Was the Pentagon AA77's primary target?

[kimota]

Considering questions that truthers bring up concerning AA77's flight path into the Pentagon, specifically 1) If the plane was initially on course for the Pentagon, why make the 330˚ turn? and 2) why crash into the side when diving in the middle from above would have been easier and probably do more damage? Truthers criticize that Hanjour's flight into the Pentagon would be difficult for experienced pilots to duplicate, particularly, the last moments. The fallacy there is that it's assuming that Hanjour intentionally meant to fly exactly that way, rather than have the objective of crashing into the Pentagon and that path was the result of his efforts.

So, I asked myself, are we presuming too much to think the Pentagon was the primary intended target? This may be the result of old science-fiction alien invasion movies, but if I were to choose two targets in Washington, DC, they would be the White House (theoretically the target for UA93) and the Capitol Building, basically trying to eliminate as many high ranking politicians as possible and make as big a psychological impact too.

The turn initially follows Route 7, going southwest. The angle of this highway is similar to Pennsylvania Avenue, which goes by the White House and the Capitol building.

Of course, this can't be proven, but I'm considering the possibility that Hanjour's targets were either the White House or the Capitol Building, turned to follow Route 7 thinking it was Pennsylvania Avenue, realized his mistake, corrected to go back on course, saw the Pentagon (a very large and distinctive target) and made the decision to crash into it instead, resulting in his extreme last minute piloting.

As alternative theories go, it's not as outlandish at most, but it is impossible to prove. The only ones that know are the ones behind it, who are either dead or would change the story that the Pentagon was the intended target since they scored a hit.

However, this could explain the erratic approach. The biggest contest to the theory is that AA77 didn't cross the Potomoc River yet, the biggest feature of the immediate landscape. Perhaps the focus was detecting and following Pennsylvania Avenue that they could have been confused and lost track of where they were.

 

[Gravy]

The Potomac River, Arlington National Cemetery, Reagan Airport, and landmarks such as the Washington Monument and The Mall would have made it well-nigh impossible to mistake D.C. for Virginia on that crystal-clear morning.

I believe the most logical reason for Hanjour's descending turn is that his approach was far too high. He began the turn at about 7,000 feet.

See here for gumboot's analysis of David Ray Griffin's claim that the west wall of the Pentagon would have been an unlikely target.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The maneuvre was typical of an amateur flying mainly visual. He set a course for the Pentagon (and his GPS put him right there), but being an inexperienced pilot, he didn't realize how far away from the target he should really prepare for hitting it. So he flew on at considerable altitude till it showed up in front of his nose, by which time he was way too high to hit it directly. He could now do several things:

1) He could dive for the tharget. That, however, would be very risky, in terms of mission risk. An airliner is not equipped with dive brakes, and would overspeed, with great risk of breaking up in mid-air or becoming uncontrollable. He might thus miss his target.

2) He could go by the book: Overshoot the target, make a U-turn, go back on a parallel course, probably descending, make another U-turn and make a proper approach. This would have given him a choice of where to hit, but would have taken 10-15 minutes, during which his intentions would be very visible, and would have increased the possibility of some kind of interception.

3) He could spiral down on the target shedding his excess altitude as quickly as possible and hit whichever part of the Pentagon when it showed up on front of him. This was what he did, and was probably the best solution at his disposal.

CT's often describe this maneuve as being excecuted with "military precision", but the replay of the FDR shows it to be far from that. In fact it was very coarsely executed, with a hightly variable banking and a variable descent-rate. It had all the signs of an unexperienced pilot trying to fly by the seat of his pants.

Hans

 

[kimota]

The Potomac River, Arlington National Cemetery, Reagan Airport, and landmarks such as the Washington Monument and The Mall would have made it well-nigh impossible to mistake D.C. for Virginia on that crystal-clear morning.

Yeah, the distinctive landmarks are too prominent to allow for a "whoops, we got lost" theory, as I stated was a major contest.

I believe the most logical reason for Hanjour's descending turn is that his approach was far too high. He began the turn at about 7,000 feet.

I was wondering what made him deviate from the course about 10 miles away from the target and if he would have been able to descend from that point. After your post, I bothered to look up a rate of descent rule of thumb: Take your altitude and multiply it by 3. That should be the distance in miles that you should begin your descent.

So, in order to maintain a straight line course, he should have started the descent 21 miles away.

It was just nagging me about UA93's crash and initially it was speculated that Camp David was the target when it crashed there for totally different reasons.

 

[Kryptos]

However, this could explain the erratic approach. The biggest contest to the theory is that AA77 didn't cross the Potomoc River yet, the biggest feature of the immediate landscape. Perhaps the focus was detecting and following Pennsylvania Avenue that they could have been confused and lost track of where they were.

Pennsylvania Avenue ends 12 blocks to the northwest of the White House. Certainly, Hani Hanjour was not trying to "detect and follow" it the 12 blocks, nor could it be confused for Route 7.

Instead, he was coming in from the west (from Ohio) where the plane turned around. He used the autopilot feature, probably keying in the coordinates for Reagan National Airport (located very closeby), then as he got close, he turned off autopilot and made the approach for the Pentagon.

 

[Kryptos]

About three weeks before September 11, targets were assigned to four teams, with three of them bearing a code name: The U.S. Capitol was called "The Faculty of Law;" the Pentagon became "The Faculty of Fine Arts;" and the North Tower of the World Trade Center was code-named by Atta as "The Faculty of Town Planning."

They told this to Yosri Fouda, a journalist at Al Jazeera. This was aired in a documentary on Al Jazeera: الطريق الى 11 ايلول (The Road to September 11)

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/12/alqaeda.911.claim/

 

[Sabrina]

As another theory of AA77 goes, this one is workable (unlike the rest of them), but I have to agree it's unlikely. The symbology of the targets was of key importance to the hijackers as well as UBL and KSM, if you believe various profilers of terrorism, and they would want to strike the areas they believed WE felt were most important, in order to jab our morale and sink it low. To most other countries, I believe, we are seen as revering our financial, military, and political areas as the most important, and each of these targets were chosen with that in mind. The WTC was the financial target and required two planes, as there were two towers; no sense striking only half of the target. The Pentagon was the military target, and the Capitol (which KSM has said was U93's target, not the White House) was the political target. I believe KSM has said that Atta or another of the hijackers objected to hitting the White House after flying over the area and realizing how difficult the approach is to that area. The Pentagon, on the other hand, is nearly impossible to miss, being the largest office building in the world and having a very distinctive shape. Now granted, this is all opinion pretty much, but it's always seemed logical to me that Hanjour always intended to hit the Pentagon. You're the first person I've seen who's offered a logical, sane alternative, albeit one not supported by the evidence we have, but certainly one that shouldn't be fully ruled out without further information.

 

[Calcas]

As others have mentioned, he was at 7000 feet and too close. The descending 330 degree turn was the best option.

Here's a fair re-enactment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPXGc7u6Z6Y

 

[Gravy]

I was wondering what made him deviate from the course about 10 miles away from the target and if he would have been able to descend from that point.

Hanjour turned off the autopilot when about 30 miles from Reagan Airport. After that his course and altitude fluctuated quite a bit. I had said he started the final turn and descent at 7,000 feet, but he had actually climbed to 8,000 when only 5 miles away from the Pentagon.

 

[Mangoose]

As mentioned already, there is evidence from Al Qaeda that the Pentagon was on the list of targets. It was also a very large, easy-to-see target from the air, unlike the White House which was low and blended in more with surrounding buildings. Perhaps they might have also thought that hitting the Pentagon would have been a "preemptive strike" against a military response, as it would have struck the military headquarters at the highest level.

I think much of the consternation about Hani Hanjour was based on the older, inaccurate graphic of the flight path that circulated on the internet but which was not based on any reliable data (e.g. radar returns, FDR, etc.). That graphic had the plane coming in from the northeast over Washington D.C., headed towards the White House, and then turning south over Arlington. It presented a much smaller, and tighter turn than the one Hanjour accomplished in real life -- a turn that is much harder to pull off at high speed. The larger loop, according to the 9/11 Commission, took three minutes to complete; it wasn't a tight turn made in 30 seconds. The inaccurate graphic also had Hanjour bypass the northeast face of the Pentagon (where I think senior staff was located) in order to hit the relatively unoccupied southwest face. The actual flight path however shows that Hanjour came in from the southwest and simply hit the side that faced him on his approach.

 

[beachnut]

Yeah, the distinctive landmarks are too prominent to allow for a "whoops, we got lost" theory, as I stated was a major contest.

I was wondering what made him deviate from the course about 10 miles away from the target and if he would have been able to descend from that point. After your post, I bothered to look up a rate of descent rule of thumb: Take your altitude and multiply it by 3. That should be the distance in miles that you should begin your descent.

So, in order to maintain a straight line course, he should have started the descent 21 miles away.

It was just nagging me about UA93's crash and initially it was speculated that Camp David was the target when it crashed there for totally different reasons.

93 did not crash at camp david.

It is hard to see under the nose. So when you multiply by 3 what did you get? It would be 21 miles, he is at 6 miles, What to do. Being a new pilot sort of, he would turn to get down. He was a trained pilot, he may of learned this, I never did, I could always make it! But if you did not ask for a turn to get down from this point you would flunk your check ride as you push the nose over to 20 degree and break the speed of sound, or real close, as you hit the ground. I wonder if the engines would fall off?

The pilot had never made a steep approach. A normal landing approach is 2.5 to 3 degrees. The terrorist last 30 or 40 seconds were 4 to 8 degrees.

It was too lose altitude and find his target.

If he was aiming for the White House he was too low and hit the Pentagon when his target was 2 miles away about 20 degrees left.

If he was aiming for the Capitol, he lost sight of it and hit the Pentagon, he was short 3 miles straight ahead.

resulting in his extreme last minute piloting

What does this mean? Did not see last minute extreme stuff; what are you talking about?

However, this could explain the erratic approach.

What does this mean? There was no erratic approach, just not too smooth. The terrorist pilot was not very good, but with a 1400 foot target who could miss?

But to see the White House, only 170 feet in trees, is hard, and the Capitol would be big but only 700 feet, no wonder the 14000 foot Pentagon stood out.

The big normal turn was good way to get down. Maybe he was aiming for the Pentagon at first, but had trouble getting his jet down at the trim point he was at. The plane was at 305 knots, if you descend and leave the engines up the plane does not come down easy. At only 3 degrees or less you can glide. He finally brings the engines back at 7,000 feet and does the turn. He must have good eyes his turn takes him 8 miles away at the far end, he is at 4,000 feet, only at 2 to 4 degrees nose down. But good eyes or not after you do a turn, all the way around, you end up about where you started, just like in a car. He started the turn at 8300 feet, and rolls out at 2500 feet, oops he only lost 6000 feet so he can aim at the Pentagon. Thus his angle for hitting the Pentagon, 4 to 6 degrees would be easier than having to go from 8,000 feet to the Pentagon, he only has to go from 2500 feet to the Pentagon. It would be hard to get12 to 18 degrees; our terrorist pilot and plane really do not want to fast, the plane loves 300 knots, the terrorist will over speed the aircraft but not until the last 26 seconds of flight.

There are a lot of reason why he may of chosen a turn, go fly and see! You could rent time and see yourself. Fly, it is fun, sick bags, turbulence, birds, other planes, etc.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

General comment: Without outside evidence pointing to his intent, attempting to claim that the Pentagon was the target, and more specifically that the given wing of the Pentagon was the planned target, is pretty much a Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. DC is, without a doubt, a target-rich environment. He hit the Pentagon. Beyond that, and we need to be examining corroborating evidence.

 

[gumboot]

General comment: Without outside evidence pointing to his intent, attempting to claim that the Pentagon was the target, and more specifically that the given wing of the Pentagon was the planned target, is pretty much a Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. DC is, without a doubt, a target-rich environment. He hit the Pentagon. Beyond that, and we need to be examining corroborating evidence.

There's a substantial set of material through Al Qaeda sources about the target selection process.

I'm pretty certain the Pentagon was the target all along. Dive bombing into the building would probably actually do less damage as the impact force would be focused downwards into the ground rather than laterally through the building. In addition it would be much harder to keep the aircraft on target, and there'd be a very high chance of hitting the central open courtyard of the Pentagon which wouldn't have that many people in it.

I think Gravy's offer is by far the most likely - when the Pentagon came into view he was too high, and made the turn to bleed off altitude.

-Gumboot

 

[BenBurch]

... DC is, without a doubt, a target-rich environment. ...

True, and any number of buildings would have served nicely. I disagree that the WH should have been any sort of VFR challenge, though. Landmarks in context make it easy.

And may I say something about terrorism and DC? Take down the posts and chains and terrorist preventing concrete. The way to win against terrorism is to go on unafraid, and absolutely not to take public, ugly, and useless preventative measures against further terrorism out of fear.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

There's a substantial set of material through Al Qaeda sources about the target selection process.

<snip>

Right, and that's what should be focused upon to answer the question in the OP. It's actually two separate questions worth answering.
1) What was the intended target of the hijackers at the time of the hijacking?
2) What was the intended target of the hijackers once over DC?

Evidence I've seen presented suggests that answer to both is, in fact, the Pentagon; but we should remember that they are (relatively speaking) unrelated questions when looking at the facts as they are available.

 

[HL7442]

The WH is hard to see from 7000 feet. Also I wonder if Hanjour planted himself in the right hand seat. Making a right hand turn at least he could try and keep his target visual throughout the descent.

 

[HL7442]

While Washington is a target rich enviornment there would be little time for Hanjour to loiter.

 

[kimota]

93 did not crash at camp david.

Ease up, beachnut. I'm not a truther; no need to state the obvious. Besides, you're misinterpreting my statement. Don't you remember reports on 9/11 speculating that the reason UA93 crashed in that area was relatively nearby Camp David?

It is hard to see under the nose. So when you multiply by 3 what did you get? It would be 21 miles, he is at 6 miles, What to do. Being a new pilot sort of, he would turn to get down. He was a trained pilot, he may of learned this, I never did, I could always make it! But if you did not ask for a turn to get down from this point you would flunk your check ride as you push the nose over to 20 degree and break the speed of sound, or real close, as you hit the ground. I wonder if the engines would fall off?

The pilot had never made a steep approach. A normal landing approach is 2.5 to 3 degrees. The terrorist last 30 or 40 seconds were 4 to 8 degrees.

It was too lose altitude and find his target.

If he was aiming for the White House he was too low and hit the Pentagon when his target was 2 miles away about 20 degrees left.

If he was aiming for the Capitol, he lost sight of it and hit the Pentagon, he was short 3 miles straight ahead.

I was considering if the maneuvers were due to poor navigation and last minute decisions. As it turns out, after a little research, it was relatively normal piloting, at least, for the big turn.

What does this mean? Did not see last minute extreme stuff; what are you talking about?

High speed flying at low altitude, clipping light poles, crashing into a building - sounds pretty extreme to me. I'd be in a state of shock if I saw that; I don't know about you, though.

What does this mean? There was no erratic approach, just not too smooth. The terrorist pilot was not very good, but with a 1400 foot target who could miss?

"Erratic" isn't similar to "not too smooth"?

But to see the White House, only 170 feet in trees, is hard, and the Capitol would be big but only 700 feet, no wonder the 14000 foot Pentagon stood out.

The big normal turn was good way to get down. Maybe he was aiming for the Pentagon at first, but had trouble getting his jet down at the trim point he was at. The plane was at 305 knots, if you descend and leave the engines up the plane does not come down easy. At only 3 degrees or less you can glide. He finally brings the engines back at 7,000 feet and does the turn. He must have good eyes his turn takes him 8 miles away at the far end, he is at 4,000 feet, only at 2 to 4 degrees nose down. But good eyes or not after you do a turn, all the way around, you end up about where you started, just like in a car. He started the turn at 8300 feet, and rolls out at 2500 feet, oops he only lost 6000 feet so he can aim at the Pentagon. Thus his angle for hitting the Pentagon, 4 to 6 degrees would be easier than having to go from 8,000 feet to the Pentagon, he only has to go from 2500 feet to the Pentagon. It would be hard to get12 to 18 degrees; our terrorist pilot and plane really do not want to fast, the plane loves 300 knots, the terrorist will over speed the aircraft but not until the last 26 seconds of flight.

There are a lot of reason why he may of chosen a turn, go fly and see! You could rent time and see yourself. Fly, it is fun, sick bags, turbulence, birds, other planes, etc.

Like I said, I'm not a truther. I didn't ask a question to challenge, but to get info and opinions. Unlike a truther, I can ask questions and accept answers, as long as the answers make sense, which they did here.

Besides, Sabrina said I was logical and sane. Thanks, Sabrina!

 

[PhantomWolf]

KSM and others have stated that the Pentagon was indeed the target, and that the Senate was the target of 93. OBL had wanted the White House, but Atta repoorted back to KSM and OBL that it would be too hard to find from the air and so they went with the Pentagon and Senate.

Something I find funny is that the CT continually discount Hani's flying skills. From all the reports I have seen he was an average pilot, but the major concern was his language skills. English is the language of the air and you need it to communicate with other planes and ATC. Hani's English was so bad that most of his instructors felt that there was no way he could safely communicate with ATC and so would be a danger in the air. This is the reason that the FAA checked on his licence, not that he couldn't fly. In fact he had his commercial license before becoming involved in the plot. KSM was looking for a 4th pilot after their initial choices were denied visas into the US (it was worried they were economic migrants rather then visitors) and though he initially selected Zacarias Moussaoui as the 4th pilot, he become more desparing at the man's attitue and inability to get into position in a flight school. As such KSM went looking for another pilot and found Hani, a young guy that had managed to complete his pilot's license but was unable to get a job as a pilot due to this abysmal English skill. Since he'd been trained in the US already, getting him back in wasn't a problem and once he arrived he spent the time training on Jet Simulators (similar to what Mohamed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi were doing at the time.) More interestingly, while he was one of the best students and had the skills, Jarrah never bothered finishing his commerical license, and not only was he the only one of the three to fly that day without having gained it, he was the only one that missed his target.

 

[Gravy]

True, and any number of buildings would have served nicely. I disagree that the WH should have been any sort of VFR challenge, though. Landmarks in context make it easy.

And may I say something about terrorism and DC? Take down the posts and chains and terrorist preventing concrete. The way to win against terrorism is to go on unafraid, and absolutely not to take public, ugly, and useless preventative measures against further terrorism out of fear.

I think you are mistaking fear for prudence.
U.S. Marines barracks.
U.S. Embassy bombings.
Murrah Building.
WTC 1993.
WTC 2001.
More terrorist plots that succeded or were foiled since 2001.

Further, in this new reality, there are potential liability issues associated with failing to take inexpensive, reasonable measures to protect a major public building against a car or truck bomb attack.