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

[lee h oswald]

Seems Mick is always quick to say how any demonstration is too difficult, too expensive or would be dismissed out of hand if it were contrary to doubters beliefs . . .

If it were in the US, I would volunteer to be a rooky pilot, aiming my Boeing at a laser representation of a tower. And I hate flying! If accepted I would pay to fly over, put myself up, expecting, nor requesting one cent from anybody. I would volunteer for any role for which I might be suitable and pay my own way - whatever the role.

Can't say fairer than that. What about you, G?

 

[George B]

Are you still having those problems today?

I just think you are being highly unrealistic with your suggestions for demonstrations.

Yes, yes with editing . . . well how about suggesting how a demonstration could be done cheaper or done with the proper considerations to make it possible to answer the appropriate questions . . . for example you never commented on the use of light or laser columns in the desert to test the ability of pilots to hit the towers at the speeds calculated . . Why?

 

[George B]

If it were in the US, I would volunteer to be a rooky pilot, aiming my Boeing at a laser representation of a tower. And I hate flying! If accepted I would pay to fly over, put myself up, expecting, nor requesting one cent from anybody. I would volunteer for any role for which I might be suitable and pay my own way - whatever the role.

Can't say fairer than that. What about you, G?

I hate flying that is why I spent 30 years in the Air Force . . . LoL!!! . . . I sure would contribute a small amount to such a venture though . . .

 

[Mick West]

Yes, yes with editing . . . well how about suggesting how a demonstration could be done cheaper or done with the proper considerations to make it possible to answer the appropriate questions . . . for example you never commented on the use of light or laser columns in the desert to test the ability of pilots to hit the towers at the speeds calculated . . Why?

Go for it. I think it would be an excellent demonstration. Again though I think your problem would be persuading someone to spend the money. Also the speeds calculated are above the safety limits of the plane for that altitude.

Why not start a little smaller? Get a desktop flight simulator, add a good joystick or yoke, and try flying into a tall building. You should be able to do it all with just thrust and aileron control.

Remember when doing this that the pilots had many hours of flying experience, but not in these planes.

 

[lee h oswald]

I hate flying that is why I spent 30 years in the Air Force . . . LoL!!! . . . I sure would contribute a small amount to such a venture though . . .

That's funny. I think I'd probably be a lot happier flying if I was at the controls (never mind the rest of the passengers! lol!) - in fact, I'm sure I would.

Forgive me for saying, G - but you don't seem like your typical 30 yrs service in the most destructive force in modern times type of guy! Just sayin'! x

 

[George B]

That's funny. I think I'd probably be a lot happier flying if I was at the controls (never mind the rest of the passengers! lol!) - in fact, I'm sure I would.

Forgive me for saying, G - but you don't seem like your typical 30 yrs service in the most destructive force in modern times type of guy! Just sayin'! x

I am a contradiction . . . brainwashed at an early age . . . both parents served in 3rd Army in WWII . . . was a Vietnam war protestor . . . got drafted . . . signed a delayed enlistment contract to get out of the Army and to complete a couple of terms of Law School . . . first did research for Air Force . . . changed to medicine and did clinical pathology for 30 years, AI and Investigations . . .

 

[lee h oswald]

I am a contradiction . . . brainwashed at an early age . . . both parents served in 3rd Army in WWII . . . was a Vietnam war protestor . . . got drafted . . . signed a delayed enlistment contract to get out of the Army and to complete a couple of terms of Law School . . . first did research for Air Force . . . changed to medicine and did clinical pathology for 30 years, AI and Investigations . . .

Interesting man! Thanks for sharing, G. Sorry if I sound like a numpty, but what's AI? (presumably not 'artificial intelligence' - which would be quite a good name, given the environs!

 

[lee h oswald]

. . . brainwashed at an early age . . .

But overcoming it in a sterling fashion!

 

[George B]

Interesting man! Thanks for sharing, G. Sorry if I sound like a numpty, but what's AI? (presumably not 'artificial intelligence' - which would be quite a good name, given the environs!

Yes, Artificial Intelligence . . . probably more accurately . . . applied computer assisted medicine . . . robotics, decision analysis, imaging, treatment algorithms, auto documentation, diagnosis assistance, etc . . .

 

[lee h oswald]

Yes, Artificial Intelligence . . . probably more accurately . . . applied computer assisted medicine . . . robotics, decision analysis, imaging, treatment algorithms, auto documentation, diagnosis assistance, etc . . .

There you are. I don't just sound like a numpty - I am one!

That's fascinating, G. I'm deeply intrigued by the human/computer relationship....

 

[Mick West]

If it were in the US, I would volunteer to be a rooky pilot, aiming my Boeing at a laser representation of a tower. And I hate flying! If accepted I would pay to fly over, put myself up, expecting, nor requesting one cent from anybody. I would volunteer for any role for which I might be suitable and pay my own way - whatever the role.

You could try paying for a flight simulator and a joystick. I just made this video for free, using Google Earth flight simulator, and a PlayStation joystick:

​

I think this was actually considerable harder than actually flying into it with a 767.

 

[Billzilla]

Not exactly answering the question (though I will - Yes it's pretty easy to do) but here's a video of some relevance.
It's a guy that learned to fly on flight sims, then got into a Cessna 172 (I think) and flew it from the start of takeoff, a circuit, then landed it all by himself. There was an instructor on board to monitor though.

​

 

[Mick West]

Also here's a 9/11 truther flying a plane with no previous experience. The pilot tells here that it would be easier with a larger plane.

​

If all you are doing is steering and adjusting speed, there is really very little to it. When the hijacking happened, the flight was already in cruise configuration, gear up, flaps retracted. They had nothing at all to do except point it at the WTC and go as fast as possible.

 

[Cairenn]

My hubby has has some training as a pilot and he confirms that. It is landing and taking off that are harder. I don't know if this is so, but the hijackers could have easily ordered the pilots to fly to one of the NYC airports and then when they were near, the hijackers could have taken full control.

 

[George B]

Please, a Cessna 172 is hardly a multi-engine commercial jet airliner going 500 plus mph 1,000 feet above the ground . . . There are people who do not think it was easy to hit the towers no matter what your desk top simulator accomplishes with a novice at the controls . . .

 

[MikeC]

Indeed there are people who think that.

Which of course is not evidence of anything at all other than that they think that - so why bother mentioning it??

 

[George B]

Here is a remotely piloted 720 where a Dutch Roll at landing speeds nearly ruined a crash test . . .

​

 

[Met Watch]

Here is a remotely piloted 727 where a Dutch Roll at landing speeds nearly ruined a crash test . . .

​

Apples to oranges, unless you're suggesting the planes on 9/11 were remotely controlled.

 

[George B]

Indeed there are people who think that.

Which of course is not evidence of anything at all other than that they think that - so why bother mentioning it??

So that is a reason not to test the concept . . . just what are people afraid of . . . stunts and film makers do this kind of thing without thinking . . . except no one has gone 500 mpg on the deck with an airliner . . . the last aircraft I saw it was done with was a F16C . . . the largest part of the two people aboard was a thumb . . .

 

[George B]

Apples to oranges, unless you're suggesting the planes on 9/11 were remotely controlled.

No, I am saying the maneuver above was rehearsed numerous times with the best people available . . . try it with a novice pilot like 911 . . .

 

[Billzilla]

Please, a Cessna 172 is hardly a multi-engine commercial jet airliner going 500 plus mph 1,000 feet above the ground . . . There are people who do not think it was easy to hit the towers no matter what your desk top simulator accomplishes with a novice at the controls . . .

Please what?
I plainly didn't use that video as an example of how difficult (or not) it would be to fly an airliner into a large stationary object, only that it has been demonstrated that it is possible to have someone with only PC simulator experience make a successful flight. The hijackers had a much easier job as the airliners were already airborne and all they had to do was plug a lat & long into the FMS, get the autopilot to take them there, then hand-fly the aeroplane into the very large stationary object.
It's really easy to do, especially as we know they all had more than enough real-world flight training to do it.

Here is a remotely piloted 727 where a Dutch Roll at landing speeds nearly ruined a crash test . . .

​

That's not a Dutch roll, it's just a plain roll and it's just the pilot being a bit behind in his reactions. There's pod scrapes all around the world every day with the pilots actually sitting in the cockpit, let along some distance away looking at a screen with a little time delay from viewing the screen to making a control input to then watching the result on the screen.

 

[George B]

Please what?
I plainly didn't use that video as an example of how difficult (or not) it would be to fly an airliner into a large stationary object, only that it has been demonstrated that it is possible to have someone with only PC simulator experience make a successful flight. The hijackers had a much easier job as the airliners were already airborne and all they had to do was plug a lat & long into the FMS, get the autopilot to take them there, then hand-fly the aeroplane into the very large stationary object.
It's really easy to do, especially as we know they all had more than enough real-world flight training to do it.

That's not a Dutch roll, it's just a plain roll and it's just the pilot being a bit behind in his reactions. There's pod scrapes all around the world every day with the pilots actually sitting in the cockpit, let along some distance away looking at a screen with a little time delay from viewing the screen to making a control input to then watching the result on the screen.

Would you volunteer to fly the demonstration at 520 mph at 1,000 feet above the desert floor in a 767 into a mockup laser building?

 

[George B]

That's not a Dutch roll, it's just a plain roll and it's just the pilot being a bit behind in his reactions. There's pod scrapes all around the world every day with the pilots actually sitting in the cockpit, let along some distance away looking at a screen with a little time delay from viewing the screen to making a control input to then watching the result on the screen.

Passing the decision height of 150 feet (46 m) above ground level (AGL), the aircraft turned slightly to the right of the desired path. The aircraft entered into a situation known as a Dutch Roll. Slightly above that decision point at which the pilot was to execute a "go-around", there appeared to be enough altitude to maneuver back to the center-line of the runway. The aircraft was below the glideslope and below the desired airspeed. Data acquisition systems had been activated, and the aircraft was committed to impact. It contacted the ground, left wing low, at full throttle, with the aircraft nose pointing to the left of the center-line.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstration#section_2

 

[MikeC]

double post 40 minutes later - how did I manage that??

 

[Mick West]

Please what?
I plainly didn't use that video as an example of how difficult (or not) it would be to fly an airliner into a large stationary object, only that it has been demonstrated that it is possible to have someone with only PC simulator experience make a successful flight. The hijackers had a much easier job as the airliners were already airborne and all they had to do was plug a lat & long into the FMS, get the autopilot to take them there, then hand-fly the aeroplane into the very large stationary object.
It's really easy to do, especially as we know they all had more than enough real-world flight training to do it.

It's even easier than that. It was a very clear day, and they could have navigated visually. The Hudson makes a very visible path toward NY, and the Bay is very distinctive from the air. They new roughly where they were, so a simple compass heading (or even just looking at where the sun was) would have sufficed for navigation.

You should try it George. If not trying a flying lesson, get a flight simulator with a joystick. It's very easy to steer a plane.

 

[George B]

It's even easier than that. It was a very clear day, and they could have navigated visually. The Hudson makes a very visible path toward NY, and the Bay is very distinctive from the air. They new roughly where they were, so a simple compass heading (or even just looking at where the sun was) would have sufficed for navigation.

You should try it George. If not trying a flying lesson, get a flight simulator with a joystick. It's very easy to steer a plane.

So you don't think speed has anything to do with it . . . ?

 

[Mick West]

So you don't think speed has anything to do with it . . . ?

Sure it does, things come at you faster. And there's limits on how fast you can go, and the controls change as you get faster.

But what exactly are they doing here - they aim at the towers. They get lined up. They go full throttle. It does not take particularly long to go from 350 mph to 500 mph. You've been in a plane, how long does it take to go from 0 to 180 mph (a 767 takeoff speed)?

Watch this this - start at 0:35, takeoff at 1:00, 25 seconds.
​

 

[George B]

Sure it does, things come at you faster. And there's limits on how fast you can go, and the controls change as you get faster.

But what exactly are they doing here - they aim at the towers. They get lined up. They go full throttle. It does not take particularly long to go from 350 mph to 500 mph. You've been in a plane, how long does it take to go from 0 to 180 mph (a 767 takeoff speed)?

Watch this this - start at 0:35, takeoff at 1:00, 25 seconds.
​

Since it is so easy why hasn't someone demonstrated it to date . . .?

 

[Mick West]

Would you volunteer to fly the demonstration at 520 mph at 1,000 feet above the desert floor in a 767 into a mockup laser building?

I would. 1,000 feet is plenty high enough for level flight.

Why exactly doe you think it would be difficult. It's quite obvious that planes DID fly into the buildings at that speed. So what exactly is the alternative you are suggesting - they were remote controlled? Super-planes?

 

[Mick West]

Since it is so easy why hasn't someone demonstrated it to date . . .?

Because it costs money (767 rental is probably $20,000 per hour) . Because flying at low altitudes at that speed can damage the airframe - potentially $ millions. Because any reasonable pilot know it can be done. It's like asking if you can hit a barrel in the middle of a runway at 100 mph in a car.

 

[George B]

Because it costs money (767 rental is probably $20,000 per hour) . Because flying at low altitudes at that speed can damage the airframe - potentially $ millions. Because any reasonable pilot know it can be done. It's like asking if you can hit a barrel in the middle of a runway at 100 mph in a car.

If they were going to make a movie or if they were doing it for a stunt I am sure it could be done . . . shoot similar things have been done using older aircraft like 720s and 707s and the like . . . I would accept a test with an older airframe . . . Heck do it at much higher altitude with a 767 . . . I am sure the lasers would reach much higher heights . . .

 

[George B]

Take a look at a low cost stunt by the human fly . . http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=nlTsUQRjWNw&sns=em&desktop_uri=/watch?v=nlTsUQRjWNw&sns=em

​

 

[Unregistered]

This guy's father built the Lear Jet, and was one of two recognize at the 25 FAA anniversary for most FAA accreditations.

​

​

Second is pt 6 of Psy-opera

 

[Mick West]

But Lear is unfortunately an unreliable witness. He actually thinks that "holograms" were used, despite the planes being seen by thousands of people from multiple angles. And the engines found actually are the correct engines.

The question here is how hard it would be to fly the planes into a building. Lears main argument there seemed to be that the pilots would slow down because the warning "clacker" was going off, which is obviously nonsense.

 

[George B]

But Lear is unfortunately an unreliable witness. He actually things that "holograms" were used, despite the planes being seen by thousands of people from multiple angles. And the engines found actually are the correct engines.

The question here is how hard it would be to fly the planes into a building. Lears main argument there seemed to be that the pilots would slow down because the warning "clacker" was going off, which is obviously nonsense.

How about this pilot . . .??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSokEXdFjaQ&feature=related

​

And this pilot . . .

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

​

 

[George B]

Interesting video comparing Egypt Air 990 . . . with the flights that hit the towers . . . challenging the maximum controllable air speeds for the 767 . . . sounds rather logical to me . . . just saying . . .

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

​

Captain Rusty Aimer is one interviewed at the end of the video above at 21:37 minutes above . . . see below as well

 

[George B]

Captain Rusty Aimer is one interviewed at the end of the video above . . . he is a consultant in this news about the death of a pilot . . . seems to be a rational pilot . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-0CtSTaxc

​

 

[Billzilla]

Would you volunteer to fly the demonstration at 520 mph at 1,000 feet above the desert floor in a 767 into a mockup laser building?

Sure. I'll do it at 100' if you like.
You pay for the aeroplane though.

The best I've done otherwise is about 270 kts (redline) in a Cessna Citation at about 50'.

Passing the decision height of 150 feet (46 m) above ground level (AGL), the aircraft turned slightly to the right of the desired path. The aircraft entered into a situation known as a Dutch Roll.

Okay, it doesn't look like a Dutch roll and it's unusual to have one happen at low speed and low altitude. I've never heard of it happening except at high altitude.

 

[George B]

Sure. I'll do it at 100' if you like.
You pay for the aeroplane though.

The best I've done otherwise is about 270 kts (redline) in a Cessna Citation at about 50'.





Okay, it doesn't look like a Dutch roll and it's unusual to have one happen at low speed and low altitude. I've never heard of it happening except at high altitude.

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 . . .??

 

[Mick West]

Here's some low altitude flybys and manouvers - not sure how fast they are going though.

​

​

​

​

One thing to note about these big planes is how smoothly they seem to handle.

You know, it's sad that all this stuff has been discussed in great depth many times over the years. Most of what we are doing is mining old threads and other conspiracy and debunking sites. If only things were better organized.