Rico
Senior Member.
Check out forums like http://www.pprune.org/ too.
9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph?
- Thread starter lee h oswald
- Start date
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Maybe I am not understanding you, but you seem to be complaining that it is mostly conspiracy theories that are being debunked here.
If a conspiracy cannot hold up to reason and science and facts, shouldn't that be a reason for it to be debunked? Personally, I debunk a lot of things I read. Recently a friend had shared a story about the military cutting out hot breakfasts and snacks for the troops in Afghanistan, in order to save money. Before I hit that 'share' button, I took the time to check out the story. It turns out that 2 hot meals ARE being cut in some forward operating bases, but it is in preparation for the troops being withdrawn. It had nothing to do with a budget cut. Of course the person that shared it didn't like that, she wanted to insist that it was a budget cut, even thought the military says it isn't. I KNOW better, I can tell others better.
If a conspiracy cannot hold up to reason and science and facts, shouldn't that be a reason for it to be debunked? Personally, I debunk a lot of things I read. Recently a friend had shared a story about the military cutting out hot breakfasts and snacks for the troops in Afghanistan, in order to save money. Before I hit that 'share' button, I took the time to check out the story. It turns out that 2 hot meals ARE being cut in some forward operating bases, but it is in preparation for the troops being withdrawn. It had nothing to do with a budget cut. Of course the person that shared it didn't like that, she wanted to insist that it was a budget cut, even thought the military says it isn't. I KNOW better, I can tell others better.
RolandD
Active Member
George, does it not seem odd to you that if it is so obviously impossible for the hijackers to have piloted the planes on 9/11, that only four or six pilots, out of approximately 600,000 licensed pilots, are speaking out about it. You'd think if it WAS impossible, as those four have said and they are quite sure of themselves, that hundreds, if not thousands, of others would have come forward. On the other hand, the vast majority of pilots probably feel that the comments from that very small percentage on the lunatic fringe are so ridiculous, that they are not worthy of the effort of a reply.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No, many times people simply don't get involved for several reasons:
1) They simply don't know about the debate
2) They don't have the time or energy to get involved
3) They could care less about the debate . . . they have bigger fish to fry
4) As a professional pilot they stay clear of anything which could label them with a particular group
5) They may have doubts about the official story but simply don't have anything concrete to contribute
7) Most people in general are observers and not participants . . .
I am sure this list isn't complete . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think it is rather (historically) obvious that two major areas where Bunk has been identified to Debunked on MetaBunk are the 911 and Chemtrail conspiracies . . . take it for what it is . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So if I or someone else were allowed to conduct an anonymous poll on a professional aviation Forum how should it be worded to convince the Debunkers here the results are acceptable???
Suggest we construct one here and give it a trial run . . . even though we know the likely results . . . we need a single response and multiple response poll . . . since we don't know what is possible on a different Forum . . .
Suggest we construct one here and give it a trial run . . . even though we know the likely results . . . we need a single response and multiple response poll . . . since we don't know what is possible on a different Forum . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I suggest the following as a starting point for discussion . . .
The 911 official story is suspected by some to be inaccurate and others feel it is accurate , what is your opinion?
1) The Official Story is as complete and accurate as humanly possible.
2) There are holes in the Official Story I feel need further investigated.
3) The Official Story is fantasy . . .
4) The conspiracy theories are fantasy . . .
5) The most significant area of concern is the unprecedented collapse of the Towers I, II & VII . . .
6) The most significant area of concern is the ability of inexperienced pilots to hit the Twin Towers and Pentagon . . .
The 911 official story is suspected by some to be inaccurate and others feel it is accurate , what is your opinion?
1) The Official Story is as complete and accurate as humanly possible.
2) There are holes in the Official Story I feel need further investigated.
3) The Official Story is fantasy . . .
4) The conspiracy theories are fantasy . . .
5) The most significant area of concern is the unprecedented collapse of the Towers I, II & VII . . .
6) The most significant area of concern is the ability of inexperienced pilots to hit the Twin Towers and Pentagon . . .
You need some poll-writing lesson George 
Your questions are just broad catch-alls, or overly specific, forcing a misleading answer. Everyone feels there are holes in the official story - even if it's just "why didn't Bush leave the classroom immediately". That's a ridiculous poll question. And a large number of people are in the "essentially let it happen a bit via incompetence" camp.
They are pilots, ask them about how hard it is to hit a building at the speeds indicated.
Q) Could pilots with only a single engine commercial licence have flown the planes into the World Trade Center like they appeared to do on 9/11?
1) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward
2) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration
3) Yes, but it would have been very difficult
4) Probably, but they were pretty lucky
5) Probably not, it would be very hard to do
6) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed
7) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed
8) No, the plane could never even reach that speed.
Your questions are just broad catch-alls, or overly specific, forcing a misleading answer. Everyone feels there are holes in the official story - even if it's just "why didn't Bush leave the classroom immediately". That's a ridiculous poll question. And a large number of people are in the "essentially let it happen a bit via incompetence" camp. They are pilots, ask them about how hard it is to hit a building at the speeds indicated.
Q) Could pilots with only a single engine commercial licence have flown the planes into the World Trade Center like they appeared to do on 9/11?
1) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward
2) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration
3) Yes, but it would have been very difficult
4) Probably, but they were pretty lucky
5) Probably not, it would be very hard to do
6) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed
7) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed
8) No, the plane could never even reach that speed.
Grieves
Senior Member
Budget cuts to the American military? Now there's a ludicrous theory.
Mick, you need to slip an 'and the pentagon' in there. The Pentagon collision is what most 'Truthers' describe as the unbelievable feat of piloting, not the tower-collisions. It might, in fact, taint the results of the survey to give the Towers prominence.
No, I'm just saying that from hundreds if not thousands of feet, the pentagon wouldn't be that easy a target, especially considering it's not particularly tall. I'd think the most logical way to try and hit a structure like that would be to nose-dive it, as from a downward angle it's a far more obvious target.. there's just a risk that a 'bulls-eye' will result in a collision with the central courtyard and minimal damage to the building. As if anticipating this, a rather skilled spiral descent and low-approach was used, to collide with the building from the side.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Well thanks Mick for sparing my feelings . . . my intention was to get something from MetaBunk that would be acceptable . . . does the rest of the group agree with the above options and wording???You need some poll-writing lesson George
They are pilots, ask them about how hard it is to hit a building at the speeds indicated.
Q) Could pilots with only a single engine commercial licence have flown the planes into the World Trade Center like they appeared to do on 9/11?
1) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward
2) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration
3) Yes, but it would have been very difficult
4) Probably, but they were pretty lucky
5) Probably not, it would be very hard to do
6) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed
7) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed
8) No, the plane could never even reach that speed.
Budget cuts to the American military? Now there's a ludicrous theory.
Mick, you need to slip an 'and the pentagon' in there. The Pentagon collision is what most 'Truthers' describe as the unbelievable feat of piloting, not the tower-collisions. It might, in fact, taint the results of the survey to give the Towers prominence.
No, I'm just saying that from hundreds if not thousands of feet, the pentagon wouldn't be that easy a target, especially considering it's not particularly tall. I'd think the most logical way to try and hit a structure like that would be to nose-dive it, as from a downward angle it's a far more obvious target.. there's just a risk that a 'bulls-eye' will result in a collision with the central courtyard and minimal damage to the building. As if anticipating this, a rather skilled spiral descent and low-approach was used, to collide with the building from the side.
Yes, that's why I left it off. Because it always lead to incredible misleading questions like "could you duplicate that maneuver". The hijackers were trying to hit the Pentagon. There's a much bigger risk of missing it from the actual approach they took. They way they actually did it is irrelevant and almost certainly not exactly what they were trying to do. The only question should be "could you hit the pentagon.
It's like if someone ran into a room with a revolver, and shot wildly at someone fifteen feet away, three shots in two seconds. One shot hits him in the hand, severing his left index finger, the second hits him in the right eye, and the third punctures his right kidney.
Do you then ask "given a human target popping up fifteen feet away how hard would it be to shoot him in the left index finger, the right eye, and the right kidney"?
No, you ask "given a human target popping up fifteen feet away, could you hit it?"
Grieves
Senior Member
...I don't see what difference that makes where including an 'and the pentagon' in the survey is concerned...!
Including only the towers will lead to the obvious answer of 'Durr, of course it wouldn't be hard, they're massive towers.', which is hardly a productive or meaningful result, and doesn't really address the issue at hand appropriately.
As for your analogy, I don't think it really applies, given that in the case of each collision only one 'bullet' was involved. There was nothing particularly random or chaotic about the attacks or their targets. It was clearly a highly planned, highly coordinated event, in which three out of four weaponized planes reached targets of strategic importance. Though the tower-collisions only required the pilots to be able to line up a target and travel in a relatively straight line toward it, the pentagon collision required a feat of piloting I've never heard anyone honestly suggest wouldn't require a great a deal of skill. If you don't ask the pilots if they think they/a more or less novice-level pilot could perform such a maneuver, or at least a similar maneuver with a similar result, the poll is essentially pointless.
Including only the towers will lead to the obvious answer of 'Durr, of course it wouldn't be hard, they're massive towers.', which is hardly a productive or meaningful result, and doesn't really address the issue at hand appropriately.
As for your analogy, I don't think it really applies, given that in the case of each collision only one 'bullet' was involved. There was nothing particularly random or chaotic about the attacks or their targets. It was clearly a highly planned, highly coordinated event, in which three out of four weaponized planes reached targets of strategic importance. Though the tower-collisions only required the pilots to be able to line up a target and travel in a relatively straight line toward it, the pentagon collision required a feat of piloting I've never heard anyone honestly suggest wouldn't require a great a deal of skill. If you don't ask the pilots if they think they/a more or less novice-level pilot could perform such a maneuver, or at least a similar maneuver with a similar result, the poll is essentially pointless.
Sure, add it. I just wanted to avoid any misunderstanding about needing to duplicate the flight path.
Maybe then, with clarification:
Q) Could pilots with only a commercial licence have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11? (Without needing to duplicate the impact location, just hit the building).
(I removed the "single engine" qualification, as Hajour, who hit the Pentagon, had multi-engine certification, some jet training, and about ten years of flying.)
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think there needs to be a qualification of . . . relatively inexperienced . . . as in
Q) Could relatively inexperienced pilots with only a commercial license have hit (dead center or not) the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds and situations observed on 9/11?
No, because "and situations" implies the need to duplicate exactly what happened. That's not what the hijackers were trying to do, they were just trying to hit the buildings. What "situation" are you referring to? There was no situation - they were in a plane, in the air.
And what does "relatively inexperienced" mean?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Just "commercial license" could mean significant long term flight experience thus "relatively inexperienced" . . . I don't think much experience was the case . . . "situation" is not necessary I was referring to the stress of martyrdom, killing or injuring the flight crews, etc. . . .
Met Watch
Moderator
No. If you want to do a poll, you should write one without trying to add bias to the question.
Then find out how many hours of flying experience each pilot had, and list that. Find their jet experience, list that. Find their Boeing simulator experience, list that. Be more precise, not less precise.
And since you have zero idea how an individual jihadist reacts to the stress of martyrdom, then it's not relevant. Simply trying to hit the building is stressful enough.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I indicated the "situation" was not necessary .. . for brevity . . . I think we need an agreed upon modifier for "licensed" pilot . . . I think "commercial" is misleading as well . . .
No it's not, commercial has a very specific meaning. It's a type of pilot license certification, which they had. Any pilot will understand what this is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_pilot_license
More specifically:A commercial pilot license (CPL), is a qualification that permits the holder to act as the pilot-in-command of an aircraft and be paid for his/her work.
The basic requirements to obtain the license and the privileges it confers are agreed internationally by International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), however the actual implementation varies quite widely from country to country. According to ICAO, to be eligible for a commercial pilot license, the applicant must be able to read, speak, write, and understand English: already hold a private pilot license, have received training in the areas of a commercial pilot, and successfully complete the relevant written exams. To proceed in obtaining a commercial pilot license, the applicant must first obtain second-class medical certification. The JAA has several approved courses leading to the issue of a JAA commercial pilot's license with an instrument rating without first obtaining a private pilot's license. Upon completing those prerequisites the applicant will then receive an exam from the governing aviation body that consists of an oral and practical flight test from an examiner. Applicants for a CPL (aeroplanes) must also have completed a solo cross-country flight of at least 300 nm with full-stop landings at two airfields other than the pilot's airfield of origin.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...ctLookup/61.129!OpenDocument&ExpandSection=-3
Sec. 61.129
Aeronautical experience.
(a) For an airplane single-engine rating. Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, a person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category and single-engine class rating must log at least 250 hours of flight time as a pilot that consists of at least:
(1) 100 hours in powered aircraft, of which 50 hours must be in airplanes.
(2) 100 hours of pilot-in-command flight time, which includes at least--
(i) 50 hours in airplanes; and
(ii) 50 hours in cross-country flight of which at least 10 hours must be in airplanes.
(3) 20 hours of training on the areas of operation listed in Sec. 61.127(b)(1) of this part that includes at least--
[(i) Ten hours of instrument training using a view-limiting device including attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems. Five hours of the 10 hours required on instrument training must be in a single engine airplane;]
(ii) 10 hours of training in an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller, or is turbine-powered, or for an applicant seeking a single-engine seaplane rating, 10 hours of training in a seaplane that has flaps and a controllable pitch propeller;
[(iii) One 2-hour cross country flight in a single engine airplane in daytime conditions that consists of a total straight-line distance of more than 100 nautical miles from the original point of departure;
(iv) One 2-hour cross country flight in a single engine airplane in nighttime conditions that consists of a total straight-line distance of more than 100 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(v) Three hours in a single-engine airplane with an authorized instructor in preparation for the practical test within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test.
(4) Ten hours of solo flight time in a single engine airplane or 10 hours of flight time performing the duties of pilot in command in a single engine airplane with an authorized instructor on board (either of which may be credited towards the flight time requirement under paragraph (a)(2) of this section), on the areas of operation listed under Sec. 61.127(b)(1) that include--]
(i) One cross-country flight of not less than 300 nautical miles total distance, with landings at a minimum of three points, one of which is a straight-line distance of at least 250 nautical miles from the original departure point. However, if this requirement is being met in Hawaii, the longest segment need only have a straight-line distance of at least 150 nautical miles; and
(ii) 5 hours in night VFR conditions with 10 takeoffs and 10 landings (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport with an operating control tower.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts
Seems all the hijackers had minimal time no matter what type license they held . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I am talking about real time as a commercial pilot or any pilot in solo situations . . . you are telling me these were experienced pilots . . . any of them . . . to me that is what a commercial licensed pilot implies to the public and to other pilots?
Why don't we defer to the real commercial pilots on the forum to clarify this question about the proper terrms to describe the hijackers. . .
Pilots know what "commercial pilot" means. You are planning on asking pilots. If you want more precision as to their experience, then list their actual experience in terms of hours. Or just list the FAA requirements as what their experience is. Don't be subjective, be objective.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Seems we are not absolutely sure who was piloting the aircraft and unless I am not reading it correctly not all the supposed pilots had commercial licenses . . . so why don't we just call them "Hijackers" and link to the discussion above if voters wish to view more info about their experience . . .
Could the Hijackers have hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11?
No. It makes the most sense that the most experience hijacker would pilot the plane. And in each case that was a pilot with a commercial license. We are trying to determine if what happened is actually possible here. You wanted to add "relatively inexperienced", so let's be precise about the experience available.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I don't get your take here . . . the voters are capable of researching their own understanding . . . However, I would go with (the pilots were assumed to have earned a commercial license within the previous year) . . .
My take is that you should supply as much objective context as possible, and you should not add subjective assessments.
Why not say when they go their commercial licenses? Why not say how much experience they had in hours? Why not list their jet and simulator experience?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
And how are you going to do that embedded on the face of the poll and expect anyone to respond to it????? As a hot link OK . . .
Okay, if it's a problem then I'd be fine with "(the pilots were assumed to have earned a commercial license within the previous year)"
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Q) Could pilots with only a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11? (the pilots were assumed to have earned a commercial license within the previous year)
1) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward
2) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration
3) Yes, but it would have been very difficult
4) Probably, but they were pretty lucky
5) Probably not, it would be very hard to do
6) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed
7) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed
8) No, the plane could never even reach that speed.
Met Watch
Moderator
I would remove "only" from the question. Again, that sets up a bias in the question that could lead to bad results. Just my opinion.
I agree, the target audience is pilots, they know what a commercial licence is. Adding "only" is an unnecessary qualifier.
Agreed, and probably an "I don't know" answer.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Question . . . do they know the assumed speeds ... (Tower #1 = 510 Knots Groundspeed, Tower#2 = 430 Knots Groundspeed, Pentagon = 460 Knots Groundspeed)
Q) Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11? (the pilots were assumed to have earned a commercial license within the previous year) (Tower #1 = 510 Knots Groundspeed, Tower#2 = 430 Knots Groundspeed, Pentagon = 460 Knots Groundspeed)
1) Yes
2) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward
3) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration
4) Yes, but it would have been very difficult
5) Probably, but they were pretty lucky
6) Probably not, it would be very hard to do
7) No
8) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed
9) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed
10) No, the plane could never even reach that speed.
11) I don't know
Flight 77, flying at 530 mph (853 km/h, 237 m/s, or 460 knots) over the Navy Annex Building adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery,[36] crashed into the western side of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, just south of Washington, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77
Q) Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11? (the pilots were assumed to have earned a commercial license within the previous year) (Tower #1 = 510 Knots Groundspeed, Tower#2 = 430 Knots Groundspeed, Pentagon = 460 Knots Groundspeed)
1) Yes
2) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward
3) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration
4) Yes, but it would have been very difficult
5) Probably, but they were pretty lucky
6) Probably not, it would be very hard to do
7) No
8) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed
9) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed
10) No, the plane could never even reach that speed.
11) I don't know
Last edited by a moderator:
Rico
Senior Member.
Cite the speeds, in knots groundspeed, for each corresponding flight as per the official report
Edit: If it lists indicated airspeed, or true airspeed, you can list those as well. Just make sure you differentiate Indicated Airspeed, True Airspeed, and Groundspeed, as they are all different airspeeds under different contexts.
Edit: If it lists indicated airspeed, or true airspeed, you can list those as well. Just make sure you differentiate Indicated Airspeed, True Airspeed, and Groundspeed, as they are all different airspeeds under different contexts.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That I don't know or can confirm . . . we could publish both if you have an authoritative source . . .
http://www.documentingreality.com/f...t-175-video-data-impact-speed-study-ua175.pdf
This document ranges the speed between 473 - 510 Knots depending on if you take the video frame speeds or Radar data . . . The higher speed is radar. ...
Similar threads
