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

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff 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?
How do you know 95% of experienced pilots say it is not a problem . . . do you have a poll ???
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
How do you know 95% of experienced pilots say it is not a problem . . . do you have a poll ???

I fly for an airline that has 2500 experienced pilots and its own online forum. No-one publically disputes the OS.

That is not saying that there aren't any with private reservations. But the consensus is that it is possible/probable.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I fly for an airline that has 2500 experienced pilots and its own online forum. No-one publically disputes the OS.

That is not saying that there aren't any with private reservations. But the consensus is that it is possible/probable.
I don't doubt your observation but many will simply not voice an opinion they feel will be unpopular . . . I doubt many talk about UFOs either . . .
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
You'd be surprised George. Some publically disputed the OBL shooting version. Others have their own little conspiracy theories... but 9/11? Not a peep.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You'd be surprised George. Some publically disputed the OBL shooting version. Others have their own little conspiracy theories... but 9/11? Not a peep.
Cobra, OBL has no significant connection to aviation . . . the 911 events do . . . as well as UFOs . . . people simply keep their thoughts to themselves except on a Forum like this . . . while on active duty I never discussed such issues either for the same reasons . . .
 

Met Watch

Moderator
How would you restrict it to experienced pilots and get enough respondents to be significant ??

Define significant. Apparently by your standards 3 or 4 pilots questioning the official account is significant to put doubt in said account. Would 7 or 8 pilots saying it IS possible be significant enough to say otherwise?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Define significant. Apparently by your standards 3 or 4 pilots questioning the official account is significant to put doubt in said account. Would 7 or 8 pilots saying it IS possible be significant enough to say otherwise?
No, I am talking about the total sample size to be stastically reasonable . . . and still we have to rely on them self identifying their credentials . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
As you can see a poll can be worded several ways . . . as below it is biased toward a Conspiracy by implying a technology brought down the towers . . . as you can see only 9.4% voted for the official story . . .


POLL: What technology brought down WTC Buildings (1,2 & 7)?

WTC Demolition - Thermate and Thermobaric Weapons cutting main supports? 51.3% (98)

Directed energy weapon &/or SCALAR ELECTROMAGNETIC WEAPONS? 17.3% (33)

Nuclear explosions on foundation and thermate used on superstructure? 15.2% (29)

NIST's & 911 Commission's fire metal fatigue pancake theory? 9.4% (18)

Micro or mini nuclear explosions throughout including foundation? 4.2% (8)

Massive nuclear underground detonations that dissolved the towers? 2.6% (5)

Blank (View Results)(33)

Non-Blank Votes: 191
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No, I am talking about the total sample size to be stastically reasonable . . . and still we have to rely on them self identifying their credentials . . .

Hmm, so are you saying that the current number of pilots who think it's impossible is insignificant?
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
It would be possible on the forum I discussed to get poll done. It would be a matter of contacting the admin and getting him to agree. The forum is private and 99% of the members are airline pilots.

Ps George, you should here what they say about chemtrails..
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Hmm, so are you saying that the current number of pilots who think it's impossible is insignificant?
That is possible . . . Because few may have even thought about 911, etc . . . I am not saying not to do the poll . . . I think it would be interesting . . . however, I would suggest asking them to review one of the videos presenting the 767 pilots pro Truthers and then select a video debunking the Truthers and then asking them to vote . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It would be possible on the forum I discussed to get poll done. It would be a matter of contacting the admin and getting him to agree. The forum is private and 99% of the members are airline pilots.

Ps George, you should here what they say about chemtrails..
I would probably agree with most of what they think and have to say about chemtrails . . .
 

Rico

Senior Member.
(...other Q&A)

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 . . .

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 . . .


Rewinding a bit here. So, George, in telling the story on how your remote-pilot theory works, you are pretty much taking the stance that everything happened the way it was reported, until the final moments which you believe requires advanced technology in order for the aircraft to hit the building. Correct?

Let's get some facts straight here. A 767 airliner is not a cruise missile. Nor is it a JDAM bomb. It operates via conventional controls called ailerons, elevators, and rudder, and controlled through hydraulic inputs. The WTC and the pentagon are large buildings. If a pilot cannot control the aircraft to steer it into the buildings, than how can the computer do so exactly? It would have to use the same controls after all. Sure, it can be more precise, but we're not talking about taking out a bunker here or someone's tent. The other thing which I had brought up earlier is that these pilots aren't exactly novice in the sense that they have no idea what they were doing. They were licensed pilots. They know how to target shoot and hit the center line of a runway. In that respect, a tall 208 ft wide building is child's play.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
My comment about 95% vs 5% was pure speculation. In fact I would guess the real number is closer to 1 out a 1000 or .01 instead of 5%

Here a reasoning question. If you were a pilot and you thought that someone (the government, the CIA, the Russians, little green men) could take control of a plane you were flying and fly it into a building, or a mountain, WOULDN'T you find a new job ASAP?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Rewinding a bit here. So, George, in telling the story on how your remote-pilot theory works, you are pretty much taking the stance that everything happened the way it was reported, until the final moments which you believe requires advanced technology in order for the aircraft to hit the building. Correct?

Let's get some facts straight here. A 767 airliner is not a cruise missile. Nor is it a JDAM bomb. It operates via conventional controls called ailerons, elevators, and rudder, and controlled through hydraulic inputs. The WTC and the pentagon are large buildings. If a pilot cannot control the aircraft to steer it into the buildings, than how can the computer do so exactly? It would have to use the same controls after all. Sure, it can be more precise, but we're not talking about taking out a bunker here or someone's tent. The other thing which I had brought up earlier is that these pilots aren't exactly novice in the sense that they have no idea what they were doing. They were licensed pilots. They know how to target shoot and hit the center line of a runway. In that respect, a tall 208 ft wide building is child's play.
The question may not be can a novice pilot ram a 208 foot wide building near the performance capacity of an aircraft, if I am the plotter, as much as do I trust the pilot's nerves, motivation, and the possibility that someone could intervene and incapacitate the pilot. .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
My comment about 95% vs 5% was pure speculation. In fact I would guess the real number is closer to 1 out a 1000 or .01 instead of 5%

Here a reasoning question. If you were a pilot and you thought that someone (the government, the CIA, the Russians, little green men) could take control of a plane you were flying and fly it into a building, or a mountain, WOULDN'T you find a new job ASAP?
No, I think they are capable of similar skullduggery to a train, bus, automobile the building I may be in, etc. . .we take risks every time we venture forth in the world. . . these minimal risks are a part of living . . . We may never know when we could be embroiled in a plot of international intrigue . . .
 

Rico

Senior Member.
The question may not be can a novice pilot ram a 208 foot wide building near the performance capacity of an aircraft, if I am the plotter, as much as do I trust the pilot's nerves, motivation, and the possibility that someone could intervene and incapacitate the pilot. .

So you are saying that it is there to ensure mission success because of who is at the controls and because they might have been nervous and/or be potentially incapacitated by others?

If I'm not mistaken, the story has it that someone did intervene on United 93, or is that story false too? Well, I'm willing to believe some dramatization there with proper evidence, but in any case, the motivations and tactics used by the hijackers in the OS at the two WTC were simplistic and relatively easy to execute by comparison to modifying an aircraft behind someone's back. In taking over AA11 and UA175, passengers would have had no idea what was happening until the final moments other than a rather violent and swift move by hijackers. The nerves of the pilots? Probably shot but that doesn't mean they are going to just cower and turn back. Keep in mind they had a whole team likely supporting each other for the mission. Besides, crashing into a building is a pretty quick way to go, and there are people out there who are not afraid to die.

And really, have you even considered the complexity of installing some super-high-tech device to takeover a complex jetliner like the 767 behind someone's back? This is what the panel looks like:


And this is how complex the innards can get:


This isn't as simple as they do it in some sci-fi movie here with some ice breaking gizmo.

The only thing that is simple in the equation is how they had reportedly executed their plan. If I were the plotter, I'd keep it simple.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So you are saying that it is there to ensure mission success because of who is at the controls and because they might have been nervous and/or be potentially incapacitated by others?

If I'm not mistaken, the story has it that someone did intervene on United 93, or is that story false too? Well, I'm willing to believe some dramatization there with proper evidence, but in any case, the motivations and tactics used by the hijackers in the OS at the two WTC were simplistic and relatively easy to execute by comparison to modifying an aircraft behind someone's back. In taking over AA11 and UA175, passengers would have had no idea what was happening until the final moments other than a rather violent and swift move by hijackers. The nerves of the pilots? Probably shot but that doesn't mean they are going to just cower and turn back. Keep in mind they had a whole team likely supporting each other for the mission. Besides, crashing into a building is a pretty quick way to go, and there are people out there who are not afraid to die.

And really, have you even considered the complexity of installing some super-high-tech device to takeover a complex jetliner like the 767 behind someone's back? This is what the panel looks like:


And this is how complex the innards can get:


This isn't as simple as they do it in some sci-fi movie here with some ice breaking gizmo.

The only thing that is simple in the equation is how they had reportedly executed their plan. If I were the plotter, I'd keep it simple.
Are there not ways to update the software on the autopilot flight logic. . . .??? It requires only a port available to the hijackers who would have been instructed to down load the code. . . . someone capable of hatching such a plan I am sure would have the specs on such a mundane act. . . . flight 93 may or may not have had their auto pilot slaved by the control code . . . maybe the people in charge aborted 93's mission . . . and crashed it to hide all evidence of their methods and witnesses . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Are there not ways to update the software on the autopilot flight logic. . . .??? It requires only a port available to the hijackers who would have been instructed to down load the code. . . . someone capable of hatching such a plan I am sure would have the specs on such a mundane act. . . . flight 93 may or may not have had their auto pilot slaved by the control code . . . maybe the people in charge aborted 93's mission . . . and crashed it to hide all evidence of their methods and witnesses . . .

The real world is not like Hollywood when it comes to technology. Besides, reprogramming the autopilot is not going to help one iota with flying into buildings. The autopilot can't see the buildings.

George, it all just makes vastly more sense if the hijackers just flew the plane into the buildings. You don't need to invent additional explanations for which there is no evidence and no need. I know that's your specialty, but it's really not helpful.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

Another cute gadget is the Flight Management Computer System, also Boeing standard equipment. The page for the 757-200 describes this as: "A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing." And "The precision of global positioning satellite (GPS) system navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer." Gee whiz. What does the pilot get to do then? Chat up the ladies?
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html

Content from External Source
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The real world is not like Hollywood when it comes to technology. Besides, reprogramming the autopilot is not going to help one iota with flying into buildings. The autopilot can't see the buildings.

George, it all just makes vastly more sense if the hijackers just flew the plane into the buildings. You don't need to invent additional explanations for which there is no evidence and no need. I know that's your specialty, but it's really not helpful.
The reason for the speculation is I am not convinced the hijackers could do it three for three . . . No way . . . without assistance !!! Believe what you wish about me . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The real world is not like Hollywood when it comes to technology. Besides, reprogramming the autopilot is not going to help one iota with flying into buildings. The autopilot can't see the buildings.
The autopilot doesn't have too. . . .the port where the control code was downloaded would logically be connected to a receiver (possibly a cell phone) which gets updated with target telemetry from the transponder on the towers or from the laser targeting device . . . It is done in combat all the time . . . Real time from miles away. . . .


Ground-based

U.S. Air Force Joint Terminal Air Controllers and Marine Corps Forward Air Controllers typically employ a lightweight device, such as the AN/PED-1 Lightweight Laser Designator Rangefinder (LLDR), permitting them to designate targets for Close Air Support aircraft flying overhead and in close proximity to friendly forces.[2] Northrop Grumman's LLDR, using an eye-safe laser wavelength, recognizes targets, finds the range to a target, and fixes target locations for laser-guided, GPS-guided, and conventional munitions. This lightweight, interoperable system uniquely provides range finding and targeting information to other digital battlefield systems.[3]
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Laser_designator?o=3986&qsrc=999
Content from External Source

Modern autopilots use computer software to control the aircraft. The software reads the aircraft's current position, and then controls a Flight Control System to guide the aircraft. In such a system, besides classic flight controls, many autopilots incorporate thrust control capabilities that can control throttles to optimize the airspeed, and move fuel to different tanks to balance the aircraft in an optimal attitude in the air. Although autopilots handle new or dangerous situations inflexibly, they generally fly an aircraft with a lower fuel-consumption than a human pilot.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Autopilot?qsrc=3044#Computer_system_details
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Apparently I am not the only person to think of such a similar scenario . . .


It's not the pipe-dream it sounds, either. After 9/11, what with Middle-Eastern gentlemen being able to hijack planes and fly them with military precision, there was a lot of talk of "... including technology to enable controllers to take over distressed aircraft and land it by remote control." Needless to say, pilots aren't too happy with the idea of someone off-board taking control of their ship, whoever it is. What if that someone was a "Middle-Eastern gentleman"? [Landing by remote control doesn't quite fly with pilots. Chicago Tribune, September 28, 2001] Even Robert Ayling, former boss of British Airways, got in on the act and "... suggested in the Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack... " [The Economist, September 20, 2001]
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html
Content from External Source
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But they didn't do it 3 for 3- it was 3 for 4...

Sorry, #4 never got a chance . . . it was never close enough to engage a targeting sequence . . . so in my mind it does not count . . . it was aborted . . . still three aircraft within sight of target, three targets destroyed . . . the military would be happy with that success rate . . .
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Sorry, #4 never got a chance . . . it was never close enough to engage a targeting sequence . . . so in my mind it does not count . . . it was aborted . . . still three aircraft within sight of target, three targets destroyed . . . the military would be happy with that success rate . . .

Not to quibble...but the pentagon was not destroyed.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Not to quibble...but the pentagon was not destroyed.

Correct, it was well damaged however and how about WTC #7 . . . who is quibbling . . .
three aircraft within sight of target, and FOUR targets destroyed . . . the military would be happy with that success rate . . .
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Correct, it was well damaged however and how about WTC #7 . . . who is quibbling . . .
three aircraft within sight of target, and FOUR targets destroyed . . . the military would be happy with that success rate . . .


well, if you are going to play that game- it was 4 targets, 2 destroyed, one damaged, one aborted.

WTC 7 was collateral damage.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
There's no question it is well within the technologies of today, and even of 2001, to remotely pilot an aircraft... I don't really see the point in arguing that. Installing such a system on a Boeing in 2001 might have been a complicated effort, but I hardly think impossible.

I was perusing some of the more ridiculous examples of '9/11 predictions' in the media, like the whole 'Chucky from Rugrats' thing, when I came across this. Having been a fan of the X-files, I used to watch this spin-off for the brief period that it lasted. I don't think I ever saw the pilot episode though, or I somehow managed to forget it, as its content is somewhat mind-boggling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3WW6eoLcLI

If nothing else, this is a pretty clear indication that Gaddafi's unrequited love-interestCondoleezza Rice was all the more full of shit when she said no one had ever conceived of terrorists using airliners as weapons against the wtc/pentagon, as not only had they done a pretty detailed report on it, just such a scenario (with a conspiratorial twist) had played out on Fox 6 months prior.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There's no question it is well within the technologies of today, and even of 2001, to remotely pilot an aircraft... I don't really see the point in arguing that. Installing such a system on a Boeing in 2001 might have been a complicated effort, but I hardly think impossible.

Of course it's not impossible. There's just no evidence it was done, and it's just a lot easier to fly into buildings by hand.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Of course it's not impossible. There's just no evidence it was done, and it's just a lot easier to fly into buildings by hand.

You mean downloading a few MB of code in the 767-200's autopilot console is that difficult? . . . and a portable laser designator on the ground . . . with a couple of cell phones to communicate telemetry . . . sounds like good insurance to me . . .


Ground-based

U.S. Air Force
Content from External Source
Joint Terminal Air Controllers and Marine Corps Forward Air Controllers typically employ a lightweight device, such as the AN/PED-1 Lightweight Laser Designator Rangefinder (LLDR), permitting them to designate targets for Close Air Support aircraft flying overhead and in close proximity to friendly forces.[2] Northrop Grumman's LLDR, using an eye-safe laser wavelength, recognizes targets, finds the range to a target, and fixes target locations for laser-guided, GPS-guided, and conventional munitions. This lightweight, interoperable system uniquely provides range finding and targeting information to other digital battlefield systems.[3]
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Laser_designator?o=3986&qsrc=999
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You mean downloading a few MB of code in the 767-200's autopilot console is that difficult? . . . and a portable laser designator on the ground . . . with a couple of cell phones to communicate telemetry . . . sounds like good insurance to me . . .

If you are a Hollywood screenwriter, perhaps.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
If you are a Hollywood screenwriter, perhaps.
Ok . . . you are a programmer and I have done some as well . . . if you have unfettered availability of the autopilot code and a few months of effort you don't think you can take control of the aircraft and fly it . . . ??? Sure it makes a great Hollywood screenplay but sometimes fact is stranger than fiction . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok . . . you are a programmer and I have done some as well . . . if you have unfettered availability of the autopilot code and a few months of effort you don't think you can take control of the aircraft and fly it . . . ??? Sure it makes a great Hollywood screenplay but sometimes fact is stranger than fiction . . .

No. I don't. You are talking about a technological solution that is VASTLY less reliable (in this specific instance) than simply flying by hand. And there's no need for it.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No. I don't. You are talking about a technological solution that is VASTLY less reliable (in this specific instance) than simply flying by hand. And there's no need for it.
I personally have no other way to explain the accuracy and reliability of the hijackers . . . apparently you are no more convincing to me than I am to you . . .
 

Rico

Senior Member.
I personally have no other way to explain the accuracy and reliability of the hijackers . . . apparently you are no more convincing to me than I am to you . . .

George,

Steering a plane by hand is not, that, difficult.

The concept on how it works can be taught to a 9 year old. If the building is drifting up on the window, the plane is going to undershoot it. If it is drifting to the left, then the plane is going to pass to the right. If it is straight ahead and getting larger, the plane is going to hit it dead on. It's EASY. Point the plane so the building is in front of you, and it's done deal. The accuracy and reliability of the hijackers are not rocket science here. We are talking about a 208 ft wide building many stories high here. It is a BIG target.

The hijackers were licensed pilots. Licensed pilots can land a plane with the nose wheel touching the centre line with a width the size of a man's shoulder. A proficient pilot can glide a plane and touch down at a specific point almost zero lateral error and on target. Pull up some cockpit videos of airplanes landing on youtube if you don't believe me.

The process of trying to hack into the in-flight computer takes much more work than simply just doing it by hand. You don't need laser-point accuracy to hit a building. Why go into so much depth to do so otherwise?

And besides, a Boeing 767 navigation suite has lateral and vertical navigation as it is. There is no point hacking into the system to ensure mission success. Did you know that manual inputs on the aircraft would disconnect the autopilot anyways? A little bit of software coding into the flight management system isn't going to change that. It is also incredibly absurd to mess with the computer while it's on in flight.

There is also the extra length that the hijackers would have to smuggle a few extra tools, including a screwdriver, as part of their carry-on. But the point is: they don't need to.

If I were in their shoes, I would have jumped in the cockpit, dialed in a waypoint for new york on the flight management computer to navigate there, disconnect the autopilot when I see new york, steer (probably at a lower speed), and accelerate. Not that I would do that, but that's keeping it simple. I don't have to bust any panels, I don't have to mess with an already working navigation suite, and I don't have to smuggle on extra equipment.

The flight profile for 175 was steep and wobbly. I doubt AA flight 11 was much different. This shows signs that it was hand flown.
 
Top