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

I am not an airshow pilot and I could do it comfortably. The hijackers? They obviously didn't find it insurmountable either. All of them were commercial licenced with differing amounts of flying time. Get yourself a copy of Flight Simulator, George. Plug in the details of the day and see how many times it takes you to be able to do it. These pilots knew what they had to do and probably practiced the same way. Flight Sim is actually very good for that sort of thing.
 
Interesting thread over on Above Top Secret. The OP is certainly deluding himself. Probably requires a bit of reality brought into the thread from the likes of TWCobra and others?

'9/11 Truth: An UNMODIFIED Boeing 767 cannot fly @ 510 knots @ Sea Level'

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread990280/pg1

It doesn't matter, according to the OP, because the planes were modified. According to the OP.

Edit: Oops. My bad. Itwasn't the OP, but that was the answer.
 
I am not an airshow pilot and I could do it comfortably. The hijackers? They obviously didn't find it insurmountable either. All of them were commercial licenced with differing amounts of flying time. Get yourself a copy of Flight Simulator, George. Plug in the details of the day and see how many times it takes you to be able to do it. These pilots knew what they had to do and probably practiced the same way. Flight Sim is actually very good for that sort of thing.
Simulators mimic flight conditions of the aircraft in response to historically validated experiences . . . but does it simulate all conditions such as unsafe or not to exceed speeds and such things as fear, anxiety, anger, depression, of the pilot ??
 
Simulators mimic flight conditions of the aircraft in response to historically validated experiences . . . but does it simulate all conditions such as unsafe or not to exceed speeds and such things as fear, anxiety, anger, depression, of the pilot ??

The higher category Flight Sims do. The aerodynamic conditions and all those emotions... I have had them all during Sim rides. ;)
 
A link to the article would be helpful.
It was something put out by pilots for 911 Truth. It was about a simulator for one of the airlines where the simulator training pilot asked those on the simulator if they wanted to see how easy or difficult it was to hit the towers. They also talked to him on a video. That video is here
 
It was something put out by pilots for 911 Truth. It was about a simulator for one of the airlines where the simulator training pilot asked those on the simulator if they wanted to see how easy or difficult it was to hit the towers. They also talked to him on a video. That video is here

So it wasn't an article?
 
I did read something about it a while back and don't have a link. It is the same thing discussed on the video.

Sorry, 40 seconds in and it's regurgitating the same drivel that was done earlier in this thread. Read the whole thread Tony and George.
 
I refer you to the tons of messages following your post. You are just trolling now.
No . . . the issue of why there was disagreement between some senior pilots in the videos and some of the participants here was never resolved to my knowledge it was just dropped . . .
 
No . . . the issue of why there was disagreement between some senior pilots in the videos and some of the participants here was never resolved to my knowledge it was just dropped . . .

Page 19 in a thread versus page 1? I think it is covered.
 
There was disagreement . . . it was not resolved and cannot without investment in demonstration of capabilities . . . end of story.
I seriously doubt that we will see any legitimate attempts to demonstrate that the aircraft that hit the twin towers in the way observed were human controlled. The dynamic pressure on the aircraft, due to air pressure at or near sea level and the airspeeds involved, would have greatly magnified any little over steer and been too great to allow human control. The experienced airline pilots who tried and couldn't do it in a legitimate sophisticated flight simulator proves the point.

Anyone who simply says they could do it and uses relatively unsophisticated flight simulation software, like that available from Microsoft, to try and prove it, is just blustering without a basis.
 
Last edited:
I seriously doubt that we will see any legitimate attempts to demonstrate that the aircraft that hit the twin towers in the way observed were human controlled. The dynamic pressure on the aircraft, due to air pressure at or near sea level and the airspeeds involved, would have greatly magnified any little over steer and been too great to allow human control. The experienced airline pilots who tried and couldn't do it in a legitimate sophisticated flight simulator proves the point.

Anyone who simply says they could do it and uses relatively unsophisticated flight simulation software, like that available from Microsoft, to try and prove it, is just blustering without a basis.
That is not the opinion of all the pilots who have commented on this Thread so far . . . the only pilots I know that have ventured a comment that it was impossible or beyond the capabilities of aircraft and minimally trained and experienced commercial pilots are in the posted videos from the 911 groups . . . it comes down to who do you believe . . .
 
That is not the opinion of all the pilots who have commented on this Thread so far . . . the only pilots I know that have ventured a comment that it was impossible or beyond the capabilities of aircraft and minimally trained and experienced commercial pilots are in the posted videos from the 911 groups . . . it comes down to who do you believe . . .
I don't know of any pilots who have successfully hit the buildings in an airliner in a legitimate flight simulator at the airspeeds involved at or near sea level. Opinions by anonymous individuals claiming to be pilots don't count.
 
I don't know of any pilots who have successfully hit the buildings in an airliner in a legitimate flight simulator at the airspeeds involved at or near sea level. Opinions by anonymous individuals claiming to be pilots don't count.
Who has personally told you they could not hit the buildings in a simulator?
 
Last edited:
It sounds like you didn't watch this video starting at 1:20 in

I have watched it in the past . . . and was impressed with the testimony; however, no one here identifying themselves as a pilot agreed with the conclusions . . .

Have you personally ever talked to a commercial pilot that agreed with the video ?
 
Last edited:
If you believe no pilot/plane could hit the tower, then you think modified plane/no passengers.
Given that remains of the passengers were identified, it's a moot point and an intellectual dead-end..
 
I have watched it in the past . . . and was impressed with the testimony; however, no one here identifying themselves as a pilot agreed with the conclusions . . .

Have you personally ever talked to a commercial pilot that agreed with the video ?
How would you know who here is actually a pilot let alone an airline pilot? I don't see anyone claiming to be a pilot who even gives their actual name let alone any proof of being a pilot.

Science shows the dynamic pressure, at sea level and the speeds involved, is incompatible with human control and the maneuvers observed with the planes that hit the WTC. The simulator testimony by a airline flight simulator check pilot, who is named in the video, is compatible with the science.
 
Last edited:
If you believe no pilot/plane could hit the tower, then you think modified plane/no passengers.
Given that remains of the passengers were identified, it's a moot point and an intellectual dead-end..
Another theory could be remote controlled by computer aided telemetry targeting system . . . assumption is it aided the hijackers do their job . . .
 
How would you know who here is actually a pilot let alone an airline pilot? I don't see any claiming to be pilots who even give their actual names let alone any proof of being a pilot.
Well. . . over the months of interaction one gets a feeling if someone is playing a game . . . . while I can not authenticate their credentials I am sure Mick could . . . can you rely on the credentials of the people (pilots) in the video in question?
 
If you believe no pilot/plane could hit the tower, then you think modified plane/no passengers.
Given that remains of the passengers were identified, it's a moot point and an intellectual dead-end..
Nobody is saying the passengers weren't on the plane. I am saying remote control was the most likely method of flying the planes to the target and that science shows it could not be neophyte pilot hijackers, as experienced airline pilots have a problem hitting the buildings at the speeds involved at sea level due to the extreme dynamic pressure.
 
How would you know who here is actually a pilot let alone an airline pilot? I don't see anyone claiming to be a pilot who even gives their actual name let alone any proof of being a pilot.

Science shows the dynamic pressure, at sea level and the speeds involved, is incompatible with human control and the maneuvers observed with the planes that hit the WTC. The simulator testimony by a airline flight simulator check pilot, who is named in the video, is compatible with the science.
And you have the expertise to validate what you said . . . I don't . . . I am not an aeronautical engineer or scientist . . . ?
 
So another level of technological complexity has to be added and accounted for, for which there has never been any evidence other than the opinion 'it can't have happened this way so technology was added to achieve it'. It never ends.
 
So another level of technological complexity has to be added and accounted for, for which there has never been any evidence other than the opinion 'it can't have happened this way so technology was added to achieve it'. It never ends.
And that is the difficulty of the theory . . . there would have to have been a team of individuals modifying the avionics of the two types of airframes in advance of the hijacking . . . In what two or three different air depots . . .
 
So another level of technological complexity has to be added and accounted for, for which there has never been any evidence other than the opinion 'it can't have happened this way so technology was added to achieve it'. It never ends.
When about 16 to 19 trillion in oil is at stake for those planning the event a few layers of technology don't seem significant. It isn't just an opinion that human control could not have been directing the planes to their targets. Science shows remote control with computer aided guidance was the only way the observed maneuvers were possible.

What you are saying is nothing more than your own incredulity.
 
When about 16 to 19 trillion in oil is at stake for those planning the event a few layers of technology don't seem significant. It isn't just an opinion that human control could not have been directing the planes to their targets. Science shows remote control with computer aided guidance was the only way the observed maneuvers were possible.

What you are saying is nothing more than your own incredulity.
Your point is only supported by the experts in the video . . . do you have any other experts willing to support the concepts of limited human capability?
 
As moderator I am asking you both to refrain from personal comments . . . keep your comments to the evidence and not personal . . .
 
Nobody is saying the passengers weren't on the plane. I am saying remote control was the most likely method of flying the planes to the target and that science shows it could not be neophyte pilot hijackers, as experienced airline pilots have a problem hitting the buildings at the speeds involved at sea level due to the extreme dynamic pressure.
You say remote controll was the most likely method of control. These were commercial aircraft and the airlines know where they are at all times so I have some questions.

It's not as simple as just downloading a program to the aircraft's computer and then flying. When were these aircraft taken out of service so the remote control technology could be added?

Adding the extra technology would have resulted in extra service time and impacted the Airlines schedule and revenue. Are there any records of the maintenance being delayed or is airline management part of the conspiracy?

If the technology was added during the normal maintenance cycle that would have mean that either extra personnel were added to the shift to make the changes or the normal service personnel made the changes. Detailed service records are kept on aircraft maintenance. There should be a record of either the extra personnel or the normal maintenance crew installing unfamiliar equipment. If the records don't exist and no-one responsible for the maintenance has come forward to mention the extra personnel or unusual technology does that mean the maintenance crews are part of the conspiracy?
 
Tony, a remote control system would still have to use the flight control system present on the jets. So the remote controller would run into the same problems you believe would stop a human pilot.

The person in that video presented no evidence to back up his claims that no pilots could hit the buildings. The claim that they had to reduce to landing speed to do so is ludicrous. I say again, it is not that difficult. Bill Lear is a case in point with some of his claims about this sort of thing. He can sound very convincing right up to the point he starts giving in depth knowledge about secret bases on the moon. I suspect that caller of the same mental state.

You see videos of passenger aircraft doing low fast passes at air shows. They either fly along a 45 metre wide runway or beside it. That is the skill required and, say in the case of the RNZAF 757, there is nothing in the training of those pilots out of the ordinary.

We do unusual attitude recovery training in flight simulators. I have flown the 767 simulator at speeds far in excess of 400 knots during a recovery. It is not a problem.

I personally don't feel the need to prove to you what I do for a living but my name is Mike Glynn, those that have been here for some time know that.
 
Tony, a remote control system would still have to use the flight control system present on the jets. So the remote controller would run into the same problems you believe would stop a human pilot.

The person in that video presented no evidence to back up his claims that no pilots could hit the buildings. The claim that they had to reduce to landing speed to do so is ludicrous. I say again, it is not that difficult. Bill Lear is a case in point with some of his claims about this sort of thing. He can sound very convincing right up to the point he starts giving in depth knowledge about secret bases on the moon. I suspect that caller of the same mental state.

You see videos of passenger aircraft doing low fast passes at air shows. They either fly along a 45 metre wide runway or beside it. That is the skill required and, say in the case of the RNZAF 757, there is nothing in the training of those pilots out of the ordinary.

We do unusual attitude recovery training in flight simulators. I have flown the 767 simulator at speeds far in excess of 400 knots during a recovery. It is not a problem.

I personally don't feel the need to prove to you what I do for a living but my name is Mike Glynn, those that have been here for some time know that.
So as I said before it comes down to who you believe . . . the personalities on the video or the experts here. . .
 
For due diligence, do a search on

John Daniel Govatos
J Daniel Govatos
Daniel Govatos

Feel free to do a search on me as well!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top