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

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
This is better than Tosh.0, from a tech stand point. George B. is the only one keeping it in the ball park of reality. For starters GPS uses RADIO WAVES, which can not penetrate a FARADAY CAGE. Remember the communication system was down in the N tower, b/c they had to have a relay system working INSIDE. It also PREVENTED anyone form the 1st "plane strike" from relaying conditions (humm why would that be necessary??). Communications from the S tower "Small pockets of fire", THAT IS IT. OHH, and the S tower FELL 1st, hummm.
Wing tips have been known to come off in NORMAL flight conditions: http://youtu.be/6h8eVsLGm7s?t=1m17s
<iframe width="854" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1hkv-X0Kp34" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
But somehow they don't come off when striking a structural steel column, hummm
This footage was cropped and cloned 5 different ways, and claimed by 5 different people. Names can be found in September Clues:
<iframe width="854" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tywMLqVcBO4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So someone please clarify, how is this justified as a "dive"? Notice how the shadowing is not consistent w/ other POV.
Maybe it just "fell" from 31K ft: http://youtu.be/jdXGSefI6pM

Here is a structural engineer who states "could knock out A column": http://youtu.be/MY7BCXew0UI?t=5m52s
Notice ESB has columns 30' between centers(the hole in the concrete was 18'), and NO STRUCTURAL BEAMS WERE SHEARED!!
Bonus: the very next guy is Frank DeMartini, WTC project construction manager who just happen to "disappear" that very day, how inconvenient. Hummm




It "has large amounts of excess thrust" b/c more fuel (on the oxygen side of the equation) is available to create power. But the throughput (number of molecules it can process) is still the same, so it will run out of "excess thrust" very quickly. It's called cavitation.

Great to see good questions being proposed, but still the wrong questions.

Cartman "THAT'S MY PIE KITTY"
GPS could have been easily placed on outside of building by maintenance worker . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
In certain fixed limited tasks.

One of its best capabilities is targeting, tracking, and flying weapons into buildings and hardened targets . . . especially remotely when the target is identified by a laser, radar, radio, or infrared designation . . .
 

Met Watch

Moderator
This is better than Tosh.0, from a tech stand point. George B. is the only one keeping it in the ball park of reality. For starters GPS uses RADIO WAVES, which can not penetrate a FARADAY CAGE. Remember the communication system was down in the N tower, b/c they had to have a relay system working INSIDE. It also PREVENTED anyone form the 1st "plane strike" from relaying conditions (humm why would that be necessary??). Communications from the S tower "Small pockets of fire", THAT IS IT. OHH, and the S tower FELL 1st, hummm.
Wing tips have been known to come off in NORMAL flight conditions: http://youtu.be/6h8eVsLGm7s?t=1m17s
<iframe width="854" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1hkv-X0Kp34" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
But somehow they don't come off when striking a structural steel column, hummm
This footage was cropped and cloned 5 different ways, and claimed by 5 different people. Names can be found in September Clues:
<iframe width="854" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tywMLqVcBO4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So someone please clarify, how is this justified as a "dive"? Notice how the shadowing is not consistent w/ other POV.
Maybe it just "fell" from 31K ft: http://youtu.be/jdXGSefI6pM

Here is a structural engineer who states "could knock out A column": http://youtu.be/MY7BCXew0UI?t=5m52s
Notice ESB has columns 30' between centers(the hole in the concrete was 18'), and NO STRUCTURAL BEAMS WERE SHEARED!!
Bonus: the very next guy is Frank DeMartini, WTC project construction manager who just happen to "disappear" that very day, how inconvenient. Hummm




It "has large amounts of excess thrust" b/c more fuel (on the oxygen side of the equation) is available to create power. But the throughput (number of molecules it can process) is still the same, so it will run out of "excess thrust" very quickly. It's called cavitation.

Great to see good questions being proposed, but still the wrong questions.

Cartman "THAT'S MY PIE KITTY"

I encourage you to register so you can explain (without me approving your posts) how a novice pilot hand-flying a sturdy aircraft within its designated flight envelope into a 260 ft. wide target at over 500 mph, on a clear day, is outside the ballpark of reality.
 

Rico

Senior Member.
500 mph, knots, or what-not is not really within the normal envelopes stated by Boeing for a 767 to be flown at in such low altitudes. The controversy here is whether or not it can be done. IMO, it can be done, even by the novice, as long as the aircraft is controllable by at least it's pitch and roll movements, and the aircraft remains structurally intact. It's not like it's breaking the sound barrier here.
 

Met Watch

Moderator
500 mph, knots, or what-not is not really within the normal envelopes stated by Boeing for a 767 to be flown at in such low altitudes. The controversy here is whether or not it can be done. IMO, it can be done, even by the novice, as long as the aircraft is controllable by at least it's pitch and roll movements, and the aircraft remains structurally intact. It's not like it's breaking the sound barrier here.

I shouldn't have said designated. I meant that a plane could still be flyable at those speeds. Thanks for the correction.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Good let's find one . . . what do you think of John Lear . . . ?? LoL!!! Seems there is a speed at which there would not be enough thrust to continue to increase speed or control surfaces may have been affected . . .


Indeed supersonic speeds can cause "control reversal" - but IIRC that was due to wings twisting, and could be designed for. Standard elevators tend to become ineffective in supersonic airflow - which is why modern a/c have all-moving tailplanes or tailplane trim.

But the speeds in this instance appear to have been nowhere near enough to be significant in this respect.

In 1980 I took my first overseas trips, flying from New Zealand to the UK - on the way I took photos (which I still have) of the supersonic shock wave on the top of a 747 wing I was sitting above - I'd been taught about it but had never expected to actually see it "in the flesh" as it were - but there it was, not 10 feet from me - so I snapped it with my brand-spanking new Cannon AE-1 with it's 50mm lens (f1.8 IIRC).

Supersonic airflow over a subsonic aircraft is not such a problem.

And certainly thrust and drag are equal in any flight where the a/c is not accelerating (+ve or -ve) by definition.

However having just dived 20,000+ feet 175 was not subject to the normal "straight and level flight" limit of that equation.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
It "has large amounts of excess thrust" b/c more fuel (on the oxygen side of the equation) is available to create power. But the throughput (number of molecules it can process) is still the same, so it will run out of "excess thrust" very quickly. It's called cavitation.


"

No, it is called Thrust/Drag. If the available thrust ie. Max thrust in this case, is in excess of the total airframe drag then the aircraft will keep accelerating. A 767 will easily go through 360 KIAS flying level at 1000 feet. Terminal velocity in level flight is reached when Thrust=Drag.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I don't know about anyone else but to make proper comparison easier can we agree with one standard of speed . . . Knots, MPH, or Mach . . . I personally prefer mph . . . but I can convert it after the fact . . .

NIST used the standard of Flt 175 hitting Tower II at . . . 510 Knots ground speed . . . which is 587 mph
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I encourage you to register so you can explain (without me approving your posts) how a novice pilot hand-flying a sturdy aircraft within its designated flight envelope into a 260 ft. wide target at over 500 mph, on a clear day, is outside the ballpark of reality.

Just to clarify - the towers were 208ft wide
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So experienced pilots always hit runways . . . . is that why they practice touch and goes or is that only for novice pilots!???


Group IV - A300/A310 757 767 L1011 DC8 DC10 MD11 TU-154 IL-86Group V - A330 A340 747 777 AN-22 B52
Group VI - AN-124 A380 C-5


Minimum Runway Width


100ft - Group III aircraft
150ft - Group IV and V aircraft
200ft - Group VI aircraft


For more info you can go to the FAA's website www.faa.gov and click under Airports and Engineering Design & Construction and then Design Standards.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/281383/
Content from External Source
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
So basically most people here AGREE w/ Alex Jones: http://youtu.be/Rr7_N5-zQs8

A 707 weighs 20% less than a 767-200ER (that's extended range). A 707 is FASTER than a 767-200ER, meaning it creates MORE kinetic energy (4 engines, not 2). Turbo props (jet engines w/ gear reduction to a propeller) are used for low altitude flight because, JET ENGINES ARE DESIGNED FOR HIGH ALT.

Learn the 4 stages to creating a LAW, before making leaps in logic. Nobody here has yet to disprove the NULL HYPOTHESIS. let alone created a theory.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So basically most people here AGREE w/ Alex Jones: http://youtu.be/Rr7_N5-zQs8

A 707 weighs 20% less than a 767-200ER (that's extended range). A 707 is FASTER than a 767-200ER, meaning it creates MORE kinetic energy (4 engines, not 2). Turbo props (jet engines w/ gear reduction to a propeller) are used for low altitude flight because, JET ENGINES ARE DESIGNED FOR HIGH ALT.

Learn the 4 stages to creating a LAW, before making leaps in logic. Nobody here has yet to disprove the NULL HYPOTHESIS. let alone created a theory.

I think Alex is attacking the "hologram" no-planers, not the "augmented plane" no-ordinary-pilot people. I would agree that the hologram no-planers are ridiculous.

No sure where you are going with turboprops and KE? Both planes were jet planes. It was not the KE that led to the fall, it was the fires.

The question here is if you could steer a plane into the building at that speed. Does the high speed make it impossible to very difficult to control? Is that high a speed even possible at all.

It's been established that the speed is possible, as other similar planes have gone at that speed without falling apart. What has not been established beyond all doubt is how difficult it is to steer at that speed.

The evidence that it is too hard to steer is not really very convincing to me. Clearly two planes that looked like 767s hit the towers. Someone was steering them. Experience shows planes are VERY easy to steer at high speeds under normal conditions. Would a minute of too-fast speed make all the difference?
 

Rico

Senior Member.
@george

Pilots, novice or otherwise, do touch-and-goes to fine tune their landing technique because it is an area that offers little room for error and is subject to all kinds of change depending on weather conditions and aircraft loading.

Generally, hitting the runway isn't so much a problem as hitting the runway incorrectly, such as landing with too high of airspeed and being subject to hard landings, bounced landings, ballooned landings, and all kinds of fun stuff. Even experienced pilots can botch this area on a bad day. The benefits of touch-and-goes stretch beyond that of simple alignment, if alignment problems are what you are trying to imply. Aligning with the runway usually isn't a problem for pilots with a few landings under their belt except in a windy, gusty, or otherwise turbulent day. It's landing smoothly, with the aircraft longitudinal axis straight with the runway, and at a desired spot offering a desired ground run where pilots must continuously hone their skills.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think Alex is attacking the "hologram" no-planers, not the "augmented plane" no-ordinary-pilot people. I would agree that the hologram no-planers are ridiculous.

No sure where you are going with turboprops and KE? Both planes were jet planes. It was not the KE that led to the fall, it was the fires.

The question here is if you could steer a plane into the building at that speed. Does the high speed make it impossible to very difficult to control? Is that high a speed even possible at all.

It's been established that the speed is possible, as other similar planes have gone at that speed without falling apart. What has not been established beyond all doubt is how difficult it is to steer at that speed.

The evidence that it is too hard to steer is not really very convincing to me. Clearly two planes that looked like 767s hit the towers. Someone was steering them. Experience shows planes are VERY easy to steer at high speeds under normal conditions. Would a minute of too-fast speed make all the difference?
Or some targeting system was steering them . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
@george

Pilots, novice or otherwise, do touch-and-goes to fine tune their landing technique because it is an area that offers little room for error and is subject to all kinds of change depending on weather conditions and aircraft loading.

Generally, hitting the runway isn't so much a problem as hitting the runway incorrectly, such as landing with too high of airspeed and being subject to hard landings, bounced landings, ballooned landings, and all kinds of fun stuff. Even experienced pilots can botch this area on a bad day. The benefits of touch-and-goes stretch beyond that of simple alignment, if alignment problems are what you are trying to imply. Aligning with the runway usually isn't a problem for pilots with a few landings under their belt except in a windy, gusty, or otherwise turbulent day. It's landing smoothly, with the aircraft longitudinal axis straight with the runway, and at a desired spot offering a desired ground run where pilots must continuously hone their skills.

And even the simple act of aligning with a runway is much harder than aiming for a building, as you need to get on a specific line, not simply head for a point.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
@george

Pilots, novice or otherwise, do touch-and-goes to fine tune their landing technique because it is an area that offers little room for error and is subject to all kinds of change depending on weather conditions and aircraft loading.

Generally, hitting the runway isn't so much a problem as hitting the runway incorrectly, such as landing with too high of airspeed and being subject to hard landings, bounced landings, ballooned landings, and all kinds of fun stuff. Even experienced pilots can botch this area on a bad day. The benefits of touch-and-goes stretch beyond that of simple alignment, if alignment problems are what you are trying to imply. Aligning with the runway usually isn't a problem for pilots with a few landings under their belt except in a windy, gusty, or otherwise turbulent day. It's landing smoothly, with the aircraft longitudinal axis straight with the runway, and at a desired spot offering a desired ground run where pilots must continuously hone their skills.
I don't disagree with most of what you have said but will you admit it is more likely for a novice pilot to be off center line than an experienced pilot?? Now add about 400 more mph into the equation . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
And even the simple act of aligning with a runway is much harder than aiming for a building, as you need to get on a specific line, not simply head for a point.
So let's prove it with a drmonstration !!!!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't disagree with most of what you have said but will you admit it is more likely for a novice pilot to be off center line than an experienced pilot?? Now add about 400 more mph into the equation . . .

Again George, get yourself a flight simulator. See for yourself how easy it is to steer a plane.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So let's prove it with a drmonstration !!!!

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm saying that aligning with a runway is harder than aligning with a building. That's not something that's really debatable or needs any testing.

To align with a runway, you need to fly towards the runway approach, then turn in such a manner that at the end of your turn you are both on the runway approach, and travelling parallel to it.

To align with a building, you just turn until you are pointing at the building.

Compare it to parking a car. It's like the difference in difficulty between reverse parallel parking into a tight space in one go, and simply stepping on the brakes wherever you happen to be. (and that's just the alignment part, actually landing is another kettle of fish on top of that). One requires practice, the other can be done by a child on their first go.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm saying that aligning with a runway is harder than aligning with a building. That's not something that's really debatable or needs any testing.

To align with a runway, you need to fly towards the runway approach, then turn in such a manner that at the end of your turn you are both on the runway approach, and travelling parallel to it.

To align with a building, you just turn until you are pointing at the building.

Compare it to parking a car. It's like the difference in difficulty between reverse parallel parking into a tight space in one go, and simply stepping on the brakes wherever you happen to be. (and that's just the alignment part, actually landing is another kettle of fish on top of that). One requires practice, the other can be done by a child on their first go.
I understood what you were saying the first time . . . I am saying hitting a 200 foot wide target at 587 mph would be hard for anyone . . . and a simulator is just that . . . we don't let people who only fly simulators fly aircraft of any capability without real seat time with an experienced pilot . . .
 

Rico

Senior Member.
Or some targeting system was steering them . . .

George, the viability of your remote control targeting system theory is up there along with Mr. Lear's hologram theory in how far fetched the scope is. Can you perhaps tell a story and explain a scenario on how exactly this would work from where the 767 boards passengers up until the point of collision? It seems as though you are perpetrating this theory because you believe that it is impossible for a pilot to steer an airliner and hit a building ~208 ft wide.

Can you also answer these questions:
-How would such a system be installed to augment the flight controls of the aircraft?
-Are there any pilots in the cockpits of these aircraft to begin with?
-If not, how does this go unnoticed by airline customer service agents who board passengers onto their aircraft? How does this go unnoticed by the very flight attendants who were on board the aircraft? How does this go unnoticed by airline flight dispatchers or operation personnel, or ground crew who are required to speak to the pilots before the aircraft is pushed back?
-Were there any hijackers?
-How would this remotely controlled aircraft taxi around a congested airport like Boston Logan International without bumping into anything, all the while obeying ATC directives?
-On take-off, the flaps on a 767 are required to be extended. After take-off, both the landing gears and flaps have to be retracted at certain airspeeds. These controls are completely separate from what can otherwise be controlled by the autopilot. How does your system work?
-Who would be talking to air traffic control?
-Air traffic control normally assigns a transponder code unique to every flight that is to be hand-dialed by the pilot. In lacking of a manned pilot, your high-tech system will have to address this issue as well
-How would you respond to flight attendant testimonials on the day 9/11 happened. Are stories from airline employees like Amy Sweeney, who were on board one of the aircraft, just shill stories?
-On 9/11, one of the aircraft that hit the trade centers turned off it's transponder, while the other merely changed it's code. How do you explain that?
-How would a system like what you propose be that much better in controlling an aircraft when a pilot cannot do this himself? You seem to imply that because the aircraft were traveling at such high speeds, that it would be uncontrollable, especially by a novice pilot, and certainly wouldn't be able to hit a building. The question is, HOW? Do you know how an airplane works? Do you know what ailerons, elevators, and rudders are and what they do? If a human pilot cannot control the aircraft at whatever point in airspeed, chances are, a computer won't have much luck either, for it would control but the same control surfaces that a human pilot would otherwise do.

You see, that is the complexity of your proposed idea, and that is the reason why it isn't all that viable.
 

Rico

Senior Member.
I don't disagree with most of what you have said but will you admit it is more likely for a novice pilot to be off center line than an experienced pilot?? Now add about 400 more mph into the equation . . .

Yes, but off center line doesn't mean off the runway. 200 ft width of runway is ample for anything, especially if you are not trying to get all your tires within the confines of the runway. Novice pilots here where I live often have to work with a runway that is much narrower than that. My local training airport has runway widths of 75ft, which is quite sufficiently wide, and some airports in the vicinity much less than that. Smaller aircraft, but it doesn't change the fact that pilots have to shoot their flight path in the confines of such widths. A larger aircraft can similarly hit a runway of such proportions, and the only reason why they wouldn't would have to do with runway length and whether it can safely fit on such runways.

Here is how a pilot is taught how to target shoot when landing or otherwise trying to steer their plane: If what you see on your windscreen isn't drifting around and is getting larger as you fly towards it, you are going to hit it. It is a very simple concept. It is the same concept taught to glider pilots who have to land at a certain spot without engine power and is the same concept taught to novice pilots on conducting forced approaches in the unlikely scenario that they lose their engine.

Also to note, >400 mph doesn't mean much if the aircraft is still controllable. It was probably very likely that the said novice pilot hijackers saw the their target at least 20 miles out, if not more. The WTC buildings are huge landmarks that can be easily spotted in the air. All they needed to do was get lined up, probably at a slower airspeed, and accelerate.
 

Rico

Senior Member.
Again George, get yourself a flight simulator. See for yourself how easy it is to steer a plane.

www.flightgear.org. It's free, download it.

I never used that particular one myself, but I doubt the simple concepts are that much different.

Steering the airplane is easy. The only thing that isn't so predictable is again, the effects of the air on the airframe at high speeds, which isn't something generally simulated on a flight simulator. The only obvious factor would be a subsequent breakup in flight. If the aircraft doesn't break up, there is no reason why it can't be done.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And if we are just talking about speed, hitting a 200 foot wide target with a 767 at 500 mph is the same as hitting a 20 foot wide target with a car at 50 mph. If you can steer, then it's easy.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George, the viability of your remote control targeting system theory is up there along with Mr. Lear's hologram theory in how far fetched the scope is. Can you perhaps tell a story and explain a scenario on how exactly this would work from where the 767 boards passengers up until the point of collision? It seems as though you are perpetrating this theory because you believe that it is impossible for a pilot to steer an airliner and hit a building ~208 ft wide.

Can you also answer these questions:


-How would such a system be installed to augment the flight controls of the aircraft?



-Are there any pilots in the cockpits of these aircraft to begin with?
-If not, how does this go unnoticed by airline customer service agents who board passengers onto their aircraft? How does this go unnoticed by the very flight attendants who were on board the aircraft? How does this go unnoticed by airline flight dispatchers or operation personnel, or ground crew who are required to speak to the pilots before the aircraft is pushed back?
-Were there any hijackers?
-How would this remotely controlled aircraft taxi around a congested airport like Boston Logan International without bumping into anything, all the while obeying ATC directives?
-On take-off, the flaps on a 767 are required to be extended. After take-off, both the landing gears and flaps have to be retracted at certain airspeeds. These controls are completely separate from what can otherwise be controlled by the autopilot. How does your system work?
-Who would be talking to air traffic control?
-Air traffic control normally assigns a transponder code unique to every flight that is to be hand-dialed by the pilot. In lacking of a manned pilot, your high-tech system will have to address this issue as well
-How would you respond to flight attendant testimonials on the day 9/11 happened. Are stories from airline employees like Amy Sweeney, who were on board one of the aircraft, just shill stories?
-On 9/11, one of the aircraft that hit the trade centers turned off it's transponder, while the other merely changed it's code. How do you explain that?
-How would a system like what you propose be that much better in controlling an aircraft when a pilot cannot do this himself? You seem to imply that because the aircraft were traveling at such high speeds, that it would be uncontrollable, especially by a novice pilot, and certainly wouldn't be able to hit a building. The question is, HOW? Do you know how an airplane works? Do you know what ailerons, elevators, and rudders are and what they do? If a human pilot cannot control the aircraft at whatever point in airspeed, chances are, a computer won't have much luck either, for it would control but the same control surfaces that a human pilot would otherwise do.

You see, that is the complexity of your proposed idea, and that is the reason why it isn't all that viable.
Your questions on this post requires a long answer . . . I am going on the road the rest of the day . . . sorry, I will answer when I have enough time . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
And if we are just talking about speed, hitting a 200 foot wide target with a 767 at 500 mph is the same as hitting a 20 foot wide target with a car at 50 mph. If you can steer, then it's easy.

Maybe, if one or more of the wheels are not flat, and the road is not full of ruts and holes, etc. . . and if you have an experienced driver who is not thinking about ending his life and those with him . . . and so forth . .
 

Rico

Senior Member.
Speaking of experienced drivers, I was just looking up some of the more official topics on 9/11. The supposed hijackers were licensed pilots were they not? At least one of them even had an instrument rating.

They may not have had that much experience, and they may not have flown 767, but by licensing standards alone they would have had enough knowledge to know what they were doing.

The basic controls of a Boeing 767 are not really that different from a small training aircraft like a Cessna 172. It operates on the same principles and responds to the same inputs. The major difference is the systems, but you don't exactly need to know all the pages of a Flight Management Computer to know how to steer a plane.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George, . . . Can you perhaps tell a story and explain a scenario on how exactly this would work from where the 767 boards passengers up until the point of collision? It seems as though you are perpetrating this theory because you believe that it is impossible for a pilot to steer an airliner and hit a building ~208 ft wide.
1) I don't think it is impossible . . . however, I don't think it can be done three out of three . . .


2) The boarding is normal and the flight is basically the story we were told . . . the Hijackers are real and took over the flights . . . the difference is the hijackers were both a tool and a cover story to accomplish the collisions . . .


3) The last few minutes of the flights were controlled by the autopilot which was a slave to over-riding technology which used either GPS, laser, radar, infrared, microwave, etc . assisted targeting and steering control similar to a cruise missile . . .


Can you also answer these questions:


-How would such a system be installed to augment the flight controls of the aircraft?


This of course is speculation . . . but such technology has existed for years to control drones, missiles, even commercial aircraft as in the crash test above . . . the key would be a link to the autopilot, software and the proper telemetry to acquire the targeting signal which guides the aircraft to the collision point via the autopilot . . .


-Are there any pilots in the cockpits of these aircraft to begin with?
-If not, how does this go unnoticed by airline customer service agents who board passengers onto their aircraft? How does this go unnoticed by the very flight attendants who were on board the aircraft? How does this go unnoticed by airline flight dispatchers or operation personnel, or ground crew who are required to speak to the pilots before the aircraft is pushed back?
-Were there any hijackers?


All of the above questions are answered by my responses above . . .


-How would this remotely controlled aircraft taxi around a congested airport like Boston Logan International without bumping into anything, all the while obeying ATC directives?
-On take-off, the flaps on a 767 are required to be extended. After take-off, both the landing gears and flaps have to be retracted at certain airspeeds. These controls are completely separate from what can otherwise be controlled by the autopilot. How does your system work?
-Who would be talking to air traffic control?
-Air traffic control normally assigns a transponder code unique to every flight that is to be hand-dialed by the pilot. In lacking of a manned pilot, your high-tech system will have to address this issue as well
-How would you respond to flight attendant testimonials on the day 9/11 happened. Are stories from airline employees like Amy Sweeney, who were on board one of the aircraft, just shill stories?
-On 9/11, one of the aircraft that hit the trade centers turned off it's transponder, while the other merely changed it's code. How do you explain that?


All of the above questions are answered by my responses above




-How would a system like what you propose be that much better in controlling an aircraft when a pilot cannot do this himself?


It takes the emotions, lack of experience and panic out of the equation . . .


You seem to imply that because the aircraft were traveling at such high speeds, that it would be uncontrollable, especially by a novice pilot, and certainly wouldn't be able to hit a building.


As I said above I don't think they could have done it three out of three without assistance . . . especially at those speeds, maneuvers, and experience level . . .


If a human pilot cannot control the aircraft at whatever point in airspeed, chances are, a computer won't have much luck either, for it would control but the same control surfaces that a human pilot would otherwise do.


Sure a computer can . . . they can perform as well or out perform people all the time . . . how do you think a cruise missile works ?!?!


Not only that, if a human would hesitate or change their mind a computer won't . . . sounds like a reasonable way to insure a mission will succeed even if humans might fail . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
no the questions are not "answered by [your] responses above"

Waving to a generic "they have had hte technology for years" is not an answer - it is a fob off.

aircraft modifications are big business - they require massive amounts of paperwork, parts and labour - your blithe assertions that "the key would be a link to the autopilot, software and the proper telemetry ..." etc are a fob off, not an answer.

Indeed given the example quoted - of the commercial aircraft used for crash testing, the amount of modification requierd, and the total and near screw-ups accomplished by those under near ideal conditions with pilots on board util the last minute, chase planes and short line-of-sight to the radio controllers who were experienced pilots with good visibility and no stress (other than job performance), your fob off seems quite implausible to me even superficially - it is just you saying "oh it would be done like this" with no thought given to the practicality at all.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
I have done a bit more research and come up with a couple of interesting tidbits. The following is a video analysis of one of the films of Flight 175 which was done by the NTSB. it concludes that the groundspeed of UA 175 was between 473 and 477 knots.

http://www.documentingreality.com/f...t-175-video-data-impact-speed-study-ua175.pdf

This is significant due to the following..

Page 2 of this document states that airliners must be cleared of flutter by a margin in excess of 20% of their normal operating envelope.

http://www.ltas-aea.ulg.ac.be/cms/uploads/Aeroelasticity06.pdf

If this is so, then Boeing must have either test flown the 767, or proved it flutter free in the wind tunnel to a speed of 432KIAS/M1.032.

Using the met condition of the day, 22C and a crosswind at approx 1000 feet we can deduce the indicated airspeed of the 767 using the same calculator in the earlier video.

eas.PNG

From this we can see that the Calibrated Airspeed (IAS corrected for various errors) at impact was 463 KCAS and the mach number was M0.71.

Therefore the aircraft was flying only 31 KCAS above a speed already tested and cleared by Boeing. This brings it much more into the realms of possibility.

I found another video which further confirms, to my mind at least, that this was not a drone designed to operate at high speed. It comes at the 15 second mark and shows what I believe to be the beginnings of flutter from the left aileron as the aircraft turned under G loading to strike the South Tower. The small condensation trail from the left wing appears to be from a wing that is heavily vibrating as you would expect for a wing so far out of its normal envelope.

[video=youtube_share;1lKZqqSI9-s]http://youtu.be/1lKZqqSI9-s[/video]
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Yes I have watched it, John Lear lost me again when he said turbofans cannot fly at 500 mph at sea level. I am sorry but that man is ill and should not be listened to on anything.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
no the questions are not "answered by [your] responses above"

Waving to a generic "they have had hte technology for years" is not an answer - it is a fob off.

aircraft modifications are big business - they require massive amounts of paperwork, parts and labour - your blithe assertions that "the key would be a link to the autopilot, software and the proper telemetry ..." etc are a fob off, not an answer.

Indeed given the example quoted - of the commercial aircraft used for crash testing, the amount of modification requierd, and the total and near screw-ups accomplished by those under near ideal conditions with pilots on board util the last minute, chase planes and short line-of-sight to the radio controllers who were experienced pilots with good visibility and no stress (other than job performance), your fob off seems quite implausible to me even superficially - it is just you saying "oh it would be done like this" with no thought given to the practicality at all.

So remotely piloted vehicles don't have the requisit flight logic to engage preexisting flight protocols and control commands . . . Hmmmm . . . not possible?? . . . they can only fly when a kid in a bunker is telling it via telemetry what to do with a joy stick . . . otherwise, it would fall out of the sky . . . I strongly suspect there are people who have worked through just such issues and did them decades before they were released to the public . . .

You may think is not plausible but I do . . . I have much more faith in the technological prowess of black ops even a decade ago . . .

Could have been as simple as a flash drive CD or tape downloading a Trojan Horse or virus into an input port on the autopilot hardware/software console . . .
 

captfitch

Senior Member.
as someone who teaches people how to fly turbo-jet powered aircraft I can tell you that even with thier limited hours they would have no problem doing this. Half of the private pilot rating is learning how to put the plane where you want to put it. And a plane is a plane in respects to up-down-left-right. THe only problem with going as fast as they were travelling would have been the annoying overspeed horn.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
as someone who teaches people how to fly turbo-jet powered aircraft I can tell you that even with thier limited hours they would have no problem doing this. Half of the private pilot rating is learning how to put the plane where you want to put it. And a plane is a plane in respects to up-down-left-right. THe only problem with going as fast as they were travelling would have been the annoying overspeed horn.
Then why are the experienced pilots in the videos disagreeing with you???
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
There are experienced pilots who agree as well.

George, in relation to my other post, the engineers and pilots in your video are referring to an airspeed at which I too have doubts that a 767 could fly (510 KCAS). The NTSB report I found has reduced it to about 6% percent above a speed (432KCAS) apparently cleared by Boeing as part of the certification process. In my opinion, those pilots and engineers should rethink their positions.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Here is my question. Do more experienced pilots agree or disagree?

There are very FEW things that everyone will agree on. Even something as common as rain, can spark a disagreement, such as "when does a mist turn into rain?" Some folks will say that if the sky is leaking liquid precipitation, then that is RAIN. Others say that if it is very light and the drops are tiny, then it is a mist.

If 5 out of every 100 experienced pilots say it is possible, then why is what the 5 say considered more important and that that outweighs the 95?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
There are experienced pilots who agree as well.

George, in relation to my other post, the engineers and pilots in your video are referring to an airspeed at which I too have doubts that a 767 could fly (510 KCAS). The NTSB report I found has reduced it to about 6% percent above a speed (432KCAS) apparently cleared by Boeing as part of the certification process. In my opinion, those pilots and engineers should rethink their positions.
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 . . .
 
Top