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

[Rico]

I thought we would have had the Poll done by now . . . but life happened . . .
Post #569 this Thread . . .https://www.metabunk.org/posts/35180

I read that. I meant to suggest that maybe you should take the initiative, since the issue seems to concern you more on this forum.

 

[George B]

I read that. I meant to suggest that maybe you should take the initiative, since the issue seems to concern you more on this forum.

I actually tried on one forum. . . but found they had not done a Poll for years, and to do such an activity required full membership which cost fees with no guarantee of success on my part . . . I would prefer someone to assist me who is a member and is familiar with the culture and nuances of their Forum . . . would be willing to work with anyone who has such a relationship . . .

 

[Oxymoron]

In lieu of that for the time being, I have a hypothetical for You, George. Think about it carefully, and give the most genuinely honest answer that you can. You have indicated in other posts that aside from some T-38 sim time and a flight or two in a cub, you are otherwise 0 time. That being the case, here is your scenario. Two aircraft, a 767 and a Cessna 172 are both established in stable cruise flight at 5000 feet. Clear weather, sufficient fuel. You are going to be magically placed alone into the left seat of your choice of either aircraft, but you have different tasks for each. If you choose the 767, you must fly it in a figure 8 pattern. You will not be held to any performance standard, so ascend or descend as you like, you can turn as slowly or aggressively as you feel comfortable with. You must do this for 20 minutes, then you will be removed from the airplane the same way you were placed in it. Your other option, is to land the Cessna. No talking to anyone by radio, it's been disabled. Once placed in the Cessna, the only way for you to get out is to get it to the ground. The purpose of this mental exercise is to honestly ask yourself which you truly believe to be easier, steering a 767 or landing a Cessna. You don't even need to answer me, just wanted you to think about the concept Yourself.

I like it, damn good logic there. I have a few hours in a Cessna and the old Chipmunk but this is all some time ago. I think I would definitely opt for the 767 as being easier.

 

[Oxymoron]

Sorry Mick and everyone, this is a lot off topic but I just wanted to ask F4 if he had any comments or knowledge on the 1976 Iranian F4 UFO case?

 

[F4Jock]

Sorry Mick and everyone, this is a lot off topic but I just wanted to ask F4 if he had any comments or knowledge on the 1976 Iranian F4 UFO case?

Everyone knows about both the 1976 and 78 incidents. Briefly, initial reports in '76 stated that about 0015 local there was radar and visual on what was initially described as a 707-sized UFO. One jock tried to go Fox 2 and claimed his weapons system inop. He also tied to punch out and claimed that system was also inop. There was a report that a smaller craft detached and landed....pursuit reports etc. I have my opinions based on what I've heard and read but I wasn't there and I'd rather not comment because in general some of my opinions would not reflect kindly.......do a bit of your own research and, other than the fact that there was obviously SOMETHING up there, tell me what YOU think.

 

[F4Jock]

I like it, damn good logic there. I have a few hours in a Cessna and the old Chipmunk but this is all some time ago. I think I would definitely opt for the 767 as being easier.

Zero stick time but friends tell me the 7 6 is a fly-by-wire baby carriage.

 

[Oxymoron]

Everyone knows about both the 1976 and 78 incidents. Briefly, initial reports in '76 stated that about 0315 local there was radar and visual on what was initially described as a 707-sized UFO. One jock tried to go Fox 2 and claimed his weapons system inop. He also tied to punch out and claimed that system was also inop. There was a report that a smaller craft detached and landed....pursuit reports etc. I have my opinions based on what I've heard and read but I wasn't there and I'd rather not comment because in general some of my opinions would not reflect kindly.......do a bit of your own research and, other than the fact that there was obviously SOMETHING up there, tell me what YOU think.

Ok, I'll start a thread in the UFO section. I've seen the reports which look pretty compelling, maybe you will have some valuable insight on it, even if only anecdotal.

 

[F4Jock]

Ok, I'll start a thread in the UFO section. I've seen the reports which look pretty compelling, maybe you will have some valuable insight on it, even if only anecdotal.

Only one personal insight: Look into how a Martin-Baker H-7 functions.......

 

[Rico]

Zero stick time but friends tell me the 7 6 is a fly-by-wire baby carriage.

From what I've read, I think only the spoilers are fly-by-wire, and it's still mostly a hydraulic baby carriage. I could be wrong. But I'd probably guess it's none too bad to fly if one understands the systems.

 

[F4Jock]

From what I've read, I think only the spoilers are fly-by-wire, and it's still mostly a hydraulic baby carriage. I could be wrong. But I'd probably guess it's none too bad to fly if one understands the systems.

My bad. I think Electro-hydraulic in earlier models. If not mistaken flaps, slats and spoilers in the 400 were FBW but as I said, zero stick time.

 

[Unregistered]

Planes hitting the towers ? rly ? that was trendy in like .. 2004-2005 when the disinfo "911 in plane site" came out.

There were no planes hitting the towers on 911 in NY its was all acarefull planned psy-op managed with crisis actors ( http://crisisactors.org/ )

for example check this video, bad acting does not stand the test of time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYOEiK5BSNA

 

[Met Watch]

Planes hitting the towers ? rly ? that was trendy in like .. 2004-2005 when the disinfo "911 in plane site" came out.

There were no planes hitting the towers on 911 in NY its was all acarefull planned psy-op managed with crisis actors ( http://crisisactors.org/ )

for example check this video, bad acting does not stand the test of time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYOEiK5BSNA

Despite all the camera angles imaginable clearly showing two planes colliding with the towers.

Please, try again next time.

 

[Ron J]

The pilot hitting the South Tower had the more difficult task, as he flew south of WTC2 and had to fly into the building while banking the plane in a turn, leaving him well off center. All Atta had to do was fly straight and level at the time flight 11 struck the North Tower.

 

[George B]

The pilot hitting the South Tower had the more difficult task, as he flew south of WTC2 and had to fly into the building while banking the plane in a turn, leaving him well off center. All Atta had to do was fly straight and level at the time flight 11 struck the North Tower.

How much more difficult in your opinion?

 

[Mick West]

The pilot hitting the South Tower had the more difficult task, as he flew south of WTC2 and had to fly into the building while banking the plane in a turn, leaving him well off center. All Atta had to do was fly straight and level at the time flight 11 struck the North Tower.

Not really, flight 175 was still approaching straight on from the south, the actual turn to face north was done quite some time earlier. It looks more dramatic on a large scale map.

Any bank he was doing was just a last second correction to his heading, not a result of the turn from south to north.

 

[TWCobra]

Ron J, there was a 20 knot crosswind blowing which the pilot of the second aircraft failed to account for as he lined up on the tower. He only realised his tracking error with less than 10 seconds to go, hence the last second turn.

i personally regard this as some confirmation of the official story. If the aircraft was under some sort of guidance system, it would have taken this drift into account. An experienced pilot also would have been able to pick the drift up from the instruments available to him and compensated.

 

[TWCobra]

Zero stick time but friends tell me the 7 6 is a fly-by-wire baby carriage.

No, it's old school. 6000 hours 767 here.

 

[George B]

No, it's old school. 6000 hours 767 here.

For the pilots . . . what last second maneuver would account for this collision pattern in WTC2? . . . page 2-18 . . .

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

 

[captfitch]

For the pilots . . . what last second maneuver would account for this collision pattern in WTC2? . . . page 2-18 . . .

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

the short answer is a turn.

The long answer... Not sure how "last second" it was. He would have noticed the position of the tower "moving" several seconds before impact and it appears he turned the plane to compensate "aim" better. But at that speed it would have taken a few seconds to get the plane where you want it. It's not complicated but they differentiate the two impacts because of the difference in bank angles. There's something to be said for the difference the bank angles make on the load forces in the building I guess.

 

[George B]

the short answer is a turn.

The long answer... Not sure how "last second" it was. He would have noticed the position of the tower "moving" several seconds before impact and it appears he turned the plane to compensate "aim" better. But at that speed it would have taken a few seconds to get the plane where you want it. It's not complicated but they differentiate the two impacts because of the difference in bank angles. There's something to be said for the difference the bank angles make on the load forces in the building I guess.

My question. . . if this was a long approach turn to hit the tower . . . the chance of hitting it would have been much reduced over a direct flight path would it not. . . what does this say to you about the pilot?

 

[captfitch]

I'm not sure what your reference is regarding "long approach turn". Please explain

 

[George B]

I'm not sure what your reference is regarding "long approach turn". Please explain

Not sure how "last second" it was . . .

I thought that is what your were implying form your quote above . . . never-the-less . . . what do you think happened to get the pattern and what does it tell you about what was happening and the skill of the pilot?

 

[captfitch]

He was turning... A little too late obviously. Skill? Hard to tell. Judging flight path with reference to the ground is not an easy thing to learn or do. What you see out the window means very little, especially with wind. It takes some time to visualize the track of an aircraft and predict where it will be in the future. That said, much of initial training is focused on honing that skill. I don't know what type of training they received but I would say they were exposed to an environment where they had to practice that skill to some degree. Or not, I don't really know. In any case, even experienced guys would have a more difficult time aiming that aircraft at that speed at that altitude. Not to mention, thier target was a single point with very little lateral guidance cues like a runway would present. It's very difficult to quickly judge if you are "on track".

If you'd like I could explain in great detail the meaning behind his bank angle but I'm doing real work right now so I can't spend much time on it now. Maybe later.

 

[George B]

He was turning... A little too late obviously. Skill? Hard to tell. Judging flight path with reference to the ground is not an easy thing to learn or do. What you see out the window means very little, especially with wind. It takes some time to visualize the track of an aircraft and predict where it will be in the future. That said, much of initial training is focused on honing that skill. I don't know what type of training they received but I would say they were exposed to an environment where they had to practice that skill to some degree. Or not, I don't really know. In any case, even experienced guys would have a more difficult time aiming that aircraft at that speed at that altitude. Not to mention, thier target was a single point with very little lateral guidance cues like a runway would present. It's very difficult to quickly judge if you are "on track".

If you'd like I could explain in great detail the meaning behind his bank angle but I'm doing real work right now so I can't spend much time on it now. Maybe later.

Thanks . . . yes when you get the chance I would . . .

 

[George B]

Wtc 1 . . .

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf​

 

[George B]

He was turning... A little too late obviously. Skill? Hard to tell. Judging flight path with reference to the ground is not an easy thing to learn or do. What you see out the window means very little, especially with wind. It takes some time to visualize the track of an aircraft and predict where it will be in the future. That said, much of initial training is focused on honing that skill. I don't know what type of training they received but I would say they were exposed to an environment where they had to practice that skill to some degree. Or not, I don't really know. In any case, even experienced guys would have a more difficult time aiming that aircraft at that speed at that altitude. Not to mention, thier target was a single point with very little lateral guidance cues like a runway would present. It's very difficult to quickly judge if you are "on track".

If you'd like I could explain in great detail the meaning behind his bank angle but I'm doing real work right now so I can't spend much time on it now. Maybe later.

In any case, even experienced guys would have a more difficult time aiming that aircraft at that speed at that altitude.

In view of the subject of this Thread that is an interesting comment . . . how many times do you think the above pilots could have hit the 120 foot wide towers in ten tries? (1-10) . . . ?

 

[Pete]

I feel that flying a plane into a building is probably comparable as a theme to when children steal their parent's cars and crash by accident.

They both know how to control the vehicle enough for its purpose (to fly, or to drive) approximately, and in each case they aren't concerned about the consequences of what happens to the vehicle they are in or their surroundings. However, deliberately missing something last minute is much harder than smacking into any object any which way you can, either through incompetence or intention.

 

[George B]

I feel that flying a plane into a building is probably comparable as a theme to when children steal their parent's cars and crash by accident.

They both know how to control the vehicle enough for its purpose (to fly, or to drive) approximately, and in each case they aren't concerned about the consequences of what happens to the vehicle they are in or their surroundings. However, deliberately missing something last minute is much harder than smacking into any object any which way you can, either through incompetence or intention.

1) One must find the object; 2) One must avoid hitting other things on the way; 3) One then hits the targets 3 for 3 at speeds in excess of any safety standards and at very low altitudes . . . and at a 30 to 45 degree bank at the towers and at 30 feet off the ground at the Pentagon . . .

 

[Jazzy]

1) One must find the object; 2) One must avoid hitting other things on the way; 3) One then hits the targets 3 for 3 at speeds in excess of any safety standards and at very low altitudes and at a 30 to 45 degree bank at the towers and at 30 feet off the ground at the Pentagon.

Absolutely true, George. Please don't try working out the odds of it happening that way, or you'll be here for years. I won't.

 

[captfitch]

Oh no. I think I accidentally wandered into your conspiracy theory George.

I said more difficult. Not really difficult. And please drop the whole speed thing. Your concepts of safety speeds and maneuvering and all that are incorrect if I remember from previous threads. They were not going especially fast. Evidenced by the fact they were still flying just fine.

 

[George B]

Oh no. I think I accidentally wandered into your conspiracy theory George.

I said more difficult. Not really difficult. And please drop the whole speed thing. Your concepts of safety speeds and maneuvering and all that are incorrect if I remember from previous threads. They were not going especially fast. Evidenced by the fact they were still flying just fine.

I accept your position but what about my question . . . ten tries how many hits . . . (1-10) ??

 

[George B]

Absolutely true, George. Please don't try working out the odds of it happening that way, or you'll be here for years. I won't.

I won't . . . in investigating accidents I have seen unbelievably low probabilities happen . . . fate, bad luck . . . it is your time to go what ever. . . my question goes to how remarkable was the flying . . . ?

 

[Ron J]

Not really, flight 175 was still approaching straight on from the south, the actual turn to face north was done quite some time earlier. It looks more dramatic on a large scale map.

Any bank he was doing was just a last second correction to his heading, not a result of the turn from south to north.

When viewing video footage shot from the east, the jet liner looked as if it was lined up on WTC2.
From live network video that was shot from the north, shown over and over again while the Towers were still standing, the jetliner could be seen to the west of WTC1 angling across to the north and east and a glimpse of 175 could be seen between the Towers just before a fireball erupted from WTC2.

The map shows 175 flying north and east from point G, in the direction of WTC2, but not on a north south axis with the Tower as flight 11 was. He was not making a hard banking 180, flying just to the west of WTC1 and looping right around to hit WTC2, but he was changing course at the last moment, which left him off center with the Tower.

 

[George B]

When viewing video footage shot from the east, the jet liner looked as if it was lined up on WTC2.
From live network video that was shot from the north, shown over and over again while the Towers were still standing, the jetliner could be seen to the west of WTC1 angling across to the north and east and a glimpse of 175 could be seen between the Towers just before a fireball erupted from WTC2.

The map shows 175 flying north and east from point G, in the direction of WTC2, but not on a north south axis with the Tower as flight 11 was. He was not making a hard banking 180, flying just to the west of WTC1 and looping right around to hit WTC2, but he was changing course at the last moment, which left him off center with the Tower.

How easy is the adjustment at 500 mph . . . does speed make it harder or easier? Is not a 30 to 45 degree bank significant at 500 mph . . . ?

 

[Met Watch]

1) One must find the object; 2) One must avoid hitting other things on the way; 3) One then hits the targets 3 for 3 at speeds in excess of any safety standards and at very low altitudes . . . and at a 30 to 45 degree bank at the towers and at 30 feet off the ground at the Pentagon . . .

Not going to speak for the Pentagon, because I'm not as familiar with that, but...

1) It was the Twin Towers. How hard is it to miss that? How hard is it to find New York?
2) Tallest buildings in Manhattan. There wasn't anything in the way.

 

[George B]

Not going to speak for the Pentagon, because I'm not as familiar with that, but...

1) It was the Twin Towers. How hard is it to miss that? How hard is it to find New York?
2) Tallest buildings in Manhattan. There wasn't anything in the way.

How about number 3) . . . at speeds in excess of any safety standards and at very low altitudes . . . and at a 30 to 45 degree bank at the towers

 

[Met Watch]

How about number 3) . . . at speeds in excess of any safety standards and at very low altitudes . . . and at a 30 to 45 degree bank at the towers

Well, they certainly didn't fly that angle all the way...it looked to be in that position for a second or two before impact, more than long enough to stay intact to crash into the building.

 

[Jazzy]

How easy is the adjustment at 500 mph . . . does speed make it harder or easier? Is not a 30 to 45 degree bank significant at 500 mph . . . ?

The plane is very sensitive at high speed. A very light touch would be all that was necessary.

The banking is very significant, 1.8G for the 30 degree, and nearly double that (by imperfect memory) for the 45 degree. Enough to make you swallow your false teeth.

 

[George B]

The plane is very sensitive at high speed. A very light touch would be all that was necessary.

The banking is very significant, 1.8G for the 30 degree, and nearly double that (by imperfect memory) for the 45 degree. Enough to make you swallow your false teeth.

So my question still remains how difficult was it . . . if the pilots had ten tries (1 - 10)?

 

[George B]

Oh no. I think I accidentally wandered into your conspiracy theory George.

I said more difficult. Not really difficult. And please drop the whole speed thing. Your concepts of safety speeds and maneuvering and all that are incorrect if I remember from previous threads. They were not going especially fast. Evidenced by the fact they were still flying just fine.

Your response may also remove the theory from a possibility . . . this may prove the autopilot or remote control was not possible but just knee jerk flying by a either good or bad pilot . . . I assume an autopilot would not adjust a passenger jet 40 degrees in two seconds at 500 mph . . .