9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph?

[Agav8r]

Well here is the NTSB website: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/reports_aviation.html

Please show me where any of these alleged crashes are.

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/reports.html

 

[Mick West]

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/reports.html

I think Unregistered was asking why the NTSB does not have the 9/11 crashes in their database. So:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20020123X00104&ntsbno=DCA01MA063&akey=1

DCA01MA063
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.

 

[Agav8r]

I think Unregistered was asking why the NTSB does not have the 9/11 crashes in their database. So:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20020123X00104&ntsbno=DCA01MA063&akey=1

DCA01MA063
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.

Ah, ok. I took it to mean that he couldn't find reference to them at all on their website.

 

[MikeC]

You are braver than I . . . 270 knots is equal to 234.6237 miles per hour . . . well, do you really think a 767 would stay intact at 510 mph and if so remain responsive at ground level . . .??

No - 270 knots is about 300 mph - 1 knot (1 nautical mile per hour)is approximately 1.15 miles per hour

I am sure we have discussed this before - a 767 at (near) ground level and 510 mph will be as responsive as a 767 at any other altitude and 510 mph...as long as it is above its stall speed - 510 mph isn't going to hurt it in any way....unless it comes to a sudden stop from that speed!

 

[Mick West]

Flight 77 Passenger list discussion moved to:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1329-9-11-Flight-77-Passenger-list-Suspicious

 

[F4Jock]

George, this question is for you with respect to your continuing skepticism that the pilots of three of the 9/11 aircraft succeeded in aiming for three buildings and hitting three for three.

I've been reading this thread for the past hour and find certain aspects of it fascinating. I may register later and comment further but for now I'd like to address your reluctance to believe the forgoing was possible. I'm a simple man so I'll start with a simple question, forgive me if it has been asked and answered as I haven't read every post in toto:

Have you ever flown a plane or taken a flying lesson?

Now please don't allow your answer to devolve into an in depth analysis of why it is / is not important to your argument for you to have / have not done so. A simple yes or no will do just fine.

Thanks in advance.

F4Jock

 

[George B]

George, this question is for you with respect to your continuing skepticism that the pilots of three of the 9/11 aircraft succeeded in aiming for three buildings and hitting three for three.

I've been reading this thread for the past hour and find certain aspects of it fascinating. I may register later and comment further but for now I'd like to address your reluctance to believe the forgoing was possible. I'm a simple man so I'll start with a simple question, forgive me if it has been asked and answered as I haven't read every post in toto:

Have you ever flown a plane or taken a flying lesson?

Now please don't allow your answer to devolve into an in depth analysis of why it is / is not important to your argument for you to have / have not done so. A simple yes or no will do just fine.

Thanks in advance.

F4Jock

T38 Simulator . . . Hang Gliding, passenger, that is it . . .

 

[George B]

Fine by me.

I will go ahead and ask that very same question on a forum of professional pilots and come back with the results in a day or two.

Plane852 . . . Where are the results . . . ?

 

[Met Watch]

Plane852 . . . Where are the results . . . ?

Have not asked...personal life caught up to me and I forgot about it.

 

[George B]

Have not asked...personal life caught up to me and I forgot about it.

That's cool . . . we all have a life . . .

 

[F4Jock]

T38 Simulator . . . Hang Gliding, passenger, that is it . . .

May I suggest that you take advantage of one of the programs that offer a low-cost first flying lesson? They are quite common at civil aviation venues and will allow you some hands-on stick time. Actually using a yoke and rudder pedals along with your butt being in the seat may change your opinion a wee bit. Simulators are great but there's nothing like having some air under your ass to give you an appreciation of the relative ease of actually "aiming" an aircraft.

I'm not going to restate or reinforce what has been said here; this horse has been beaten well beyond the mortal coil, but if I may I'd suggest you research the necessary qualifications to fly second seat for a regional airline. This may also alter your perspective somewhat.

Please take a look at the later combat tactics used by us "Double Ugly" drivers in Vietnam, especially re the use of weight and altitude to achieve speed. The physics of this translates to anything with wings.

Finally, re the design limits of an airframe, be advised that exceeding same does not mean instant disintegration.

In short, could these specific someones with a few hundred hours stick time and the certs they apparently achieved in that time fly a multi-engined turbine aircraft that was already clean, trimmed and cruising to a specific destination and nail a target two hundred feet wide while momentarily at or near Vne? The answer is an unequivocal "Yes!" Could someone with the same qualifications execute (poorly) a shallow diving turn into a building the size of the Pentagon? Again yes, especially when recovery was not a factor.

George, the only person who can change your opinion is you. I'm not going to try. All I can offer is that in the final analysis flying is a physical act and, like any physical act some are better at it than others. It is not possible to appreciate the skill of, or determine what is and is not possible for any one person to achieve whilst sitting in one's living room. Put your tail in the left seat for a few hours, then come back and let's see what you think.

Keep 'em level!

F4Jock

 

[RolandD]

F4Jock, you're very good at this, you need to register and hang out.

 

[George B]

May I suggest that you take advantage of one of the programs that offer a low-cost first flying lesson? They are quite common at civil aviation venues and will allow you some hands-on stick time. Actually using a yoke and rudder pedals along with your butt being in the seat may change your opinion a wee bit. Simulators are great but there's nothing like having some air under your ass to give you an appreciation of the relative ease of actually "aiming" an aircraft.

I'm not going to restate or reinforce what has been said here; this horse has been beaten well beyond the mortal coil, but if I may I'd suggest you research the necessary qualifications to fly second seat for a regional airline. This may also alter your perspective somewhat.

Please take a look at the later combat tactics used by us "Double Ugly" drivers in Vietnam, especially re the use of weight and altitude to achieve speed. The physics of this translates to anything with wings.

Finally, re the design limits of an airframe, be advised that exceeding same does not mean instant disintegration.

In short, could these specific someones with a few hundred hours stick time and the certs they apparently achieved in that time fly a multi-engined turbine aircraft that was already clean, trimmed and cruising to a specific destination and nail a target two hundred feet wide while momentarily at or near Vne? The answer is an unequivocal "Yes!" Could someone with the same qualifications execute (poorly) a shallow diving turn into a building the size of the Pentagon? Again yes, especially when recovery was not a factor.

George, the only person who can change your opinion is you. I'm not going to try. All I can offer is that in the final analysis flying is a physical act and, like any physical act some are better at it than others. It is not possible to appreciate the skill of, or determine what is and is not possible for any one person to achieve whilst sitting in one's living room. Put your tail in the left seat for a few hours, then come back and let's see what you think.

Keep 'em level!

F4Jock

If the issues are so clearly obvious to pilots . . . Why are there pilots who think it is not easy to hit the three targets with the precision accomplished and at the calculated speeds. . . . can you show me a POLL or professional organization that testifies to the fact the feat was within the normal capability of new pilots. . . .? How about a demonstration using 767s flying at 500 mph at 1,000 feet above the ground between two spot lights or lasers over the desert to ocean. . . .

 

[F4Jock]

F4Jock, you're very good at this, you need to register and hang out.

Thanks Roland. Perhaps I shall. Problem is I really don't want to engage in circular arguments. One can only turn so tight for so long until one finds themselves either greying out or staring up their own tailpipe until B-Loc sets in.

Keep 'em level!

F4Jock

 

[Mick West]

Thanks Roland. Perhaps I shall. Problem is I really don't want to engage in circular arguments. One can only turn so tight for so long until one finds themselves either greying out or staring up their own tailpipe until B-Loc sets in.

The interesting thing is how you get out of the circular arguments. How do you find and address the actual root disagreements or misconceptions?

 

[George B]

The interesting thing is how you get out of the circular arguments. How do you find and address the actual root disagreements or misconceptions?

You can very easily answer my questions. . . .conduct the Poll using commercial pilots. . . and conduct a demonstration of capabilities. . . .Simple . . .

 

[Mick West]

You can very easily answer my questions. . . .conduct the Poll using commercial pilots. . . and conduct a demonstration of capabilities. . . .Simple . . .

And you could take a flying lesson. Go for it George, you know you want to.

 

[Mick West]

Example introductory flying lessons:

http://aboveaviation.com/learn-to-fly/

Knowing where to start is one of the toughest aspects of learning to fly. At Above and Beyond Aviation, we offer the perfect solution to this problem by offering a hands-on, scenic Discovery Flight. For 30-40 minutes, one of our experienced instructors will accompany you for a breathtaking flight around the downtown Austin area. Imagine seeing prominent landmarks such as the Lady Bird Johnson Lake, the University of Texas campus, and the Texas State Capitol.One of the most exciting aspects of a Discovery Flight is YOU will be at the controls, flying one of our well maintained training aircraft for most of the flight under an instructor's supervision. Discovery Flights are perfect for the aviation enthusiast trying to decide if flying is a true passion, as a gift for any occasion, or as satisfying a long-standing curiosity. So what are you waiting for? Book your $130 Discovery Flight here today!

http://theflightschooltexas.com/training.html

Come take a [$99] discovery flight with The Flight School Inc. Let our experienced instructors show you what it takes to fly an airplane and get your pilot's license. Whether your goal is to fly yourself to that favorite vacation spot or to become a Professional Pilot, we have a Discovery Flight for you. A Discovery Flight is an introductory flight in which you will get to be in the pilots seat controlling the airplane including turns, climbs, and descents. Experience the joy and amazement of what its like being a pilot.

 

[George B]

And you could take a flying lesson. Go for it George, you know you want to.

I would have a few years ago but my wife forbad it. . . . I was always a risk taker before but my spouse is rather conservative when it comes to such things. . . .don't think at my age she will change our minds. . . .LoL!!!!

 

[Mick West]

I would have a few years ago but my wife forbad it. . . . I was always a risk taker before but my spouse is rather conservative when it comes to such things. . . .don't think at my age she will change our minds. . . .LoL!!!!

You've got to debunk her fear. The actual risk similar to driving a car.

 

[George B]

You've got to debunk her fear. The actual risk similar to driving a car.

Sure. . . .I have been married 34 years . . . trust me when I tell you certain things are not worth the effort. . . .LoL!

 

[Rico]

I would have a few years ago but my wife forbad it. . . . I was always a risk taker before but my spouse is rather conservative when it comes to such things. . . .don't think at my age she will change our minds. . . .LoL!!!!

Oh heck, you got to try it at least once. They are fairly cheap, you would sit beside an experience pilot, and it's a lot of fun.

 

[Mick West]

Sure. . . .I have been married 34 years . . . trust me when I tell you certain things are not worth the effort. . . .LoL!

If not, then at least get a nice flight simulator with a joystick, then you can fly a 767 around and see how easy it is.

 

[George B]

Oh heck, you got to try it at least once. They are fairly cheap, you would sit beside an experience pilot, and it's a lot of fun.

I did some right seat time in a super cub in Alaska with a bush pilot around Mt Mckinley (Denali). . . at 13,000 feet . . . .got real weak . . . was glad to get back to sea level . . .

 

[F4Jock]

The interesting thing is how you get out of the circular arguments. How do you find and address the actual root disagreements or misconceptions?

Simply put: You don't. No matter what George says "You" can't make him exit his Luffberry. Only he can do so and IMNTBHO he won't because he doesn't really want to. He believes. What he is ostensibly asking for despite what he says is that every question he asks can be answered with ironclad certainty: They can't be. The only way you'll get George to admit that he's wrong is to have him get his commercial ticket, put him in the left seat of a 7 6 and have him target the Sears Tower. Of course, given today's security climate he'll be waxed long before that happens but his last words will probably be something like: "See!!! If the government had wanted to it could have shot these panes down long before...."

George, once one is born there is only one thing certain; you're gonna die! The rest is mutable and optional. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence plus my personal and not minimal flying experience says that those four aircraft were taken by religious fanatics who didn't give a rodent's posterior about life, theirs or others. Despite what you and very few others have stated, the level of their training indicates a high enough probability that even under very trying circumstances they were able to go three for three. And remember, as far as we know only one of these units was in any way challenged in executing their op. You know what happened there. Ummmm, you DO admit that much, don't you????

Now if you guys and gals will pardon me I need to clip my toenails. Oh and George, if it helps, given my not inconsiderabe experience with long guns and having actually owned and fired a Carcano, I don't believe Kennedy was killed by Oswald alone.

FACTOID: Occam didn't "invent" the razor you've spoken of. In fact hs name wasn't even Occam.

Keep 'em level!

F4Jock

 

[F4Jock]

I did some right seat time in a super cub in Alaska with a bush pilot around Mt Mckinley (Denali). . . at 13,000 feet . . . .got real weak . . . was glad to get back to sea level . . .

Totally different experience George and actually kinda stupid in a PA 18 with a rookie in the right seat even though it's well below the 18's FL 190 service ceiling. O2 deficiency can set in at about FL 60 depending on one's health. FL 130 is pretty much considered the unpressurized limit w/o O2 but it can be time dependent. No wonder you felt weak!

If you take a lesson you'll be well below FL 50 and more to the point, you'll have your paws on the controls. It'll be instructive as well as fun! Trust me!

OK. My fun meter is about pegged all. Keep 'em level'

F4Jock

P.S. George, in my experience there's only one brand of pilot more Looney Tunes than an S H fighter jock: A bushie! You sure can pick 'em! Oh and it's "forbade...."

 

[George B]

Totally different experience George and actually kinda stupid in a PA 18 with a rookie in the right seat even though it's well below the 18's FL 190 service ceiling. O2 deficiency can set in at about FL 60 depending on one's health. FL 130 is pretty much considered the unpressurized limit w/o O2 but it can be time dependent. No wonder you felt weak!

If you take a lesson you'll be well below FL 50 and more to the point, you'll have your paws on the controls. It'll be instructive as well as fun! Trust me!

OK. My fun meter is about pegged all. Keep 'em level'

F4Jock

P.S. George, in my experience there's only one brand of pilot more Looney Tunes than an S H fighter jock: A bushie! You sure can pick 'em! Oh and it's "forbade...."

My pilot friend was quite a risk taker . . . but was fun . . . by-the-way . . . Hmmm F4Jock . . . you sure dated yourself . . . LoL!!
One may use forbad or forbade . . . http://www.thefreedictionary.com/forbad

 

[George B]

Simply put: You don't. No matter what George says "You" can't make him exit his Luffberry. Only he can do so and IMNTBHO he won't because he doesn't really want to. He believes. What he is ostensibly asking for despite what he says is that every question he asks can be answered with ironclad certainty: They can't be. The only way you'll get George to admit that he's wrong is to have him get his commercial ticket, put him in the left seat of a 7 6 and have him target the Sears Tower. Of course, given today's security climate he'll be waxed long before that happens but his last words will probably be something like: "See!!! If the government had wanted to it could have shot these panes down long before...."

George, once one is born there is only one thing certain; you're gonna die! The rest is mutable and optional. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence plus my personal and not minimal flying experience says that those four aircraft were taken by religious fanatics who didn't give a rodent's posterior about life, theirs or others. Despite what you and very few others have stated, the level of their training indicates a high enough probability that even under very trying circumstances they were able to go three for three. And remember, as far as we know only one of these units was in any way challenged in executing their op. You know what happened there. Ummmm, you DO admit that much, don't you????

Now if you guys and gals will pardon me I need to clip my toenails. Oh and George, if it helps, given my not inconsiderabe experience with long guns and having actually owned and fired a Carcano, I don't believe Kennedy was killed by Oswald alone.

FACTOID: Occam didn't "invent" the razor you've spoken of. In fact hs name wasn't even Occam.

Keep 'em level!

F4Jock

Glad you are most certain about your position . . . would like to see a few more pilots' opinions about 911 . . . that is why I wish to see a poll targeting commercial pilots . . . all I have gotten is anecdotal testimony form pilots on each side of the issue . . . and as always a demonstration would be most impressive as well . . .

 

[F4Jock]

My pilot friend was quite a risk taker . . . but was fun . . . by-the-way . . . Hmmm F4Jock . . . you sure dated yourself . . . LoL!!
One may use forbad or forbade . . . http://www.thefreedictionary.com/forbad

Hey! I freely admit I'm old and decrepit but I'm neither old nor decrepit enough to not have (Yes I know, double negative. So sue me!) the good fortune to have had almost twenty-five years with my beautiful ex-model wife thirteen years my junior. If I do join here I'll use her (present) picture as my Avatar. Besides, the F4 and Vietnam references surely did me in well before the grammar.

George, I've fought, worked, played and lived in sixty foreign countries and every state in the union except Alaska. I'm in no way trying to diminish you or anyone here. I just have a tad more actual retail experience than most.

Yeah, I'm bragging. Or as someone once said; "It ain't a brag if you've done I!"

Keep 'em level!

F4Jock

 

[George B]

Hey! I freely admit I'm old and decrepit but I'm neither old nor decrepit enough to not have (Yes I know, double negative. So sue me!) the good fortune to have had almost twenty-five years with my beautiful ex-model wife thirteen years my junior. If I do join here I'll use her (present) picture as my Avatar. Besides, the F4 and Vietnam references surely did me in well before the grammar.

George, I've fought, worked, played and lived in sixty foreign countries and every state in the union except Alaska. I'm in no way trying to diminish you or anyone here. I just have a tad more actual retail experience than most.

Yeah, I'm bragging. Or as someone once said; "It ain't a brag if you've done I!"

Keep 'em level!

F4Jock

I don't doubt your age or experience . . . I am a bit long in the tooth myself . . . been married 34 years to a special and beautiful woman as well . . . Never-the-less, I have conflicting testimony from two apparently experienced sources . . . who to believe ?? You contend you are the end all of expertise . . . OK . . . I will take that into consideration . . .

 

[F4Jock]

Glad you are most certain about your position . . . would like to see a few more pilots' opinions about 911 . . . that is why I wish to see a poll targeting commercial pilots . . . all I have gotten is anecdotal testimony form pilots on each side of the issue . . . and as always a demonstration would be most impressive as well . . .

"True believers" never cease to amaze me!

1) You've had a couple of 6 7 bus drivers weigh in here, live and in person, pilots with absolutely nothing to gain in the way of publicity or bucks yet you choose to believe "experts" who have obvious monetary or publicity angles.

2) You want a poll, go on a jock website and post one. Seems to me it's incumbent on YOU to prove the accepted and logical explanations wrong, not the other way around. Oh and even if you do so, I flat-ass guarantee that if even ONE driver who answers your poll says he or she believes as you do, you'll latch onto that like Senator McCarthy on a Communist allegation.

3) Demonstration? YOU are the one who needs to demonstrate that "WE" are wrong. You've neither demonstrated nor proven one of your theories. YOU prove to ME how it otherwise happened. For example, YOU get RC instrumentation or nav codes clandestinely or in-flight installed on a 6 7 and I'll start to believe you! I've seen TWO actual demos wherein scientists and engineers with lots of time and the best of equipment have tried to remotely guide modern multi-engined passenger turbine aircraft into terrain at a specific point. Not a building, just straight and level into the bloody ground!! Both failed!! YOU show ME one case of a remotely controlled multi-engined "heavy" turbine aircraft that has been guided into a building. YOU show ME by example that someone with 200 plus hours and a commercial ticket CAN'T fly an airliner already at altitude and trimmed out into a building and I'll maybe start to believe you - unless of course I take a page from your playbook and subsequently come up with another scenario for you to explain. YOU show ME that four men with knives couldn't have taken over an airliner back in the day and I'll maybe start to listen.

At this point I think it's time for you and us to admit that this discussion has gone as far as it practically can unless YOU have some indisputable facts and demonstrations of your own with which to convince us we're wrong.

As far as I'm concerned you have your beliefs and you are most welcome to them. What you believe about 9/11 changes nothing. What others choose to believe about Planet X, Chemtrails and the Easter Bunny, ditto. They change nothing and do nothing other than to foster never ending discussions among role who really should have better things to do.

Sayonara!

Keep 'em level!

F4Jock

 

[F4Jock]

You contend you are the end all of expertise . . . OK . . . I will take that into consideration . . .

No George, I merely point out that I have enough experience to logically rebut someone with virtually none.

Keep 'em level!

F4Jock

 

[George B]

"True believers" never cease to amaze me!

1) You've had a couple of 6 7 bus drivers weigh in here, live and in person, pilots with absolutely nothing to gain in the way of publicity or bucks yet you choose to believe "experts" who have obvious monetary or publicity angles.

2) You want a poll, go on a jock website and post one. Seems to me it's incumbent on YOU to prove the accepted and logical explanations wrong, not the other way around. Oh and even if you do so, I flat-ass guarantee that if even ONE driver who answers your poll says he or she believes as you do, you'll latch onto that like Senator McCarthy on a Communist allegation.

3) Demonstration? YOU are the one who needs to demonstrate that "WE" are wrong. You've neither demonstrated nor proven one of your theories. YOU prove to ME how it otherwise happened. For example, YOU get RC instrumentation or nav codes clandestinely or in-flight installed on a 6 7 and I'll start to believe you! I've seen TWO actual demos wherein scientists and engineers with lots of time and the best of equipment have tried to remotely guide modern multi-engined passenger turbine aircraft into terrain at a specific point. Not a building, just straight and level into the bloody ground!! Both failed!! YOU show ME one case of a remotely controlled multi-engined "heavy" turbine aircraft that has been guided into a building. YOU show ME by example that someone with 200 plus hours and a commercial ticket CAN'T fly an airliner already at altitude and trimmed out into a building and I'll maybe start to believe you - unless of course I take a page from your playbook and subsequently come up with another scenario for you to explain. YOU show ME that four men with knives couldn't have taken over an airliner back in the day and I'll maybe start to listen.

At this point I think it's time for you and us to admit that this discussion has gone as far as it practically can unless YOU have some indisputable facts and demonstrations of your own with which to convince us we're wrong.

As far as I'm concerned you have your beliefs and you are most welcome to them. What you believe about 9/11 changes nothing. What others choose to believe about Planet X, Chemtrails and the Easter Bunny, ditto. They change nothing and do nothing other than to foster never ending discussions among role who really should have better things to do.

Sayonara!

Keep 'em level!

F4Jock

1) A fellow participant on MetaBunk has agreed to post a Poll we developed here for that purpose on an aircraft Forum . . . I ran the same poll on a conspiracy site to see how they responded and to check out the questions . . . http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2141354/pg1

[TABLE="class: poll, width: 520"]
[TR]
[TD="class: poll_title, bgcolor: #1E5C99, colspan: 2, align: center"]POLL: Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the sp[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]7) No[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

27.0% (75)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 340, align: center"]6) Probably not, it would be very hard to do[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

13.7% (38)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 340, align: center"]8) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

10.8% (30)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 340, align: center"]11) I don't know[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

10.4% (29)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 340, align: center"]1) Yes[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

10.1% (28)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 340, align: center"]2) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

9.4% (26)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 340, align: center"]10) No, the plane could never even reach that speed.[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

5.8% (16)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 340, align: center"]9) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

5.0% (14)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 340, align: center"]4) Yes, but it would have been very difficult[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

4.0% (11)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 340, align: center"]3) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

2.5% (7)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 340, align: center"]5) Probably, but they were pretty lucky[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

1.4% (4)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 200, align: center"]Blank (View Results)[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"](72)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]Non-Blank Votes: 278[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Q) Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11? (the pilots were assumed to have earned a commercial license within the previous year) (Tower #1 = 473 - 510 Knots Groundspeed, Tower#2 = 430 Knots Groundspeed, Pentagon = 460 Knots Groundspeed)

 

[Cairenn]

Taking that poll on Godlike is about as meaningful as taking a poll of folks with dogs entered in Westminster about the number of dogs they own, or asking a group of folks at the Republican convention who they intend to vote for.

It is a waste of electrons.

 

[George B]

No George, I merely point out that I have enough experience to logically rebut someone with virtually none.

Keep 'em level!

F4Jock

I always made it very clear I had no experience; however, when people hold themselves out as an experienced pilot or anything else . . . how is a layman supposed to evaluate their testimony . . . ? I have no reason to believe either side of the debate is lying or dishonest . . . I am simply in a quest for what makes the most sense . . .

 

[George B]

Taking that poll on Godlike is about as meaningful as taking a poll of folks with dogs entered in Westminster about the number of dogs they own, or asking a group of folks at the Republican convention who they intend to vote for.

It is a waste of electrons.

Hmmm . . . would be the same as taking a Poll on this Forum . . .

 

[JRBids]

If the issues are so clearly obvious to pilots . . . Why are there pilots who think it is not easy to hit the three targets with the precision accomplished and at the calculated speeds. . . . can you show me a POLL or professional organization that testifies to the fact the feat was within the normal capability of new pilots. . . .? How about a demonstration using 767s flying at 500 mph at 1,000 feet above the ground between two spot lights or lasers over the desert to ocean. . . .

Why do you assume the Pentagon was the target?

 

[George B]

Why do you assume the Pentagon was the target?

I don't necessarily, but I do think it was at least a target of opportunity . . .

 

[Agav8r]

Totally different experience George and actually kinda stupid in a PA 18 with a rookie in the right seat even though it's well below the 18's FL 190 service ceiling. O2 deficiency can set in at about FL 60 depending on one's health. FL 130 is pretty much considered the unpressurized limit w/o O2 but it can be time dependent. No wonder you felt weak!

If you take a lesson you'll be well below FL 50 and more to the point, you'll have your paws on the controls. It'll be instructive as well as fun! Trust me!

OK. My fun meter is about pegged all. Keep 'em level'

F4Jock

P.S. George, in my experience there's only one brand of pilot more Looney Tunes than an S H fighter jock: A bushie! You sure can pick 'em! Oh and it's "forbade...."

F4Jock, where do you rank ag pilots on your Looney Tunes meter? I've had more than one person tell me that I am a few sandwiches short of a picnic before.

 

[F4Jock]

F4Jock, where do you rank ag pilots on your Looney Tunes meter? I've had more than one person tell me that I am a few sandwiches short of a picnic before.

About where I put A-4 and A-1 drivers. Anyone who comes back with foliage in their teeth needs some serious help! *grin*

Keep 'em level!

F4Jock