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

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
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.

Mick, I don't think you are getting the point . . . these vids are well within the flight capabilities of the aircraft you are showing . . . this proves only that large aircraft can fly impressively near ground level (by experienced pilots). . . we knew that . . . questions remain and experienced pilots of heavy commercial aircraft are asking them as well as can be seen in the videos supplied above . . .


1) Can a 767 fly at 2,000 feet and below at 510 mph without either breaking up or being uncontrollable to a novice pilot?? . . . this leads to the next question . . .
2) Were the 767 craft being flown by remote control . . . or were the craft not 767s . . .??
 

Met Watch

Moderator
Mick, I don't think you are getting the point . . . these vids are well within the flight capabilities of the aircraft you are showing . . . this proves only that large aircraft can fly impressively near ground level (by experienced pilots). . . we knew that . . . questions remain and experienced pilots of heavy commercial aircraft are asking them as well as can be seen in the videos supplied above . . .


1) Can a 767 fly at 2,000 feet and below at 510 mph without either breaking up or being uncontrollable to a novice pilot?? . . . this leads to the next question . . .
2) Were the 767 craft being flown by remote control . . . or were the craft not 767s . . .??


1) Yes, it can. There has only been one recorded break-up of a 767, when a thrust reverser activated during cruise. There has not been a single recorded incident of a 767 breaking up due to overspeed.

And yes, the plane can remain controllable. Your Egypt Air flight was going much faster than it was designed for, yet it was controllable (it even pulled out of its dive at one point). Both of the planes involved with WTC did not exceed their maximum maneuvering speed.

2) No, they were not remotely controlled, and yes, the crafts were 767-200s.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
1) Yes, it can. There has only been one recorded break-up of a 767, when a thrust reverser activated during cruise. There has not been a single recorded incident of a 767 breaking up due to overspeed.

And yes, the plane can remain controllable. Your Egypt Air flight was going much faster than it was designed for, yet it was controllable (it even pulled out of its dive at one point). Both of the planes involved with WTC did not exceed their maximum maneuvering speed.

2) No, they were not remotely controlled, and yes, the crafts were 767-200s.

There are several experienced 767 pilots in the videos above that disagree with you . . . Posts #35, 36, and 37 . . .
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.
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 . . .??

Yes of course, they are very tough aeroplanes.
Why wouldn't it? What's going to fall off?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes of course, they are very tough aeroplanes.
Why wouldn't it? What's going to fall off?

I think at 510 mph at 2,000 feet above sea level is not the same as 22,000 feet . . . that the air resistance could do considerable damage . . . yes, like a control surface rip off like a tail section or severe oscillation like can be seen in a wind tunnel . . . do me a favor and watch the video about comparing Egyptian flight 990 with the 911 767s . . .


 

MikeC

Closed Account
1) Can a 767 fly at 2,000 feet and below at 510 mph without either breaking up or being uncontrollable to a novice pilot??

Vne (never exceed) or Vmo(maximum operating - which is more normal for jets) is a limit to prevent overstressing of het airframe - but that does not mean the aicraft will instantly break up if you are over it - it just means the airframe may be over-stressed, which will compromise safety at some point in the future.

Should Vmo be exceeded there are maintenance checks to be performed to establish how much over-stress has been suffered and identify the maintenance required to correct it.

flight 11 was apparently traveling at about 404 kts, 465 mph, 748 km/h.

Flight 175 only just managed to hit south Tower in a turn at 513 kts, 590 mph, 950 kmh, having ben descending at as much as 10,000 feet per minute only minutes befor hand (at 9am the controllers were calling out its rate of descent every 12 seconds, at 9.01 they had a DC-9 riolling hard left then hard right to avoid being hit by 175 at 7000 feet)

I do not believe the pilots cared about any maintenance inspections for over-stressing

the question of whether "novice" pilots could control tham "at that speed" is meaningless - they a/c were not travelling at a speed where they were uncontrollable, nor were they breaking up. If a novice pilot could control them at any "normal" speed then they could also control them at the impact speeds.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Vne (never exceed) or Vmo(maximum operating - which is more normal for jets) is a limit to prevent overstressing of het airframe - but that does not mean the aicraft will instantly break up if you are over it - it just means the airframe may be over-stressed, which will compromise safety at some point in the future.

Should Vmo be exceeded there are maintenance checks to be performed to establish how much over-stress has been suffered and identify the maintenance required to correct it.

flight 11 was apparently traveling at about 404 kts, 465 mph, 748 km/h.

Flight 175 only just managed to hit south Tower in a turn at 513 kts, 590 mph, 950 kmh, having ben descending at as much as 10,000 feet per minute only minutes befor hand (at 9am the controllers were calling out its rate of descent every 12 seconds, at 9.01 they had a DC-9 riolling hard left then hard right to avoid being hit by 175 at 7000 feet)

I do not believe the pilots cared about any maintenance inspections for over-stressing

the question of whether "novice" pilots could control tham "at that speed" is meaningless - they a/c were not travelling at a speed where they were uncontrollable, nor were they breaking up. If a novice pilot could control them at any "normal" speed then they could also control them at the impact speeds.

Then you disagree with experienced pilots who have said otherwise . . . Who should I trust?
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.

I think at 510 mph at 2,000 feet above sea level is not the same as 22,000 feet . . . that the air resistance could do considerable damage . . . yes, like a control surface rip off like a tail section or severe oscillation like can be seen in a wind tunnel . . .

I don't have to thing or guess, I know.
Nothing will fall off.
Do we have to link - again - to the DC-8 that was deliberately flown faster than mach one and it too had nothing come off it.



Then you disagree with experienced pilots who have said otherwise . . . Who should I trust?


No he agrees with experienced pilots - me and TWRCobra for starters - and yet again the physical evidence that shows that the airliners hit the buildings and the thousands of witnesses that also saw the same thing.
If you're going to promote a woo-woo theory, at least make it something remotely possible.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I don't have to thing or guess, I know.
Nothing will fall off.
Do we have to link - again - to the DC-8 that was deliberately flown faster than mach one and it too had nothing come off it.






No he agrees with experienced pilots - me and TWRCobra for starters - and yet again the physical evidence that shows that the airliners hit the buildings and the thousands of witnesses that also saw the same thing.
If you're going to promote a woo-woo theory, at least make it something remotely possible.

1) If the DC - 8 wasn't flown near sea level I don't think it proves much at all . . .

2) My questions are logical extensions of what woo-woo positions of experienced 767 pilots hold . . . you think they are all woo-woo . . . if so what are you basing your position on??? Challenge the pilots testimony not my presenting them to you . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yeah . . . between 50,000 and 45,000 feet . . . that proves a lot . . .
Not!!
BW: Tell me about the supersonic DC-8 flight.

RHE: That was Bill Magruder’s idea. Very smart—get it out there, show the airplane can survive this and not fall apart. Boeing will never try it [with the 707] because they don’t want to be second. I’m sorry if that affects anybody but that’s just the way it was. We took it up to 10 miles up, 52,000 feet—that’s a record—and put it in a half-a-G pushover. Bill maintained about 50 pounds of push. He didn’t trim it for the dive so that it would want to pull out by itself. In the dive, at about 45,000 feet, it went to Mach 1.01 for maybe 16 seconds, then he recovered. But the recovery was a little scary. When he pulled back, the elevator was ineffective; it didn’t do anything, so he said, “Well, I’ll use the stabilizer,” and the stabilizer wouldn’t run. It stalled, because of the load. What he did, because he was smart, is something that no other pilot would do: He pushed over into the dive more, which relieved the load on the stabilizer. He was able to run the [stabilizer] motor, with the relieved load, and he recovered at about 35,000 feet. That’s an unofficial supersonic record, payload record, and of course an altitude record for a commercial transport. I think it took about 10 years for the SSTs to beat that.
http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/I-Was-There-Boeing-Will-Never-Try-It.html?device=iphone
Content from External Source
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
There are a lot of experienced pilots out there, but I am sure a majority of our civil pilots don't generally fly their aircraft exceeding Vmo unless they are test pilots. So testimonials from either side are rather moot for the most part IMO.

Generally speaking, the controls to control attitudes and movements in a 767 jetliner are not that much different than a Cessna 152. Aiming an airliner for a building is a rather simplistic act, and really, all it comes down to is aim and accelerate, kinda like firing off an arrow from a bow.

In my opinion, I don't think it would be all that hard for any novice pilot to accomplish the act even with a final velocity of 510 kts ground speed. So long as the aircraft stays in one piece and so long as it doesn't break the sound barrier, I see no reason for the act to be all that difficult. I think it mainly comes down to whether or not the aircraft will break up, and after Vmo, it's really anyone's guess when or how that will happen.
 

Met Watch

Moderator
Oh, and out of curiosity, George - how hard do you think it is to hit a building? Do you consider it a small target, like PilotsforTruth does?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Oh, and out of curiosity, George - how hard do you think it is to hit a building? Do you consider it a small target, like PilotsforTruth does?
At 510 mph I think it could cause a problem for a 160 foot wide aircraft to hit a 260 foot wide target . . . YES . . . landing speed possibly not as much for a novice pilot . . .
 

Met Watch

Moderator
At 510 mph I think it could cause a problem for a 160 foot wide aircraft to hit a 260 foot wide target . . . YES . . . landing speed possibly not as much for a novice pilot . . .

Let's take into account that it was a clear, cloudless day in New York City that day. Let's take into account that visibility was greater than 20 miles. Let's take into account that the WTC towers, at that time, were probably the most recognizable landmarks from the air. Your argument seems to imply they simply did not have the time to react to steer into the building...that was likely visible to them a good time before impact.

You don't need a set course to hit a building that is wider than your average runway. The visibility was about as perfect as you can get, so you could see the towers coming. Is it really that difficult under those circumstances?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Let's take into account that it was a clear, cloudless day in New York City that day. Let's take into account that visibility was greater than 20 miles. Let's take into account that the WTC towers, at that time, were probably the most recognizable landmarks from the air. Your argument seems to imply they simply did not have the time to react to steer into the building...that was likely visible to them a good time before impact.

You don't need a set course to hit a building that is wider than your average runway. The visibility was about as perfect as you can get, so you could see the towers coming. Is it really that difficult under those circumstances?
I am not the one questioning it . . . it is experienced pilots . . . why don't they recognize the ease of such a maneuver . . . maybe you should ask them???
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.
1) If the DC - 8 wasn't flown near sea level I don't think it proves much at all . . .

2) My questions are logical extensions of what woo-woo positions of experienced 767 pilots hold . . . you think they are all woo-woo . . . if so what are you basing your position on??? Challenge the pilots testimony not my presenting them to you . . .

How about you do some research so you can remove the word 'think'.
You questions are most certainly not logical because of the reasons I mentioned before.
The speed of the aeroplane has not a lot to do with how hard it is to hit a large object, though it does generally get easier the faster you go because the wind affects the aeroplane less.
FWIW when flying an ILS, no matter what size the aeroplane is a halfway reasonable pilot can put the nose of the aeroplane through the equivalent of a 9 metre diameter circle. And that's without seeing anything at all outside. Looking outside makes it absurdly easy.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
The Flight envelope of the 767 was designed for normal operations. I have flown the 767 to those limits of both 360 knots and M0.86 without a problem because that is what the envelope is for. A normal operating envelope. When a 767 climbs we start at an airspeed of around 290 knots and at around 28000 feet transition to a Mach number climb of about .8M. The reverse is done on descent. The aircraft is easily controllable throughout this envelope.

The author of this video, a guy called Balsamo who has apparently been caught out photoshopping a fake flight envelope diagram in order to "prove" his hypothesis, seems to have not much idea of the mach number/IAS relationship and what it means. The Mach number limit on the 767 is an aerodynamic limit, not a structural one. Above that Mach Number the shock waves that would have begun to form over the wing begin to affect lift and stall the wing, which is called a high speed stall. This happens at any altitude that Mach 0.86 can be achieved in a 767, because it is purely dependent on the design of the aircraft and the wing in particular. A 747, which has a different designed wing has a MMO of M0.92.

The 360 knots IAS is an envelope limit. The aircraft will not break up necessarily if you exceed it, but it has been assessed as the maximum speed needed for normal operations and has been cleared by Boeing test pilots for all those normal operations. I do not know what IAS will result in the breakup, but it is a theoretical limit and would be far above 360 Knots. The Mach number that Flight 175 achieved at 513 knots at approx 1000 feet was about M0.78, so it was below the aerodynamic limit of M0.86.

So the only two questions are:

1. Does the 767 have the thrust available to fly that fast at 513 KIAS at 1000 feet? and

2. Would the aerodynamic loads of flying at that speed and height cause break-up of the airframe?

Q1. In my opinion, most definitely. The aircraft has large amounts of excess thrust at low altitude.

Q2. I cannot answer that question from any data I have seen, but if you accept that flight 175 was an unmodified 767, apparently it can.

Boeing build very strong airplanes. Just ask the passengers on the 747SP that China Airlines sent through Mach One after a mishandled engine failure at FL410. The 747 was taken through Mach One during its test program by Boeing and the British CAA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
There are a lot of experienced pilots out there, but I am sure a majority of our civil pilots don't generally fly their aircraft exceeding Vmo unless they are test pilots. So testimonials from either side are rather moot for the most part IMO.

Generally speaking, the controls to control attitudes and movements in a 767 jetliner are not that much different than a Cessna 152. Aiming an airliner for a building is a rather simplistic act, and really, all it comes down to is aim and accelerate, kinda like firing off an arrow from a bow.

In my opinion, I don't think it would be all that hard for any novice pilot to accomplish the act even with a final velocity of 510 kts ground speed. So long as the aircraft stays in one piece and so long as it doesn't break the sound barrier, I see no reason for the act to be all that difficult. I think it mainly comes down to whether or not the aircraft will break up, and after Vmo, it's really anyone's guess when or how that will happen.
Thanks for your input . . . it seems people who know aviation are on both sides of the issue . . . sense I have no background I have to choose which side I think is better able to answer the questions . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
How about you do some research so you can remove the word 'think'.
You questions are most certainly not logical because of the reasons I mentioned before.
The speed of the aeroplane has not a lot to do with how hard it is to hit a large object, though it does generally get easier the faster you go because the wind affects the aeroplane less.
FWIW when flying an ILS, no matter what size the aeroplane is a halfway reasonable pilot can put the nose of the aeroplane through the equivalent of a 9 metre diameter circle. And that's without seeing anything at all outside. Looking outside makes it absurdly easy.
So as long as the aircraft is responding to the controls and you are able to see the target a novice pilot can hit a target the size of the Towers easily . . . that is your position . . . even though at least four experienced 767 pilots have testified otherwise . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The Flight envelope of the 767 was designed for normal operations. I have flown the 767 to those limits of both 360 knots and M0.86 without a problem because that is what the envelope is for. A normal operating envelope. When a 767 climbs we start at an airspeed of around 290 knots and at around 28000 feet transition to a Mach number climb of about .8M. The reverse is done on descent. The aircraft is easily controllable throughout this envelope.

The author of this video, a guy called Balsamo who has apparently been caught out photoshopping a fake flight envelope diagram in order to "prove" his hypothesis, seems to have not much idea of the mach number/IAS relationship and what it means. The Mach number limit on the 767 is an aerodynamic limit, not a structural one. Above that Mach Number the shock waves that would have begun to form over the wing begin to affect lift and stall the wing, which is called a high speed stall. This happens at any altitude that Mach 0.86 can be achieved in a 767, because it is purely dependent on the design of the aircraft and the wing in particular. A 747, which has a different designed wing has a MMO of M0.92.

The 360 knots IAS is an envelope limit. The aircraft will not break up necessarily if you exceed it, but it has been assessed as the maximum speed needed for normal operations and has been cleared by Boeing test pilots for all those normal operations. I do not know what IAS will result in the breakup, but it is a theoretical limit and would be far above 360 Knots. The Mach number that Flight 175 achieved at 513 knots at approx 1000 feet was about M0.78, so it was below the aerodynamic limit of M0.86.

So the only two questions are:

1. Does the 767 have the thrust available to fly that fast at 513 KIAS at 1000 feet? and

2. Would the aerodynamic loads of flying at that speed and height cause break-up of the airframe?

Q1. In my opinion, most definitely. The aircraft has large amounts of excess thrust at low altitude.

Q2. I cannot answer that question from any data I have seen, but if you accept that flight 175 was an unmodified 767, apparently it can.

Boeing build very strong airplanes. Just ask the passengers on the 747SP that China Airlines sent through Mach One after a mishandled engine failure at FL410. The 747 was taken through Mach One during its test program by Boeing and the British CAA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006
I do not disagree that the 767 is a sturdy aircraft . . . but based on the concept of EAS (equivalent air speed) calculations the stress on the airframe at 2,000 feet above sea level at 510 mph is far in excess of Mach 1.2 . . . the air handling characteristics . . . would they not be adversely affected?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Thanks for your input . . . it seems people who know aviation are on both sides of the issue . . . sense I have no background I have to choose which side I think is better able to answer the questions . . .

Why do you think Pilots for 9/11 Truth is better able to answer the questions?

Consider the notion that the planes should have fallen apart. Have you ever been in a plane when it's experiencing violent turbulence? It feels like it's been hit by the truck. passenger planes go though extremely violent maneuvers all the time, yet they don't fall apart.

Compare this to the WTV planes. They were simply going very fast, pretty much in a straight line.

You video talks about how hard it was to duplicate the actions of the hijackers (in particular at the Pentagon). But that's not what the hijackers were trying to do. They just wanted to crash into the building, they were not trying to follow some imaginary line in the sky, nor were they airing for a particular wall or floor.

And consider the alternatives here George. What else could have happened? If it's hard to plot a 767 into a building, would it not also be hard to remotely control something that looks exactly like a 767 into a building - a technical feat that had never been done before?

Clearly something that looked just like planes crashed into the buildings. What?
 

Rico

Senior Member.
I do not disagree that the 767 is a sturdy aircraft . . . but based on the concept of EAS (equivalent air speed) calculations the stress on the airframe at 2,000 feet above sea level at 510 mph is far in excess of Mach 1.2 . . . the air handling characteristics . . . would they not be adversely affected?

UA175 impacted at ~510 knots groundspeed, not mph. This is about 587 mph. I only briefly had a glance at their video yesterday, and quite frankly, I have no idea how they came up with that 1.2 mach number. What TWCobra said seems more in the ballpark. As far as I know, equivalent airspeed is simply calibrated airspeed (airspeed read on a gauge corrected for instrument errors), corrected for compressibility errors (energy of highspeed aircraft locally changing the density of the air). I cannot even remotely get mach 1.2 on my CR-2 calculator.

But in any case, as Mick said, what are the alternatives? In fact, this problem doesn't really have to be that technical. There are people on board those flights who have families who can testify their disappearance. What then happen to all of them?

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Why do you think Pilots for 9/11 Truth is better able to answer the questions?

Consider the notion that the planes should have fallen apart. Have you ever been in a plane when it's experiencing violent turbulence? It feels like it's been hit by the truck. passenger planes go though extremely violent maneuvers all the time, yet they don't fall apart.

Compare this to the WTV planes. They were simply going very fast, pretty much in a straight line.

You video talks about how hard it was to duplicate the actions of the hijackers (in particular at the Pentagon). But that's not what the hijackers were trying to do. They just wanted to crash into the building, they were not trying to follow some imaginary line in the sky, nor were they airing for a particular wall or floor.

And consider the alternatives here George. What else could have happened? If it's hard to plot a 767 into a building, would it not also be hard to remotely control something that looks exactly like a 767 into a building - a technical feat that had never been done before?

Clearly something that looked just like planes crashed into the buildings. What?
1) I didn't say the Truthers had the better answers . . . I just find it very interesting they still hold to their story after all these years and keep trying to elaborate on how the whole affair doesn't look kosher . . .
2) Remote controlled aircraft have been used for years . . . look at the controlled crash in 1984 by the FAA above . . . I expect its abilities and accuracy improved by 2001 considerably . . . and have you ever heard of a laser targeting system or GPS transponder planted in the building . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
1) I didn't say the Truthers had the better answers . . . I just find it very interesting they still hold to their story after all these years and keep trying to elaborate on how the whole affair doesn't look kosher . . .
2) Remote controlled aircraft have been used for years . . . look at the controlled crash in 1984 by the FAA above . . . I expect its abilities and accuracy improved by 2001 considerably . . . and have you ever heard of a laser targeting system or GPS transponder planted in the building . . .

So where did they practice crashing planes into buildings?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Rico said:
But in any case, as Mick said, what are the alternatives? In fact, this problem doesn't really have to be that technical. There are people on board those flights who have families who can testify their disappearance. What then happen to all of them?

It seems coincidental but the number of passengers on all the flights involved seemed to be very low . . . that being said . . . the conspiracy buffs think it is not that difficult for people to be sacrificed for a cause . . . it makes it more believable to maintain the cover story . . . so if it were remote piloted the passengers were just there for the ride . . . if they were not 767s, the aircraft and people were eliminated in all the confusion of the day . . . never to be seen again . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So where did they practice crashing planes into buildings?
Touch and goes . . . training what appeared to be flight crews over some remote airfield . . . military or civilian . . . nothing unusual . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And if it were impossible to fly a 767 into a building, would they not then have to invent an entirely new type of large airliner that could be flow into a building, and also looked exactly like a 767?
 

Met Watch

Moderator
It seems coincidental but the number of passengers on allthe flights involved seemed to be very low . . . that being said . . . the conspiracy buffs think it is not that difficult for people to be sacrificed fo ra cause . . . it makes it more believable to maintain the cover story . . . so if it were remote piloted the passengers were just there for the ride . . . if they were not 767s, the aircraft and people were eliminated in all the confusion of the day . . . never to be seen again . . .

They'll say anything to make the cover story believable because, unlike you (I hope), they can't see the WTC event any other way than an inside job. So, if a willingness to sacrifice makes an inside job story more plausible, they'll say it, regardless of how stupid the idea sounds.
 

Rico

Senior Member.
It seems coincidental but the number of passengers on allthe flights involved seemed to be very low . . . that being said . . . the conspiracy buffs think it is not that difficult for people to be sacrificed fo ra cause . . . it makes it more believable to maintain the cover story . . . so if it were remote piloted the passengers were just there for the ride . . . if they were not 767s, the aircraft and people were eliminated in all the confusion of the day . . . never to be seen again . . .

I've seen low loads on flights all the time when I was working ground operations for my local airline. There are slow days and there are peak days, so I don't find this at all unusual. There were 87 people on one plane, and 60 on the other. Not high, but hardly unusual.

But more on the crux of the matter: are you thinking that the aircraft that hit the buildings are either not what they appear to be or are remotely piloted? I find this highly unlikely. There are two aircraft identified by registration that hit the buildings in 2001:

1) American Airlines flight 11, registration N334AA (http://www.airframes.org/reg/n334aa)


2) United Airlines flight 175, registration N612UA (http://www.airframes.org/reg/n612ua)


If these planes weren't there that day, what happened to them? You think perhaps the airlines took them to the yard and meticulously stripped off their registry?

Or if they were remotely piloted, then who heck were ATC talking to?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I've seen low loads on flights all the time when I was working ground operations for my local airline. There are slow days and there are peak days, so I don't find this at all unusual. There were 87 people on one plane, and 60 on the other. Not high, but hardly unusual.

But more on the crux of the matter: are you thinking that the aircraft that hit the buildings are either not what they appear to be or are remotely piloted? I find this highly unlikely. There are two aircraft identified by registration that hit the buildings in 2001:

1) American Airlines flight 11, registration N334AA (http://www.airframes.org/reg/n334aa)


2) United Airlines flight 175, registration N612UA (http://www.airframes.org/reg/n612ua)


If these planes weren't there that day, what happened to them? You think perhaps the airlines took them to the yard and stripped meticulously stripped off their registry?

Or if they were remotely piloted, then who heck were ATC talking to?
I personally think using aircraft other than 767s would be very difficult to pull off and require too much cooperation from too many people. . . but a scenario where the high-jackers were shills of a larger plan . . . the remote piloting might possibly just be insurance to guarantee success . . . possibly a high tech device to receive instructions and over ride the autopilot then using it to crash the aircraft . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
And if it were impossible to fly a 767 into a building, would they not then have to invent an entirely new type of large airliner that could be flow into a building, and also looked exactly like a 767?

1) I personally don't think they were anything but a 767s . . .
2) I think there is reason to question the ability of the perpetrators to seemingly fly and crash the 767s three for three on target . . .
3) Remote piloting . . . possibly insurance . . . to make sure they could do it . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I personally think using aircraft other than 767s would be very difficult to pull off and require too much cooperation from too many people. . . but a scenario where the high-jackers were shills of a larger plan . . . the remote piloting might possibly just be insurance to guarantee success . . . possibly a high tech device to receive instructions and over ride the autopilot then using it to crash the aircraft . . .

That's kind of over-thinking it. If it were too hard to pilot locally, then remote control is really not going to help.

It would also be rather hard to add to a working aircraft without anyone noticing it.
 

Rico

Senior Member.
I personally think using aircraft other than 767s would be very difficult to pull off and require too much cooperation from too many people. . . but a scenario where the high-jackers were shills of a larger plan . . . the remote piloting might possibly just be insurance to guarantee success . . . possibly a high tech device to receive instructions and over ride the autopilot then using it to crash the aircraft . . .

Again, highly unlikely.

Air Traffic Controllers were talking to someone on each of these flights before they went silent and they also saw these aircraft via assigned transponder codes after they were airborne (until of course, the transponders were turned off). If they were remotely piloted, you would have to explain this gap here.

Second, I can see no real benefit from remotely controlling a 767 airframe to fly it into building versus someone piloting the thing by hand. It won't be any more accurate if the airframe can take only so much stress. Besides, as was discussed by several posts above, steering this tin can towards a building isn't all that hard. The only factor worth discussing is whether the 767 airframe will break up at the stated speeds due to stress, and from what we can currently see, the answer is that they held together.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That's kind of over-thinking it. If it were too hard to pilot locally, then remote control is really not going to help.

It would also be rather hard to add to a working aircraft without anyone noticing it.
Well I think the package would include computer assisted target acquisition and guidance . . . or lock onto a signal (radio or laser designation, etc.) not unlike a curse missile (possibly landmark recognition) then steer the aircraft on autopilot . . . those systems are small, portable but very accurate . . routine maintenance could have placed the units in months before the event . . . or just a few hours before (if true) who knows. . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Again, highly unlikely.

Air Traffic Controllers were talking to someone on each of these flights before they went silent and they also saw these aircraft via assigned transponder codes after they were airborne (until of course, the transponders were turned off). If they were remotely piloted, you would have to explain this gap here.

Second, I can see no real benefit from remotely controlling a 767 airframe to fly it into building versus someone piloting the thing by hand. It won't be any more accurate if the airframe can take only so much stress. Besides, as was discussed by several posts above, steering this tin can towards a building isn't all that hard. The only factor worth discussing is whether the 767 airframe will break up at the stated speeds due to stress, and from what we can currently see, the answer is that they held together.

Why couldn't people have been in the aircraft behind the controls and talking . . . pilots do it all the time while flying by autopilot . . . if the target acquisition and steering were on board the only thing the remote signal would have to do is tell the aircraft to continue to fly under the autopilot's instructions to then fly to the designated GPS or laser illuminated spot . . . Do I do think a computer can fly the craft better than a novice pilot? . . . Yes, I do think so . . .
 

Rico

Senior Member.
Well I think the package would include computer assisted target acquisition and guidance . . . or lock onto a signal (radio or laser designation, etc.) not unlike a curse missile (possibly landmark recognition) then steer the aircraft on autopilot . . . those systems are small, portable but very accurate . . routine maintenance could have placed the units in months before the event . . . or just a few hours before (if true) who knows. . . .

Think of it from this perspective too:

These aircraft had to push back from a gate and thus they had to talk to a ground crew. There were also flight attendants on board, a lack there-of would be noticeable. Flight attendants not noticing the presence of a flight crew would also be noticeable. These aircraft had to obtain ATC clearance for their flight plan. They had to obey ATC directives. They also had to taxi the aircraft in congested areas at the airports from where they are departing from. It's a little bit more complicated than launching a cruise missile.
 

Rico

Senior Member.
Why couldn't people have been in the aircraft behind the controls and talking . . . pilots do it all the time while flying by autopilot . . . if the target acquisition and steering were on board the only thing the remote signal would have to do is tell the aircraft to continue to fly under the autopilot's instructions to then fly to the designated GPS or laser illuminated spot . . . Do I do think a computer can fly the craft better than a novice pilot? . . . Yes, I do think so . . .

You don't need a computer to fly this tin-can into a building either.

How to steer an airplane is Lesson #2 here in Canada. Even a novice pilot can steer a plane into a building.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You don't need a computer to fly this tin-can into a building either.

How to steer an airplane is Lesson #2 here in Canada. Even a novice pilot can steer a plane into a building.

Maybe they can . . . maybe they can't . . . there are 767 experienced pilots that don't think novice pilots can at the speeds they did . . . so I will have to say this question is unanswered for me unless someone wants to demonstrate that ability . . . as I have suggested in several threads . . . so a remote pilot system . . . for me still . . . possible . ..
 

Rico

Senior Member.
Maybe they can . . . maybe they can't . . . there are 767 experienced pilots that don't think novice pilots can at the speeds they did . . . so I will have to say this question is unanswered for me unless someone wants to demonstrate that ability . . . as I have suggested in several threads . . . so a remote pilot system . . . for me still . . . possible . ..

And here on this very thread there are experienced pilots who think they can.

I don't fly the larger jetliners in real life, but I believe Billzilla and TWCobra do.

In lack of a type rating and a large expensive airframe, I can easily show you this on a desktop flight simulator with it's obvious deficiencies, but I'm sure you wouldn't believe it unless you see a real airframe exceeding it's Vmo for your own eyes. In any case, the biggest issue with your remote pilot system theory is that it is overly far fetched, not to mention impractical given the circumstances. The biggest issue with the ideas cited by your experienced 767 pilots there is that I still have no idea how they got their mach 1.2 number from, which isn't even on the scale when I plug the numbers into my own flight computer, and second, I highly doubt those pilots have ever intentionally flown their aircraft past Vmo either. The former issue I'll defer to the ATPLs here, for I'm out of ideas.
 
Top