Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Wake up. You are LANDING the Plane. With NO RUNWAY! ON A FREAKING DIME.
Ed Pentagon - TruthMakesPeace
- Thread starter jaydeehess
- Start date
Wake up. You are LANDING the Plane. With NO RUNWAY! ON A FREAKING DIME.
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
Wake up! TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER FALLACY! RESEARCH.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
WAKE UP, you are FLYING an aircraft into any point it happens to hit on an object that is several hundred feet wide and 77 feet tall.
More likely, simply because its logical, he was aiming to try and hit the wall at 90 degrees and for a spot dead center (in vertical and horizontal) just to make sure he hit it at all. He missed vertically by 30+ feet and horizontally by about the same distance and was several tens of degrees out on the angle.
LANDING is a completely different procedure than what was done with this aircraft.
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
I also notice that you quote my thread in which I address the specific complaints you had, that the plane perforned a sharp turn and steep descent.
Given that I pointed out that neither of these events occured you switch to a Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy and want to claim that Hani made a pin point hit on the exact spot he wanted to hit!
Patently stupid reasoning CM.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Let's examine an analogy.
You are tasked with riding a bicycle down a narrow sidewalk with soft mud on either side. You are to go about halfway down it then slow to a stop.
In a second task you are to ride down a four lane (otherwise unoccupied) highway and through a doorway that is 10 feet wide and 10 feet tall.
Which of these two tasks requires the most precision?
You are tasked with riding a bicycle down a narrow sidewalk with soft mud on either side. You are to go about halfway down it then slow to a stop.
In a second task you are to ride down a four lane (otherwise unoccupied) highway and through a doorway that is 10 feet wide and 10 feet tall.
Which of these two tasks requires the most precision?
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
The average runway is 6000 feet long. The Pentagon is 1400 feet deep. 4500 feet in front of the Pentagon is a failure.
Do you know why the average runway is 6000 feet long?
6000 feet is 20 football fields
4500 feet is 15 football fields
77 feet is less that 1/3 of a football field
1400 feet is 5 football fields
900 feet is 3 football fields
You tell me where the greater area for failure is.
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
AGAIN. Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Can't you look ANYTHING up?
NoahFence
Banned
Not quite sure I understand why it matters how LONG a runway is in this circumstance.
FYI -
I just hit the Pentagon 10 times in a row without trying on Flight Sim
(Before you go there that's what they use to train pilots)
Not saying I'm a certified 757 pilot, but if given the opportunity I could probably hit the Pentagon IRL. Provided I didn't have to land with any grace and my passengers took Dramamine.
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
Actually, a football field is 120 yards long, you forgot the endzones.
ETA: Do you know why they are so long? Giant planes don't exactly stop on a dime. Hitting a brick wall at speed sure will slow you in a much shorter distance.
Last edited:
What is your point. Take a deep breath and explain what you are talking about.
Hani had problems on this runway! Not a 6000 foot runway.
Runway small, Pentagon big. Tarzan happy.
2420 x 40 ft is the runway Hani had problems with. Did you know the runway was exactly 2420 long, the one Hani had problems with?
Guess what makes your math a waste of time?????
Pilots are trained to land in same place, we don't use the whole runway to land, we use a tiny fraction to land, we use the rest to stop the plane! You messed up and are trying to say a large runway is a big target. But pilots land in a small area, most of us big plane pilots aim at a spot, about 700 feet down.
Also, we cross the end of the runway at 35 feet, and hit about 700 feet down. Thus a 70 foot Pentagon, it twice as high a normal threshold crossing height.
In addition the Pentagon is 10 times larger in area than the runway Hani had problems with! TEN times. math
http://www.airnav.com/airport/W00 Not the one giving Hani problems.
Last edited:
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
Could you please tell me what all of this gibberish has to do with anything? Hani wasn’t trying to land the airplane; he was trying to hit something with the airplane. A very simple task to accomplish, especially when what you want to hit is as wide as the Pentagon.
So you can play 20 football games at the same time?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
The length of a runway is completely immaterial. How wide it is, IS!
All he had to do was hit any point on a surface that was several hundred feet wide and 77 feet tall.
Nor was what this aircraft did in any way shape of form the same or even as difficult as, actually landing an aircraft. No flaps adjust, no finesse of the throttles, no wheels down, no flare, no adjustments while the aircraft is slow and sluggish on the controls.
Once straightened out just fly the plane, throttles to the max, at a target that is several times WIDER than the aircraft and twice as high as the tallest part of the aircraft.
I said before that Hani was probably aiming for dead center and missed , low, by 30+ feet. Missing a landing by 30 feet low will put you in the dirt before the button of the runway. Missing crashing your aircraft into the center of a target that is as tall as your aircraft by 30 + feet low STILL has you hitting that target AND you don't give a crap where you hit it anyway as long as you hit it.
Hani could have smacked the ground 50 feet in front of the building and still have smashed the front wall in. He could have crashed 500 feet short and still al-Qada gets a victory simply by killing all the Americans on board in what would obviously be a run at the Pentagon.
Why are these concepts so very difficult for you to grasp?
Last edited:
Rubbish!
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,715
Not really.
Flying is the easy part. Point the nose at something and turn the control sticks to keep it lined up.
the hard parts are take off and landing.
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
I guess staying 20 or so feet off the ground at over 300 mph is also a snap.
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,715
for how long did he do that again?
Oh... about a second.
(texas sharpshooter fallacy, AGAIN)
that is also very easy to do. super simple. Now if he flew that way for 10 seconds... that would be something.
but at least you are learning (stating OVER 300 mph, instead of demonstrating your ignorance again)
What are you talking about?
Here is Hani's Altitude for the last minutes, shows a terrorist pilot who can't control his decent. Why is it erratic. The 757 likes to fly at 300 knots. When Hani tried to get down quicker, the plane went faster and then wanted to go back up, the more Hani tries to get down faster the more the plane wants to climb. At 3 degree angle down, the plane can maintain 300 knots all the way to the ground without engines, at 6 degrees we could go super sonic if we are clean, notice no matter what Hani did his angle varied around 3 degrees nose low on average, and would go back up, bet he was confused! Flying is easy, but Hani was not very good.
No level off, he was descending into the Pentagon. It is as easy to fly 20 feet off the ground as it is to fly 2,000 feet. What was your point? What is your claim and what does it mean.
Hani was trying to hit the Pentagon, it is over 900 feet wide and long, bigger than any touchdown zone he has ever tried to hit, and it is a 3D touchdown zone. Normally a touchdown zone is flat, the Pentagon was not flat. He can hit it on the roof or the wall and he has the kinetic energy of a large bomb, 1600 pounds of TNT just for flying at 488 knots at impact.
Here is Hani's pitch, he never leveled off at 20 feet, he hit the Pentagon between the first and second floors, he hit in a decent, going down!
What is your claim?
And? Your claim? You might not be able to fly as good at the terrorists, and ride a bike, why can't you fly better? For instance the pilots at Balsamo moron math club of failed pilots on 911 issues, brag they can't hit buildings in the safety of a simulator. Not all people can fly better than terrorists, you might not be able to do it. Some people are not coordinated enough.
I flew better than the terrorists on my first flights in small planes, in jet trainers, in supersonic jet trainers, and in Heavy jets, very smooth, under control landed on my first try. I am average, an average person who rode bikes very good, therefore it is possible to fly better than the terrorist for me, but for you, you may not have what it takes, you might not have the right stuff.
I cheated I looked up how the terrorist flew, and look at this example of terrorist flying, it is terrible, I know my bank angle control from day one was smooth.
The airline pilot was smooth, the terrorist pilot was not. Do terrorist ride bikes well, or poorly? No big deal their goal was to crash, not fly smooth.
Some people who ride bikes are not riding them very well, they might not have the right stuff. What is your claim on terrorists pilots?
Better study the terrorist flying before making a false statement. I have studied the terrorist flying to the 1/8 of a second, what have you done?
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
What? Do you have any serious arguments to present? Where did you learn to fly,and how many hours have you flown?
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
What would you know? You are only an experienced pilot,but Jane is a fully paid up truther.