A loaded question for pilots.

[qapmoc]

I can't decide where to put this so - its here!

Having seen many things about the events at the Pentagon on 9/11 and the many people and sites which claim the Pentagon was never hit by a commercial aircraft, I would welcome comments from any pilots on the curving descending flight path, the low approach over adjacent buildings, the possibility to actually fly at 500mph into the side wall of the building without touching the grass lawn and without touching the roof line. Given that it would be done without landing aids and with the flight software resisting the manouveurs by an amateur pilot who also had ''ground effect'' to contend with.

[Dkeyse]

Don't ask these sort of questions qapmoc, you are not supposed to know the answers, and will never be told the truth anyway!

[Clanad]

We can spend hours discussing the mechanics of such an operation (thoroughly possible and relatively simple) but that will do nothing towards why the question is asked in the first place. I think you have to ask yourself why such a falsehood would be perpetrated and who would gain what from it. I can't think of a reasonable, logical answer... perhaps you can. It's just that a security film exists of the event, relatives of those lost on the flight have no qualms about the facts and how could such an act be covered up given the literally hundreds of people that would have to be knowledgable about it. If more than one person knows of an event, the chances are pretty good it's going to leak... multiply that by hundreds and the chances are certain that someone is going to talk... and convincingly so. Our societies, either here or with you Brits, is and has been in the conspiracy mode for a long time and no signs of any abating of that on the horizon, in my opinion...

[spudqueen]

A friend of my friends husband was killed in the Pentagon on 11th September 2001. so how did he die if it wasn't hit by an aircraft?

[snook]

Qapmoc said '... claim that the Pentagon was never hit by a commercial aircraft'. I took that to mean there was some doubt over whether the damage was caused by some other type of aircraft. I don't really think anyone doubts that an aircraft struck the building and people died as a result. However, there will always be those who keep looking into these things and searching for alternatives to what was made public.

[qapmoc]

Hi Clanad, I am not really into the question of who and why and the conspiracy stuff, but somebody on AB put me into ''research mode'' on this subject and I started watching videos clips and looking at the sites which relate to this subject and I have to say that as an engineer I find many things which happened on 9/11 very very odd indeed. Thats why I specifically asked for a pilots input to the Pentagon issue, I am not a pilot and I don't know any pilots but I wanted to try to get a straight non politics technical opinion on if it would actually be possible to fly a Boeing 757 by hand at full speed (500mph?) from a flight height with no landing aids and get that close to the ground and then hit the side of the building but not touch the ground or the roof edges.

Hi Snook, sorry to disagree with you but but there seems to be lot of doubt that it was any kind of civil aircraft and if you do some research and look at the original pictures taken immediately after the assumed crash you would also be very doubtfull about it.

Just google 911 and look at a few sites, but first switch off your ''it cant be true'' mode and forget who/why/how and politics etc... just look at the events of 9/11 from a straight technical viewpoint and then THINK about some of things which happened that day, it can be seen that many odd and difficult to explain things happened.

[JSB]

Forget the pilots' angle on this. Consider the insurers instead. There was a very big argument about the 911 losses and who should pay them. Knowing a little about the way in which insurance assessors work I have no doubt whatsoever that the aircraft in question hit the Pentagon at high speed which accounted for the lack of debris.

Perhaps if anyone has any 'proof' they would present it to the insurers which would save me personally a great deal of money!

[qapmoc]

Hi JSB, I have no doubt that ''something'' hit the Pentagon, but so many people on so many different web sites and in so many books etc... seem to think it was not a commmercial airliner that I am really trying to get some independent input on the subject.

Like I said, I don't know the answer - I have to say that the evidence I have seen so far is very worrying, after all the front of the building had a fairly small hole in it so where the ??? did the engines impact the structure. even if the aircraft basically disintegrated on impact the engines have steel components and weigh 6 tons, they should have made some entry holes surely??

[whqttt]

You are assuming that a hijacker was flying. There's no reason to think that an unwilling pilot with a knife to his neck might not prefer to take the chance (unlikely as it might be) of surviving a crash rather than the certainty that he would prefer to get closer to the knife.

Equally he might way up the odds and think that some of his passengers might survive in his skilled hands.

It is pretty odd that someone can get a plane into the side of the Pentagon without it being shot down.

Then again, would you want to be the person who authorised the shooting down of an American airline in American airspace in broad daylight?