaze. Including the following Casablanca Class aircraft carriers:

USS St. Lo
USS Ommaney Bay
USS Bismark Sea

In addition a very large number of Aircraft Carriers were damaged by Kamikazes - many of them were either out of the war permanently or for very long periods of time.

-Andrew

My point is that the Japanese trained relatively few pilots but I can accept the idea that the 9/11 pilots were better trained and had a much easier task.

Yes, I would argue that the Zero, in particular, was a very easy plane to fly.

I would have to ask for proof of that last assertion, My Keegan stuff suggest that no capital ships were sunk by Kamikaze, nor damaged severely enough to put them out of the war permanently. The 3 carriers you mention are not capital ships but escort carriers, all 3 of them were converted merchant ships. No American capital ships were lost after Leyte Gulf. I have found this site which gives details for carriers (all nations, all types) damaged by Kamikaze. None were permanently put out of action, and the only ones put out of the war were those struck near the very end of the war. Four months seems the longest period any ship was inactive.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-042.htm

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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.)

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.

Here's an actual picture of the Pentagon from the air: 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?

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.

Again, this assumes that where the Pentagon was struck was the intended target from the planning stages onward. Please show where this is the case.

...
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.

Again, you are assuming motivations and intentions of the terrorists. Please provide corroborating evidence to back these assertions.

...
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.)

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.

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.

Again, assumption of motives. Also, the construction was finished. The wing was no longer under construction.

...
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.

Argument from personal incredulity. Just because you do not believe it is possible, does not make it impossible.

 

[Johnny Pixels]

Not one to cast doubt, but I was shown an article from www.globalresearch.ca that is supposed to be from the Guardian, although the site does not link to the Guardian Unlimited website, and I can find no record of it on that site. The author is given as Dan Plesch, who as far as I can tell does write for the Guardian, but only in the opinions section, and the article seems to be a bit more news than opinion.

I'm just checking that there's not another Guardian I'm mistaking this with.

The article is here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PLE20060809&articleId=2930

And I've emailed the Guardian to ask them about it.

ETA: Oh, I've found it. It was from his comment/blog section of the Guardian site, not the Guardian Newspaper

here:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dan_plesch/2006/08/post_288.html

 

[Belz...]

I also must note that you ignore the fact that all kamikaze planes were landed in Cleveland and their pilots replaced with Canadians (snowbirds intercepted on their way to Arizona and Florida) who were promised "Canadian dollar at par" if they succesfully hit a ship. Some Canadians will go a long way for an at par deal.

Enjoy it while you can. From Xe.com:

Live mid-market rates as of 2006.08.11 16:16:33 UTC.
1.00 USD United States Dollars = 1.12142 CAD Canada Dollars

 

[chipmunk stew]

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.

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.

The proper conclusion is that the following theory is more likely than the official story:

• WTC: The Spectacular Attack
• Pentagon: The self-injury making the criminal look like a victim
• UA93: (I am very unsure) The heart-warming story of tragic American heroism and self-sacrifice

Given the high crash rate of military drones, which are actually built and tested to be flown remotely, the chances of pulling off a "self-injury" that intentionally minimizes damage, using an untested, retrofitted airliner (which had to be engineered, installed and flown by someone) would seem drastically lower than an inexperienced, but live, pilot crashing into any spot he happens to hit.

 

[chipmunk stew]

From the hints they have been giving I suspect they were looking into putting that one in the new LC movie.

I just caught merc's reply. Not a happy camper....
Wikipedia also has had the new photo up for a couple months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour

THEY CAN'T JUST CHANGE THEIR STORY LIKE THAT!!! THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CORRECT ANY ERRORS--WE RELY ON THOSE TO CRAFT OUR CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!! WE CAN'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS!!! THEY HAVE TO STICK WITH THEIR ORIGINAL STORY, EVEN IF THEY FIND OUT IT HAS ERRORS!!!