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

TWCobra

Senior Member.
There is a flight sim software product called X-Plane that is currently the Gold Standard amongst flight simmers. It is FAA certified and is used in commercial flight training.

My neighbour is a retired astrophysicist/pilot wannabe who has an X-Plane set-up in his home. Frank is a rank amateur (but keen) with ZERO actual flying hours. I just put him through his paces flying a close approximation of the UA 175 profile on X-plane Boeing 767 using the actual weather conditions. I filmed the results which I will post after editing. Suffice to say that he had little difficulty finding the target and once briefed on how to hold an aiming point, had very little trouble hitting the target.

Frank doesn't usually even fly the airliners in X-plane, preferring a Beechcraft Baron or Cessna. He hit the target first go.

Will post the video shortly.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
My neighbour is a retired astrophysicist/pilot wannabe who has an X-Plane set-up in his home.
This might veer OT...but some years ago I flew with an FO who had a story....HE visited a friend's house, with a similar set-up. Of course, no-one there (except his friend) knew that he flew for a major airline. It was the Baron simulation. Only AFTER he "aced" it (to the apparent amazement of the others) did he admit that it was because of his other experience. AS a pilot.

Still, thing is AS professional pilots, I consider it a bit of a responsibility to help these hobbyists (for that is what they are) achieve even better simulator "immersion" experiences, if possible. No matter if a General Aviation light-twin, or a full-fledged Boeing or Airbus simulation in-home program.

From the "YT"! I found this a few years ago, and feel it might be apt, here (on the topic of home-made simulators):

[Jim Price, an Air Traffic Controller by profession. His website is 737simguy.com
Oh, and BTW? His B737 nose section is from an old Continental B737-200!!! I'd love to fly to Texas, just to meet this man!!]
 

trevor

Active Member
I found the Dutch simulation! its pretty interesting!

they have good information proving how possible it is.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I found the Dutch simulation! its pretty interesting!
Actually, "trevor", I have used that particular video MANY times, in past discussions online.

Thanks for including it!!!

(ETA: Some are turned away because of the fact that it ["Zembla"] is in Dutch, and thus have English captions. Also, as I recall from that clip, it references the video made by these two college students, some years ago....title of "Loose Change". THAT video also needs a full debunk!! Someday).
 

trevor

Active Member
Actually, "trevor", I have used that particular video MANY times, in past discussions online.

Thanks for including it!!!

(ETA: Some are turned away because of the fact that it ["Zembla"] is in Dutch, and thus have English captions. Also, as I recall from that clip, it references the video made by these two college students, some years ago....title of "Loose Change". THAT video also needs a full debunk!! Someday).
i've had an account for 3 days. sorry.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
BTW....this short YouTube video shows a VERY inexperienced NON-pilot:


(SOME might think that I have posted this before (I HAVE!!) and "some" might think it's
"off-topic" (It's not).

To help add some context....Ricky Martin is celebrity, used IN this short Promo to encourage people to come BUY the product.

WHICH IS? A multi-pound (or, muliti-dollar) simulator experience.

OK....NOW....what we see in the video is a guy with NO PREVIOUS AIRLINER EXPERIENCE able to, with a little coaching, fly an airliner.

fThere are MULTIPLE LEVELS or flight experience than can be exhibited. I know this, as a former Flight Instructor.
Check out popstar, and dream boat to the ladies and some men, and how those qualifications are enough to allow him to fly a plane.

Thank weedwhacker for posting it
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Check out
It doesn't just have to be a "popstar". Check out this video, where a reporter started from NIL flying experience, and eventually flew the actual airplane (of course, with a Check Airman):

"How to fly a real Boeing 737-800 after 1 month -*- Challenge."

(Sorry, it was done in Europe....so, there are English subtitles)
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Some thoughts on this proposition:

At my time of life, the thought of taking a heavy jet half-way around the world and back, and being required to be able to cope with anything that crops up along the way, does not faze me. That is because I have too many years of doing it behind me and therefore have the brain space and experience available to be comfortable with that. it is what I do.

The hard part of flying an airliner is not the pushing and pulling of flight controls, unless you are trying to land in a gusty crosswind or in heavy rain or both.

The hard part of these flights had already been done for these hijackers. A safe departure, with all the boxes ticked to ensure that, had already been carried out by trained professionals. The only job these hijackers had once in control of the aircraft was to find their targets on a gloriously clear day, and fly into them.

The training they had was enough, even though two of them almost missed. They were flying so fast for two reasons.

One was to maximise the impact, and the other was to lessen the chance of interception. The hijacker of UA 175 would have seen the smoke from the North Tower as flew on a southerly heading, west of NYC. The primary thought on his mind was to carry out his part of the plan before NORAD finally woke up.

No-one, unless they witnessed the first aircraft hit, was thinking of a terrorist attack at that point. I was following it in real time on TV having just finished a long day of flying, and it was only after seeing UA175 hit that I realised what was happening. The president and his staff did exactly the same thing.

The hijacker could not have known that however and was desperately trying to get to the South Tower.

After simulating this yesterday I am convinced I could take any rank novice and have them emulate what my neighbour did yesterday. Those who claim that it takes superhuman abilities, only claim so out of ignorance or the wish to continue a lucrative career in sophistry.
 

Jason

Senior Member
The hard part of these flights had already been done for these hijackers. A safe departure, with all the boxes ticked to ensure that, had already been carried out by trained professionals. The only job these hijackers had once in control of the aircraft was to find their targets on a gloriously clear day, and fly into them.
Just a side question here, and probably falls into the speculation category, but I've often wondered would the events that unfolded that day, had happened if it was cloudy out and raining. Would the hijackers have been able to find their targets? Would they have had issues handling the jets in these conditions? Any thoughts
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Handling wouldn't have changed - but navigation would probably become an issue - especially if there was low cloud & rain up to the top of the towers - they might be essentially invisible, and the hijackers might have had to look for somewhere with better weather, or just fly low until they hit something!!
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
but I've often wondered would the events that unfolded that day, had happened if it was cloudy out and raining. Would the hijackers have been able to find their targets?
No. Certainly not. "Finding" the "targets" in terms of general location? Yes. Being able to visually aim at them? No.

What many non-pilots fail to understand is rather simple: ONCE you can see a "target", you can aim an airplane AT that "target". This is, after all, the basics for (a visual) landing at an airport.
 

Jason

Senior Member
No. Certainly not. "Finding" the "targets" in terms of general location? Yes. Being able to visually aim at them? No.

What many non-pilots fail to understand is rather simple: ONCE you can see a "target", you can aim an airplane AT that "target". This is, after all, the basics for (a visual) landing at an airport.
So that day would've ended much differently is what I was trying to get at, or they would've chosen another day. I can't help but assume they chose that day because it's synontmous with 911
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I can't help but assume they chose that day because it's synontmous with 911
? I think that the "meme" of '9/11' has grown because the hijacker/terrorists chose that particular day. ALSO because they did prior research into typical passenger levels, on a Tuesday, and found that they were historically lower than other days in the week.

Surely, if the morning weather reports had been cloudy and rainy all day, for their targets, then they just would have re-scheduled.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
Just a side question here, and probably falls into the speculation category, but I've often wondered would the events that unfolded that day, had happened if it was cloudy out and raining. Would the hijackers have been able to find their targets? Would they have had issues handling the jets in these conditions? Any thoughts
I think they would have crashed.
Did they have instrument ratings?
JKF junior was in iffy VFR and he crashed; there are so many ways IFR could cause the terrorists big problems. When new pilots showed up to fly the KC-135, in the weather you could see them leaning, unable to get right in the head what the instruments were showing vs what the mind thinks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_illusions_in_aviation
After a few years, I trusted my cross check, and the KC-135 became my earth, after that point I never had the leans again, I had learned if I wanted to live I had to trust the instruments, and be able to keep a cross check to verify each instrument; if you let up and are not prepared, as some crews learned, you could end up upside down headed for the ground, seeing stuff on your ADI that makes no sense... BTW, one look at earth fixes all kinds of illusion pilots had; in pilot training under the hood (in the T-38 it was a curtain), if you had the leans, one quick peek instantly fixed it, if VFR; in the weather, another story.
The toughest flight in the weather I had was a C-172 check ride, the plane was being tossed around the ADI was like a toy, and I finally used all those years of need-ball and airspeed, an old fashion cross check to be sure the ADI was close... while doing all my instrument required approaches, holding, etc.
I think weather would have stopped the attack.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
JKF junior was in iffy VFR and he crashed
ALSO (veering OT here, sorry) in this tragic case, he was in an airplane that did NOT feed from BOTH wing tanks simultaneously...and he was somewhat inexperienced...AND of course, the marginal VFR conditions contributed. By mis-managing the the fuel, tank-to-engine, might have caused a lateral imbalance....and his reliance on the Auto-Pilot, in poor visual conditions....the Auto-Pilot will DISCONNECT at a certain point, when its parameters are exceeded. This is likely what happened. THEN, lacking a good visual horizon reference (and also ignoring his primary training, to trust the instruments) resulted in what we pilots call the "death spiral" (others have terms for this). It is when your inner-ear vestibular canal senses disagree with what your visual senses are "telling" you.

John's airplane ("JFK Jr's") was a Piper Saratoga.

For a low-time (meaning, relatively inexperienced Private Pilot) this is a rather sophisticated airplane. There is a reason that the BeechCraft Bonanza has been dubbed a "doctor killer"...it is precisely because THAT airplane is also rather sophisticated.....but the common thread is, they are both expensive, and thus affordable to those with a lot of disposable income.

Some time ago, I heard the funniest bit....a clip from ATC audio, was the Houston (TX) TRACON. A small commuter jet was asked, by ATC, to increase its descent (VERY common request, btw!). The pilot of the jet replied:

"We're coming down like a Bonanza full of doctors".

I fall on the floor, laughing......

(ETA): I searched for a reference, to the above. This site popped up. (AND, sorry, do not know "where" it is, but it's just a good read anyhow....):
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/archive/index.php/t-2263.html
 
Last edited:

TWCobra

Senior Member.
I have no doubt that the perfect visibility conditions present on Sept 11 were the major reason the attacks occurred on that day. It would not have gone ahead on an overcast day.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I have no doubt that the perfect visibility conditions present on Sept 11 were the major reason the attacks occurred on that day. It would not have gone ahead on an overcast day.
I would have to agree. The 911 thing is not likely a conscious choice. In Europe emergency call number is different, not sure what it is in Saudi Arabia. In addition much of the world would consider the eleventh of September to be "11/9". Month/Day and 911 emergency are typically American and of no special meaning to middle easterners.

Now if we are talking super numerologist, NWO/Illuminati, world domination planners, well that's a different story.

The fact that they chose this day would indicate they were aware of their limitations as pilots. Given the time of year the best thing that could have happened wrt flight 175, would have been a large flock of Canada Geese over NJ. Might have forced the plane down early. Then again crashing into a densely populated area of Jersey isn't exactly a " loss" for the terrorists.
 
Last edited:

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
To Keith's point; when I was with Transport Canada there was a poster in the Flight Services area where pilots came in to file flight plans. It concerned the survival rate of non-instrument rated pilots flying into IFR conditions. According to the poster the average life expectancy of a pilot entering heavy cloud was 175 seconds (iirc). I think they meant it took an average of 175 seconds to get into a condition from which they could not recover.
A local King Air pilot I know from high school told me that he believed that even in a small, minimally instrumented a/c , artificial horizon, compass descent rate, and radio contact with ATC tracking him on primary, that if a pilot could steel himself to tear his eyes away from the window and believe the instruments, he could get himself out of trouble even if not IFR rated, albeit he conceded he might require a change of underwear on landing.

In my own experience I used to have to charter a float plane to service remote sites. On one occasion in a deHavilland Otter we were flying north and ceiling was around 3000. However as we went the cloud apparently was dropping and slope of the land rising. At one point the pilot said we had to go back. We had unlimited ceiling right where we were but ahead about 40 miles the horizon and ceiling were starting to merge. He turned only to discover a low ceiling about 30 miles in that direction. We were in a hole in the cloud about 70 miles in diameter. Found a small lake( this area has hundreds of thousands of them), called into his company and told them where we were ( incidently called "Zeller Lake". Jokes about going shopping since at the time in Canada, Zellers was a department store chain like Target). Sometime later cloud lifted and the rest of the day was clear.
The north is largely not covered by radar, the nearest community, all of which were tiny dots on the map in this part of the country, hundreds of miles away. Its very much up to the pilots up here to stay focused on what they are seeing out the window and have a plan B.

Point is that the 9/11 terrorists knew their limitations and deliberately chose to operate within their capabilities as much as was possible.

ETA: How about that Google:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXzYZjpoz_E

www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2006/feb/26-33.pdf

Seems its 178 seconds.
 
Last edited:
Some thoughts on this proposition:

At my time of life, the thought of taking a heavy jet half-way around the world and back, and being required to be able to cope with anything that crops up along the way, does not faze me. That is because I have too many years of doing it behind me and therefore have the brain space and experience available to be comfortable with that. it is what I do.

The hard part of flying an airliner is not the pushing and pulling of flight controls, unless you are trying to land in a gusty crosswind or in heavy rain or both.

The hard part of these flights had already been done for these hijackers. A safe departure, with all the boxes ticked to ensure that, had already been carried out by trained professionals. The only job these hijackers had once in control of the aircraft was to find their targets on a gloriously clear day, and fly into them.

The training they had was enough, even though two of them almost missed. They were flying so fast for two reasons.

One was to maximise the impact, and the other was to lessen the chance of interception. The hijacker of UA 175 would have seen the smoke from the North Tower as flew on a southerly heading, west of NYC. The primary thought on his mind was to carry out his part of the plan before NORAD finally woke up.

No-one, unless they witnessed the first aircraft hit, was thinking of a terrorist attack at that point. I was following it in real time on TV having just finished a long day of flying, and it was only after seeing UA175 hit that I realised what was happening. The president and his staff did exactly the same thing.

The hijacker could not have known that however and was desperately trying to get to the South Tower.

After simulating this yesterday I am convinced I could take any rank novice and have them emulate what my neighbour did yesterday. Those who claim that it takes superhuman abilities, only claim so out of ignorance or the wish to continue a lucrative career in sophistry.
I am looking for answers from a real pilot.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/flight-175-and-going-590-mph.5645/
It seems simple to me though.

I believe it's very possible, but people keep claiming the plane would come apart, flying so low and fast.
 
This has already been answered. Please read the thread, and the other similar threads that come up in search.
I honestly didn't feel like taking the time to read all of that. I just wanted some straight forward answers. I am getting tired of re-reading over and over about how a plane should come apart, just cause of high speed at low altitude. If it is so impossible, I wanna see a real pilot saying it first. Of course there were some people tracking UA175. And the ones who were able to keep track of it, should been able to tell what speed it was going.

I wish Boeing would just have this listed someplace, so that I could show the theorists that, to debunk the heck out of them. Oh well... life goes on.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Précis;

UA175 was flying at speeds outside the certified envelope, which is the speeds that it is guaranteed not to break, within certain G limits. This does not mean it must break above those speeds, it just simply isn't certified safe.

Outside that envelope is the flutter envelope, where the airframe must be shown to be free of flutter. In the final few seconds of its flight it was at the upper boundary of the flutter envelope. Video of the final few seconds of the flight suggest that flutter was beginning to happen on the outer left wing/aileron.

Other Boeing aircraft have flown well outside the certified envelope without damage.

There is no evidence to suggest that any of these aircraft were modified in any way to strengthen them to fly outside the envelope.

Thousands of people witnessed a 767 hitting the South Tower.

That's it in a nutshell.
 
That is so true. Many New Yorkers saw it. And then you'd have to count the number of people who were watching TV after the first plane strike. I remember pretty well. I was in bed, when dad told me about the first plane. When he told me about the second plane, I was up quick. My mind realized, that it was no accident at that point. I figured Terrorist attack before I even turned on the TV in the basement. In any-case, by this point, millions probably saw it on TV. And then after all of that, people have to go and make conspiracy out of it. Augh. I really get tired of these people.


Anyways, thanks for sharing.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
If I may chime in?

There is a YT video (I will not "embed" it here(**), has been posted numerous times) of a Boeing 737 simulator that clearly displays that the software built in to "mimic" the airplane's aerodynamic parameters clearly show that that particular airplane is fully controllable WELL beyond its VMO (Velocity Max Operating) airspeed.

This will be similar to any OTHER Boeing jet in current (or past) production. (Despite what "some" websites have tried to assert/claim).

(**) HERE is a YT link: ( Just go to YouTube, and enter this in the "search" box at top: kkYXhLwlHrg ) Please simply Copy/Paste that eleven-digit locator sequence, on the YT website.

In terms of the actual "ability" (per the thread title") to "steer" a jet to hit a target? Not difficult at all. For a Human. We ALL know that other humans can steer other vehicles at VERY impressive speeds (thinking Formula One Racing here, for example) that are actually far more challenging.
 
Last edited:
If I may chime in?

There is a YT video (I will not "embed" it here(**), has been posted numerous times) of a Boeing 737 simulator that clearly displays that the software built in to "mimic" the airplane's aerodynamic parameters clearly show that that particular airplane is fully controllable WELL beyond its VMO (Velocity Max Operating) airspeed.

This will be similar to any OTHER Boeing jet in current (or past) production. (Despite what "some" websites have tried to assert/claim).

(**) HERE is a YT link: ( Just go to YouTube, and enter this in the "search" box at top: kkYXhLwlHrg ) Please simply Copy/Paste that eleven-digit locator sequence, on the YT website.

In terms of the actual "ability" (per the thread title") to "steer" a jet to hit a target? Not difficult at all. For a Human. We ALL know that other humans can steer other vehicles at VERY impressive speeds (thinking Formula One Racing here, for example) that are actually far more challenging.
So true, any human can steer the plane into a building. Thing is, too many theorists wanna suggest, that they were some sort of remote control deal. (Drone) I believe if there were any kind of inside job, it wouldn't be anywhere near as complex as what Theorist nuts say. Of course, I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job. They'd been plotting since they failed in 93, of course they'd try again. Theorists try to say, ahhh. That the terrorists couldn't have been experienced. It's funny in a way. Thing is, the guy who flew the plane into the Pentagon was FAA certified.


Anywho.... thanks for your input. :D
 

Rico

Senior Member.
It doesn't require a good pilot to steer a plane in a particular direction and punch the throttle. I used to be a flight instructor, and I would take people with zero experience for demo flights. Within 30 minutes, they would know how to bring the aircraft in the direction I point out. They may not be able to maintain altitude or heading without more coaching, but the fact of the matter is, it really isn't difficult.

Similarly, there are simulator experience companies out there that allow zero time enthusiasts to jump into a simulator of a large jet and to see what it is like to fly one. Usually by the end of the experience, the customer would know how to place the jet within the span of a runway for landing... Even if the landing is not particularly good.
 
It doesn't require a good pilot to steer a plane in a particular direction and punch the throttle. I used to be a flight instructor, and I would take people with zero experience for demo flights. Within 30 minutes, they would know how to bring the aircraft in the direction I point out. They may not be able to maintain altitude or heading without more coaching, but the fact of the matter is, it really isn't difficult.

Similarly, there are simulator experience companies out there that allow zero time enthusiasts to jump into a simulator of a large jet and to see what it is like to fly one. Usually by the end of the experience, the customer would know how to place the jet within the span of a runway for landing... Even if the landing is not particularly good.
Interesting. ;-)
 

Balance

Senior Member.
I find this question (how hard is it...) sort of ironic, as part of my motorcycle training we were informed about a primitive hunting instinct we've developed named "target fixation" and how it requires conscious effort to avoid it in "fight or flight" mode (pun unintended).

The premise being that we stare at the car/tree/wall or whatever threatens our demise, and because of this seemingly unbreakable stare will surely steer straight into it, and that it takes a conscious effort to break out of the flight or flight mode to avert your stare and steer around said threat (target), thus (hopefully) saving your life. How this translates to steering a 500mph aircraft I'm not sure but as a biker I can testify it works.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
I was taught this when I learnt to drive a car too. Particularly at night. If you look too much at the car coming in the opposite direction then you will steer towards it.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I find this question (how hard is it...) sort of ironic, as part of my motorcycle training we were informed about a primitive hunting instinct we've developed named "target fixation" and how it requires conscious effort to avoid it in "fight or flight" mode (pun unintended).

The premise being that we stare at the car/tree/wall or whatever threatens our demise, and because of this seemingly unbreakable stare will surely steer straight into it, and that it takes a conscious effort to break out of the flight or flight mode to avert your stare and steer around said threat (target), thus (hopefully) saving your life. How this translates to steering a 500mph aircraft I'm not sure but as a biker I can testify it works.
I can personally attest to it.

On one job I had the great task of standing in a manhole and guiding a new cable through from one side to the other. I could barely fit and only had to stand with the cable being guided by the placement of my legs. My torso stuck up above the roadway. Why this manhole was not simply located on the nearby sidewalk is beyond my ken, but suffice it to say that the engineers who designed the underground cableway never had to work in that hole. Anyway we had flaggers set well ahead and signs out and one of our own vans parked to protect me from oncoming traffic.
Then the flagger starts yelling and I look under the van and see a car coming right at me. I bent over and folded myself into the hole (I should mention that although I am not a big guy, it was winter and I had on several layers of cloths). The driver swerved at the last moment away from smacking into the van. Flagger said he had out the stop sign but the driver seemed to be fixated on it and driving right at it (the red sign).
 

econ41

Senior Member
I can personally attest to it.

On one job I had the great task of standing in a manhole .....
Been there - done that JDH - you know my "trade" - one time boss of sh... er "sewage" for Sydney.

"We" also used to park the biggest truck we had on site between the manhole and oncoming traffic. Regularly got "pinged" by the safety officers - we were supposed to use a flimsy fold up barrier with reflective panels (in broad daylight) as the "legitimate" safety device.

AND I'm glad I've retired - "manhole" is no longer PC. "Access Point" the latest version. Still pity the airline pilots who had to change the old term for "flight deck"

I had to survive the era when "sludge" became "biosolids" - and, as you know, don't get me started on the sewage anecdotes or jokes. Once started I cannot be deterred. <<OK Hint for non Aussies - if you don't get it - read it out loud. I think it crosses the Pacific.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
It doesn't require a good pilot to steer a plane in a particular direction and punch the throttle.
Friends of mine some years back were trying to interest me in pilot training. One afternoon I took a flight 150 KM with one instructor to pick up the boss of the school from a nearby town. older model Cherokee. They put me left seat for the return flight - I didn't even realise the significance - pointed it down the runway - hit the throttle and said "All yours". Once in the air and my unnecessary panic over - pointing not hard at all.

Never did go for the license tho'. I lived under the training circuit for Bankstown (western Sydney) busiest GA airfield in AU - often monitored ATC/Tower radio on scanner in my amateur radio "shack" Actually on the field for an air-show one day - British RN carrier visiting - one of those small ones with ski ramp at the bow. And Harrier at the air-show there for the demo.

RAAF planes - Hornet at the time IIRC the front line AU plane. Most unusual ATC radio call I've ever heard "Bankstown tower - Australian 567 requesting one further low pass from the West departing vertically for flight level two zero zero"

And that was within the Sydney Kingsford Smith area where 3000ft normally the limit for Bankstown air-space. They were working 15 minute time slices between Sydney approaches and the Air Show. BUT FL 200 certainly conflicts with normal procedure DMEsteps and such.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
With Transport Canada one time, Thunder Bay airport, F18 took off and went vertical, levelled out seemed like 10 seconds later, barely visible.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
To add to the target fixation thing from above: It carries over in vehicles that evolution didn't get a chance to adapt us to because our brains are pretty good at incorporating objects into our body schema and can rewire our motor control on the fly to account for pretty much any tool. For example, when you swing a hammer, your brain switches from the usual model of your arm to one with an extra segment and adjusts your muscle control and eye coordination to match.

Vehicle controls are just a set of tools. Direction changes get reassociated with hand movements instead of foot movements. Your subconscious can do this pretty quickly if you learn to trust it (which is a skill on its own - this is one of those aspects of our brain where one part is really good at something but the rest of the brain doesn't realize it and wants to consciously kludge it out).


Really, that's a whole lot of science just to say, "Crashing is not a precision maneuver."
 

econ41

Senior Member
So if we follow the usual truther argument to its logical conclusion.

I claim to have hammered 7 nails into timber this morning. I'm not a very good carpenter. Expert carpenters say they could not replicate my hammer blows. Therefore I didn't hit the nails in.


I think I got the analogy right. :rolleyes:
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
So if we follow the usual truther argument to its logical conclusion.

I claim to have hammered 7 nails into timber this morning. I'm not a very good carpenter. Expert carpenters say they could not replicate my hammer blows. Therefore I didn't hit the nails in.


I think I got the analogy right. :rolleyes:
Yup you hit the nail on the head,,,,

I'll get my coat... :D
 
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
T How hard is it to hit the the 9/11 targets? 9/11 8
Dan Wilson Cancer Cures: Why is Cancer so Hard to Treat? Health and Quackery 4
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