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

JRBids

Senior Member.
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.

But anonymous individuals on YouTube videos do count? How many pilots do you personally know who said it couldn't be done. The pilots here are not anonymous.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The Posting Guidelines are there for a reason. There are plenty of other forums you can pick from. Nothing personal.

(and for context, the posts that were removed were along the lines of:
That is what the 200+ billion barrels of oil in Iraq is worth at 80 to 95 dollars a barrel.

I hope you aren't going to try and rationalize that the U.S. had any business going into Iraq. It was disingenuously based on fear generated by the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and additional lies told to imply Iraq somehow had a hand in it.

Which unrelated to how hard it is to hit the buildings.
 
Last edited:

GearDown

New Member
I am very skeptical of a 757 being able to achieve approximately 500 mph at 1,000 ft. In the Flight 1771 situation I would like to know how they determined it broke the sound barrier and even if it did it was in a dive-bomb.

P.S. I do not believe any 757 hit WTC. If anything I think they were probably something like the JASSM missile painted-up like planes. These claims of "millions of people saw the planes hit" are speculation and the amateur videos taken that day have been shown to be fakes. What I believe happened is that the CG images of a plane was over-lapped onto real (some suspect CG) footage of WTC and aired as LIVE broadcast. I do not accept holograms or remote control, etc. They simply hijacked the airwaves - all of the big news stations were airing the same footage and doing reports from the same location. So, all of the info stream was being centrally controlled.

Reply:

If you would read the report on PSA #1771, you'd know EXACTLY how NTSB knew it reached Mach 1 AND, believe it or not, pulled 5,000 Gs. You heard it right...5 THOUSAND. And the aircraft didn't break up mid-air.

And as far as your not believing any aircraft hit WTC, I can't help you with that, except to say, [...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ron J

Active Member
Here is a pilot who denies the flights were easy . . .




The interesting thing is that the jetliners did what the pilot said couldn't be done. Obviously, the planes could do those things, regardless what the pilot thought. Flight 11 flew straight in on One World Trade. there was nothing fancy about that. Footage of the jetliner which hit Two World Trade showed it was in a sweeping turn, not a military fighter jet hairpin maneuver. The speed might have been outside of the rating, but again, just look at the actual footage of the jetliners hitting the Towers, and it is obvious that the jetliners had no difficulty flying at that speed.
 

Ron J

Active Member
It sounds like you didn't watch this video starting at 1:20 in


It took him 5 or 6 tries to hit The Pentagon in the simulator, in the way the "official story"
said it happened. Not surprising. He was trying to duplicate exactly what someone else did.

What if a pilot landed a jetliner's rear wheels at the 60 foot mark on a runway. How many other pilots would be able to land the rear wheels at the 60 foot mark on the runway? How many tries would it take?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It took him 5 or 6 tries to hit The Pentagon in the simulator, in the way the "official story"
said it happened. Not surprising. He was trying to duplicate exactly what someone else did.

What if a pilot landed a jetliner's rear wheels at the 60 foot mark on a runway. How many other pilots would be able to land the rear wheels at the 60 foot mark on the runway? How many tries would it take?

Well put. The true test would simply be to have the pilot try to hit the pentagon, starting at the hijack point, using whatever means necessary.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
The Texas Sharpshooter clustering illusion strikes again.

The point on the three buildings that were hit is, post-event, assumed to be the target. However, by that measure one must also assume that the hijackers of Flight 93 were targeting a patch of reclaimed strip mine in Pennsylvania.
 

Ron J

Active Member
If they believe the NIST revisions maybe they will, and if so I may as well . . . I'm still reluctant to believe three sets of humans were able to hit their targets three for three . . .


What does hit their targets mean? One of the pages on this thread shows a schematic of where the WTC jetliners struck the side of each building. Flight 11 hit dead center. If flight 175 intended to hit dead center, it missed it's target by a few column sets. If you consider the width of each Tower at 205 feet and the wingspan of each jetliner, it would have been difficult for the jetliners to have completely missed each tower.

The Pentagon is a huge building in terms of the width of each side. A rather difficult building to miss. Flight 77 cut down at least one parking lot light tower and a wing hit a generator building or the fence in front of it. The jetliner could have hit the ground in front of the Pentagon or hit a few floors higher on the building. The hijacker could have even landed the plane into the inner rings rather than trying to hit the side of the building.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
What does hit their targets mean?


To me it means taking a few relatively inexperienced commercial pilots in a 757 out to the ocean or desert, projecting two laser or light columns 205 feet apart at 3,000 feet and let them take a whack at the maximum safe speeds to fly between them. Only one try each and see how they do. No simulations, the real deal. Then I will say they hit the targets. It isn't the real thing but would be close enough for me to see who is giving me the most accurate accounts of capabilities.
 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
To me it means taking a few relatively inexperienced commercial pilots in a 757 out to the ocean or desert, projecting two laser or light columns 205 feet apart at 3,000 feet and let them take a whack at the maximum safe speeds to fly between them.

In a fantasy world....(I once got into trouble, at another Forum, for snidely suggesting something like that). Of course, you "George B" mentioned a "757", but the pedantic "purists" would say that the WTC 1 and 2 were hit by 767s. (Just to pre-empt the usual criticism).

However, since the B757 and B767 share a common Type Rating, then that "complaint" would be essentially moot. They both have the same control "feel" to a pilot, as well as the same "sight picture" through the front and side windows....and basic systems commonality, which all are reasons for the "common" Type Rating status.

But, in a simulator situation...it is perfectly reasonable to use as a guide, no need for any extraordinary and expensive "laser shows". A modern full-motion Level D with landing simulation capability (and "daylight" visual simulation) is perfect. Such a device meets or exceeds FAA requirements. I'd suggest that there are military equivalents too. Some of these simulation technologies might be classified...but, I expect that they exist.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
"3 for 3"
That is a very giod example of the clustering illusion. This ignores the fact that there were four aircraft and three made it ti their targets.
It ignores the fact that each target was enormous and easily identified from the air.
It assumes that the location on each target where the aircraft went in, was the specific location on the structure that was targeted.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think it can be reasonably argued that the three aircraft that made there way to the vicinity of their assumed primary or secondary objectives were successful. In terms of air combat sortie success this would be most impressive.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think it can be reasonably argued that the three aircraft that made there way to the vicinity of their assumed primary or secondary objectives were successful. In terms of air combat sortie success this would be most impressive.

But it's not an "air combat sortie", it's "fly a plane into an enormous building".
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
But it's not an "air combat sortie", it's "fly a plane into an enormous building".

Yes, it really is different than (say for instance) a bombing raid in WW2, or even an air strike in modern air warfare. Those two examples involve a level of difficulty, and require training and precision.

Simply steering a vehicle, even an airplane, on a suicide mission is easy in comparison.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Well maybe it is more comparable to suicide attacks during WWII? Except no one was shooting at them (the hijackers). but the stress may have been similar.

 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Exactly. Really, the (much over-used, but apt) comparison to the Kamikaze of WW2 is appropriate.

IIRC, the Kamikaze tactic was used as a measure of "last resort", late in the battles in the Pacific. (I will need to find references)**.

**Well, this was easy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

Etc....
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Well maybe it is more comparable to suicide attacks during WWII? Except no one was shooting at them (the hijackers). but the stress may have been similar.

Kamikaze pilot training lasted as little as 30 days. And it seems those pilots had to worry about a lot more than just flying into something.
http://www.warbirdforum.com/training.htm
Trying to find other references on length of training.

This documentary makes parallels to 9/11. I haven't watched it though.
http://www.historynet.com/wings-of-defeat-kamikaze-pilots-who-survived.htm
 

BZNCrew

New Member
Can I ask how was the speed of the planes was determined and is it credible?

If that was incorrect, couldn't this whole thread be useless?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Can I ask how was the speed of the planes was determined and is it credible?

If that was incorrect, couldn't this whole thread be useless?
Knowing the dimensions of the plane and the buildings can allow you to calculate the speed when you use frame by frame on video. Not sure if this is how it was done though.
 

BZNCrew

New Member
Yes, video would estimate speed of the segment of video. Is it claimed that the planes flew at high speed for a long duration?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Yes, video would estimate speed of the segment of video. Is it claimed that the planes flew at high speed for a long duration?
Since (as far as I'm aware) there were no data recorders found, then the only way to calculate speed would be to use video.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Speed was determined using radar data for the approach to the WTC. NIST used video data to determine impact speed.
 

BZNCrew

New Member
I'm interested because speeds > 500 kts for 10 seconds vs 10 minutes is a big difference. The last few seconds before impact I would assume the jackers punched the throttle once they had it lined up. Completely plausible and expected. Much different than flying maneuvers at 500+ kts.

And...if it's not possible to fly that fast as claimed, then maybe the speed calculations are simply wrong. Which brings up the idea that if the evil govt was covering up a sinister plot, why wouldn't they cover up the reported speed?
 

BZNCrew

New Member
Video and radar data were used, and there are a variety of different analyses. UA175 was the fastest plane, so the best one to look at.
https://www.google.com/search?q=calculation of speed of ua175


Thanks Mick,

So looking at that report, UA177 was descending fast and hauling pretty fast for the last 2:30. The flight path was a straight line. The pilot didn't have to make any turns. As mentioned many times, the WTC was a fantastic landmark. You could see it for many miles and that was a picture perfect day. I was living in New Jersey at the time and quite familiar with how easy it was to see those towers from great distances.

The aircraft was only traveling at that high speed for 2:30 of which he was totally lined up and didn't require any turning. It was essentially a missile on a straight path.
 

maple leaf

New Member
This is all fine and great, all have their own theories, what you are forgetting is, we are talking about guys who could barely fly a c 152 at 70 kts, If I am to believe that guys who have never flown a 767 can kill two men in the flight deck, pull them out of their seats hop in, disconnect auto pilot and auto throttle, turn off the transponder, and somehow figure out where they are in the sky, even if they could figure out on the centre console how to tune up a VOR to get a fix, or program a fix into the FMS do a direct too, and get the decent profiles perfect on the first attempt and thread 3 needles 2 trade centres and the pentagon at 500 mph plus, close to sea level...... I challenge any of you to rent a 767 simulator and re create it with video evidence of the entire sim session without any breaks in the video from altitude all the way down till impact on the first attempt without looking at where the sim operator has positioned you. This includes no help from the sim operator on where anything is located, and post your video here and on you tube .............

You do that you will make me a believer until then stop saying what is possible because what happened on the day is 99 percent impossible........

Big airliners like these have inertia with all the weight behind them. Make a control input and wait for the aircraft to respond, what happens is over controlling and anyone who has flown an airliner knows what I am talking about. Now we are doing 400 kts or more in a decent with sweeping turns......High speed warning going off, stick shaker, EGPWS screaming passengers in the back of the aircraft due to the rate of decent

Anyone who has ever flown an airliner knows when you have a green F/O in the seat, what is the captain worried about? the decent profile, even with lnav and vnav engaged, most new pilots even after finishing all the simulator, base training, line training of 25 sectors or more, screw up the decent, slowing down, configuring ect ect ect...... These guys didn't have to configure the aircraft to slow down, but they did have to get the profile absolutely perfect without the help of the efis to tell you if you are above the glide path in the decent....... No VNAV NO LNAV no way to measure how far away from target you are except eye balling it

Get your hands in your pockets pay for a 1 hour sim slot and do it ON THE FIRST ATTEMPT......... Prove your case for all the truther's to see that it is possible........
 
Last edited:

Bill

Senior Member.
This is all fine and great, all have their own theories, what you are forgetting is, we are talking about guys who could barely fly a c 152 at 70 kts, If I am to believe that guys who have never flown a 767 can kill two men in the flight deck, pull them out of their seats hop in, disconnect auto pilot and auto throttle, turn off the transponder, and somehow figure out where they are in the sky, even if they could figure out on the centre console how to tune up a VOR to get a fix, or program a fix into the FMS do a direct too, and get the decent profiles perfect on the first attempt and thread 3 needles 2 trade centres and the pentagon at 500 mph plus, close to sea level...... I challenge any of you to rent a 767 simulator and re create it with video evidence of the entire sim session without any breaks in the video from altitude all the way down till impact on the first attempt without looking at where the sim operator has positioned you. This includes no help from the sim operator on where anything is located, and post your video here and on you tube .............

You do that you will make me a believer until then stop saying what is possible because what happened on the day is 99 percent impossible........

Big airliners like these have inertia with all the weight behind them. Make a control input and wait for the aircraft to respond, what happens is over controlling and anyone who has flown an airliner knows what I am talking about. Now we are doing 400 kts or more in a decent with sweeping turns......High speed warning going off, stick shaker, EGPWS screaming passengers in the back of the aircraft due to the rate of decent

Anyone who has ever flown an airliner knows when you have a green F/O in the seat, what is the captain worried about? the decent profile, even with lnav and vnav engaged, most new pilots even after finishing all the simulator, base training, line training of 25 sectors or more, screw up the decent, slowing down, configuring ect ect ect...... These guys didn't have to configure the aircraft to slow down, but they did have to get the profile absolutely perfect without the help of the efis to tell you if you are above the glide path in the decent....... No VNAV NO LNAV no way to measure how far away from target you are except eye balling it

Get your hands in your pockets pay for a 1 hour sim slot and do it ON THE FIRST ATTEMPT......... Prove your case for all the truther's to see that it is possible........
If you are the one making the challenge you should be willing to pay for the time.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
The onus is actually on you to prove it wasn't possible.

All the pilots passed FAA Commercial licence flight tests. One had over 600 hours. All of them had many hours of sim time.

Your characterisation of their collective skills doesn't fit the known facts.
 

maple leaf

New Member
wow 600 hours , thats a lot of time..... no disrespect but I have over 9000 hours and could not do what they did on the first attempt with the stress of the day, about to kill yourself ect ect ect.

Its not about the money my friend, any airline pilot can afford an hours sim time, I dont because I know I could not do it. So anyone who thinks it is possible on the day , get hand in pocket and prove it, other wise all this summation of what is possible and what is not is useless. If anyone thinks it is prove it, its quite easy!!! But no one is willing too, do you know why, because they cant!

Regarding does not fit the known facts, 7 of the hi jackers are alive and well, 2 at least are airline pilots alive and well in different parts of the world. That does not fit any profile of what we were told

Let me tell you about a commercial pilots licence, its just above a private pilots licence , requires 250 hours, some instrument training a 300 nm cross country on a nice day on a route you probably have done with your instructor. But remember they had 250 hours to practice the big day to get the commercial licence. No one that flies a transport category aircraft has a commercial licence we have airline transport licences, which is 1500 hours minimum and that still may not mean you have any jet time, you may have been tootling around in a King Air 200. We are talking a huge difference between a commercially licensed pilot and someone who has experience on a heavy transport jet with glass cockpit
 
Last edited:

Jason

Senior Member
This is all fine and great, all have their own theories, what you are forgetting is, we are talking about guys who could barely fly a c 152 at 70 kts, If I am to believe that guys who have never flown a 767 can kill two men in the flight deck, pull them out of their seats hop in, disconnect auto pilot and auto throttle, turn off the transponder, and somehow figure out where they are in the sky, even if they could figure out on the centre console how to tune up a VOR to get a fix, or program a fix into the FMS do a direct too, and get the decent profiles perfect on the first attempt and thread 3 needles 2 trade centres and the pentagon at 500 mph plus, close to sea level......
But all of that did happen. The towers stood at over 1000 feet, and were national landmarks. I wouldn't exactly call them needles nor is the pentagon a needle. Your "presumptions" are based on what exactly, on all of your years of experience or what you read on CT sites.
Big airliners like these have inertia with all the weight behind them. Make a control input and wait for the aircraft to respond, what happens is over controlling and anyone who has flown an airliner knows what I am talking about
And how many have you flown?
 

Jason

Senior Member
wow 600 hours , thats a lot of time..... no disrespect but I have over 9000 hours and could not do what they did on the first attempt with the stress of the day, about to kill yourself ect ect ect.
You might not want to broadcast that, especially if you are a pilot. Just because you couldn't do something doesn't mean other pilots couldn't do it as well. Don't assume every other pilot is at or below your level of expertise.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
This is all fine and great, all have their own theories, what you are forgetting is, we are talking about guys who could barely fly a c 152 at 70 kts, I

No we are not.

We are talking about perfectly competent light a/c pilots, some of whom also did time in large aircraft simulators., as mentioned elsewhere in this thread - do a bit more research.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Fred259 WTC: Were the planes drones, how hard is flying a 767 into a building? 9/11 58
LorentzHall 1994 Nellis Test Range UFO (Sightings / Hard Copy) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 10
T How hard is it to hit the the 9/11 targets? 9/11 9
Dan Wilson Cancer Cures: Why is Cancer so Hard to Treat? Health and Quackery 4
S Did NIST edit WTC building 7 footage? 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
FatPhil Given a photo of a building, where was it taken from? Tools for Investigating and Debunking 1
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
Mick West Collapse of 12 Story Building in Miami Beach Current Events 3
Miss VocalCord São Paulo High Rise Fire and Collapse - Wilton Paes de Almeida Building Current Events 87
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Leifer Bent Steel In Building Fires Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West First Interstate Tower Fire - Comparison with WTC Towers and WTC7 9/11 5
Mick West Have You Actually READ the NIST Report on Building 7? 9/11 12
Mick West Explained: Two Suns at Sunset - Harrow, UK [Reflection Off Building] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 19
Whitebeard Tehran Plasco Highrise Fire And Collapse - 9/11 WTC7, WTC1&2 Comparisons 9/11 84
NoParty Claim: Indigogo campaign to recreate 9/11 Plane Crash into Building 9/11 38
James Adams Rectangular building type objects on the surface of the moon [Like the Triangle] General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: WTC7 vs. Chechnya's Tallest Building Fire (Grozny-City Complex) 9/11 24
jomper WTC 7 (Building 7) General Discussion 0
Grieves BBC's Jane Standley Premature reporting of the collapse of WTC 7 (Building 7) 9/11 13
LogicAndSanity WTC 7 (Building 7) 9/11 1521
Mick West Building 7 Explained by Edward Current 9/11 2
jackprune What happens when a jet hits concrete at 500mph? This one turned to dust. General Discussion 17
Related Articles



























Related Articles

Top