JRBids
Senior Member.
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.
9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph?
- Thread starter lee h oswald
- Start date
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.
JRBids
Senior Member.
Wouldn't the plane still have broken apart? Isn't that one of the claims?
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Mick, your editing and wholesale removal of posts is clearly opinionated and is somewhat ridiculous.
I have had enough of it.
I have had enough of it.
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:
Which unrelated to how hard it is to hit the buildings.
(and for context, the posts that were removed were along the lines of:
Which unrelated to how hard it is to hit the buildings.
Last edited:
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:
Yes. Which should also make truther nuts realize why Flight 93 could hardly be "found" in Pennsylvania. #1771 was completely disintegrated in one very small hole in ground.
Ron J
Active Member
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 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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
But it's not an "air combat sortie", it's "fly a plane into an enormous building".
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
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.
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
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....External Quote:
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.External Quote:
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
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.
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.
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
jaydeehess
Senior Member.
Both aircraft acellerated up to impact.
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?
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
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.
jaydeehess
Senior Member.
UA175 did have to turn at the last moment. That was the final ten seconds. It impacted in a bank.
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........
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.
If you are the one making the challenge you should be willing to pay for the time.
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
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
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.
And how many have you flown?
Jason
Senior Member
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
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.
Similar threads
