The general difficulty of the 9/11 flights
- Thread starter Hitstirrer
- Start date
Hitstirrer
Active Member
So your answer to my question is that they would find these high speed spiral descents relatively easy ?
TWCobra
Senior Member.
I would find it relatively easy... I can't speak for them apart to say one of them obviously achieved it.
Any other alternative is too far fetched.
It wasn't a spiral descent BTW. It was a descending turn achieved by avoiding hitting the ground as one descends and rolling out facing the Pentagon.
Those who say it was impossible for these guys generally have bias towards some kind of far fetched conspiracy, such as the few actual airline pilots on P4T.
They aren't mainstream opinions for pilots. Most of us accept it was done by pilots with enough training to do it and who weren't constrained by the normal things that occupy us during a flight such as safety considerations, passenger comfort, ATC procedures and correct operating procedures.
These were guys who simply knew enough to visually navigate and point an airliner at a large target.
The hijacker on AA77 screwed up his descent, probably by not seeing the Pentagon till too late. The hijackers on both AA11 and UA175 misjudged their final run in and were manoeuvring to try to correct their aim points when they hit.
The WTC hijackers didn't do it perfectly and if they missed the first time, the USAF was still so much into its Cold War intercept instincts that they would had plenty of time to swing around and try again like the AA77 hijacker. Probably severally attempts if needed.
The 767 is easy to fly at high speed/low level due to aerodynamic damping and the flight control system. It runs on rails. I have no reason to suspect the 757 is any different.
I have taken off from Sydney airport, opened the taps on a 767 Level D sim, skimmed down the beaches at 50 feet and flown at high speed under the center of the Sydney Harbour Bridge with 10 metres clearance from the water and the bridge, followed by a climbing aileron roll. I wasn't trained for that either but I did it with little trouble.
Any other alternative is too far fetched.
It wasn't a spiral descent BTW. It was a descending turn achieved by avoiding hitting the ground as one descends and rolling out facing the Pentagon.
Those who say it was impossible for these guys generally have bias towards some kind of far fetched conspiracy, such as the few actual airline pilots on P4T.
They aren't mainstream opinions for pilots. Most of us accept it was done by pilots with enough training to do it and who weren't constrained by the normal things that occupy us during a flight such as safety considerations, passenger comfort, ATC procedures and correct operating procedures.
These were guys who simply knew enough to visually navigate and point an airliner at a large target.
The hijacker on AA77 screwed up his descent, probably by not seeing the Pentagon till too late. The hijackers on both AA11 and UA175 misjudged their final run in and were manoeuvring to try to correct their aim points when they hit.
The WTC hijackers didn't do it perfectly and if they missed the first time, the USAF was still so much into its Cold War intercept instincts that they would had plenty of time to swing around and try again like the AA77 hijacker. Probably severally attempts if needed.
The 767 is easy to fly at high speed/low level due to aerodynamic damping and the flight control system. It runs on rails. I have no reason to suspect the 757 is any different.
I have taken off from Sydney airport, opened the taps on a 767 Level D sim, skimmed down the beaches at 50 feet and flown at high speed under the center of the Sydney Harbour Bridge with 10 metres clearance from the water and the bridge, followed by a climbing aileron roll. I wasn't trained for that either but I did it with little trouble.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
This discussion is so subjective and can prove nothing other than some experience and qualified pilots believe the maneuvers were something that even inexperienced pilots could achieve. Others claim this is not the case. Yet we all say the three planes hit three buildings so obviously it was not only possible but it happened. Call it luck, skill, highly unlikely of you want. It happened and so these discussions prove nothing.
This is similar to the "disbelief" that huge structures can collapse straight down leaving virtually nothing standing in less than 20 seconds. It happened, we saw it and people need to accept it.
This is similar to the "disbelief" that huge structures can collapse straight down leaving virtually nothing standing in less than 20 seconds. It happened, we saw it and people need to accept it.
But it is actually very easy. Trivially easy almost. Like driving a car in a circle in an open area. I think you are getting caught up with the words "high speed spiral descent" which sounds hard. It's not like some spiral dive. Descending is done by reducing power. Turning is done by turning the yoke a bit.
There's no path to follow. You just wait until you complete the turn.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Close this thread down then. You've debunked it.
If you disagree, then look into it more.
Bruno D.
Senior Member.
I agree 100%. It's always disgusting when a group of people transform the most obvious explanation of facts into an insane theory.
I didn't know about this one, tks for sharing.
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
Mumbles
Active Member
Except the Vincennes incident was a case of mistaken identity, NOT the deliberate destruction of a known hijacked airliner. There have been several instances of airliners being shot down historically, but a: shooting down a hijacked airliner, and b: shooting down a US airliner over US territory would both be unprecedented acts even now.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Is there a policy and procedure to take to shoot down a hijacked plane in US air space?
Jacob Winters
New Member
Yes, an urgent wartime effort; on the 77th meridian, under strict instruction to restrict the building's height to 77 feet, they began it's construction, on September 11th of that year, to be precise.
The structural defences you spoke of were also inaccurate. In precisely sixty years of the buildings existence no reinforcements to protect against bombing or terrorism were made, that I know of, aside to one particular wall.
Further work was also undertaken upon this wall, to particularly strengthen one area of it, and this was the precise area, of the precise wall, that was attacked.
In the sixty year history of the building, all this work was completed, from beginning, to end, in the weeks, days and hours before, the attack.
As to whether this is relevant to the general difficulty of the 9/11 flights will depend on a number of other factors.
Last edited:
What factors? Seem like the only relevant factor is the visual cross-section.
cjnewson88
Member
The argument as to why UAL175 took the long way around is a no brainer really.. His target was the South tower. Therefore, he approached his targets from the South, to entire that 1) the North tower wouldn't be in the way, and 2) that he hit the right target in the event that he got there before AAL11.
The argument about AAL77's choice of which side to hit seems equally pedantic. The first thing we can all agree on is that he was far too high. The idea that he should have aimed for the "generals".. well, how do you know he wasn't? Maybe he thought that was where they were? What ever, that is pointless conjecture. The point is his target was the Pentagon. It was a symbolic hit, not a military strike. It didn't matter where he hit it, so long as he hit it.
The argument about AAL77's choice of which side to hit seems equally pedantic. The first thing we can all agree on is that he was far too high. The idea that he should have aimed for the "generals".. well, how do you know he wasn't? Maybe he thought that was where they were? What ever, that is pointless conjecture. The point is his target was the Pentagon. It was a symbolic hit, not a military strike. It didn't matter where he hit it, so long as he hit it.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
There was no such occurrence as a "high speed spiral descent". AAL 77 made a fairly commonplace right-hand descending turn. Whomever was actually flying (the clues have pointed to at least two pilots in each of the four airplanes that day), the turn was 'sloppy" by the standards of a professional aviator, but certainly not "complex" (as suggested by the word "spiral"), nor particularly "high-speed". It was a bit above the usual regulatory minimum in U.S. airspace of 250 knots below 10,000 feet (**), but the airplane's aerodynamics don't care about "regulations".
(**)This dictate is a convenience for ATC (Air Traffic Control). There is the added 'bonus' of bird strike/windshield safety, but the forward windows are actually quite strong.
Here is a segment from a Dutch television program called "Zembla" that was first broadcast in 2006. It uses clips from that execrable film called "Loose Change" (a source of many 9/11 misconceptions) and examines the veracity of that film's claims. This portion is in a simulator with a fairly low-time Private Pilot to re-create the American flight 77 Pentagon attack. The video opens with a bit of soundtrack from "Loose Change" which is factually incorrect. The narrator (Dylan Avery): "...executes a 330 degree turn at 530 miles per hour..." (my emphasis). The speed claim by the filmmakers is false.
(The simulator portion comes towards the end of this clip, but the preliminary is worth a watch...it IS in Dutch, with English subtitles).
Here is the NTSB re-creation that was animated using the FDR (Flight Data Recorder) info:
I could not find a shorter version (except for ones that include false text added), but skip to 1:18:00. It can be seen that in the descending turn the airspeed varies between 265 and 303 knots (305 MPH to 349 MPH). This is all well within the airplane's normal abilities. I personally have flown above 250 knots below 10,000 feet in a B767 when overwater and outside the 12-mile limit. It is commonplace in some parts of the World, especially in Micronesia.
Last edited:
cjnewson88
Member
The "manoeuvre";
Sloppy. His angle of bank varied wildly between 14 and 42 degrees. His pitch between -10 and 10. In some parts of his turn he gained altitude, when he was supposed to be descending. Speed fluctuated between 260 and 300 KIAS.
All performed by this guy:
Who had training to fly one of these:
Source:
http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
Sloppy. His angle of bank varied wildly between 14 and 42 degrees. His pitch between -10 and 10. In some parts of his turn he gained altitude, when he was supposed to be descending. Speed fluctuated between 260 and 300 KIAS.
All performed by this guy:
Who had training to fly one of these:
Source:
http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Excellent addition, thanks much!!
As a "side bar"...this wealth of info thoroughly debunks EVERY claim by a website known as "pilotsfor911truth" and also the equally discredited "CIT", or 'citizeninvestigationteam'.
BOTH, as far I know know, still active on the Internet. And still (?) promoting false and misleading claims. This is not to "single out" these specific sites on the Internet, because it is well known that there are many equally incorrect assertions and misrepresentations spouted by numerous similar venues.
jaydeehess
Senior Member
OMG that had me laughing quite out loud I am afraid.
You assume much. You assume that the goal went beyond the simple act of striking at symbols of American power and wealth, the two towers, the tallest structures in the country and in the city that is the epicenter of financial power of the country, the Pentagon, the place where military power of the USA is resident. There is no reason to expect that anything beyond that was a primary goal. You further assume that the specific points on the three structures that were hit were the specific targeted spots. That is a logical fallacy often referred to as the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy" (basically a guy who shoots holes in the side of a barn then paints a target around the holes and declares himself a sharpshooter).
As for the "high speed" manouvers. There was ONE, the final turn of UA175. AA77 made a much lower speed turn through 3/4 of a full 3 minute turn, and not a very good one at that, and then straight into the Pentagon, sawing at the controls all the way and only pushing the throttles full at the last moments.
There is no evidence to suggest that the manouvers of flight 93 were what the hijackers had specifically in mind. That is other than to cause the aircraft to crash at the last moments, rather than possibly lose control of the aircraft to the passengers. In fact, given your assumption that the specific points on the other three structures were the specific targets of those flights, it would then follow that you expect that the manouvers of flight 93 were made to specifically target an open field in Pennsylvania. Their mission was a success, if only a partial success, in that it destroyed United States aircraft and killed several dozen US citizens. Its my personal feeling that this aircraft was targeting yet another symbol of US power, the Capitol Building. Its again very large and very obvious from the air and it the symbol of American political power.
If they had hit the Capitol then they would have hit targets representing American wealth(the towers), American military might (the Pentagon) and American political power (the Capitol). Aiming at specific persons would be pure folly, Aiming at the Whitehouse would require targeting a much much smaller target surrounded by trees. (look at a satellite view of the Capitol and see what its surrounded by. )
jaydeehess
Senior Member
The argument by some truthers that at the first sight of the Pentagon, Hanjour should have pushed over into a dive is most ignorant assumption that could be envisioned.
If a three minute descending turn is supposedly difficult, what do they think a 30 degree dive in a passenger jet is?
(not to mention either taking negative g's or managing to wing over into a dive)
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Every person who has learned to fly understands the concept of the "overhead approach". Usually it is meant for the locating and ascertaining of an uncontrolled airport or other place to land (when uncertain of its specific location). Once flown over, then a controlled turn around combined with a descent will set up the airplane for an approach to the airport (or landing spot). In the case of 9/11 at the Pentagon, of course "landing" was not the intent...but the same principles are involved.
The "Military Overhead Break" is similar, for reference:
Perhaps a better image taken off of the Internet:
What was "different" on 9/11 RE: the Pentagon and AAL77 was merely the amount of turn, being about 330° rather than a "conventional" 180° and a "racetrack oval" with another 180° turn.
EDIT: On a personal aside....one would think that any website on the Internet who self-claim as "pilots" would be able to understand this very basic principle!
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Senior Member
As an anecedotal aside: I used to have to charter an dehavilland beaver DHC-2 regularily, to service remote communications equipment. On one flight the pilot failed to monitor the fuel pressure closely. In this a/c when the fuel pressure starts dropping you have about 20 minutes of fuel left in the tank, time to switch tanks. The engine sputtered out at 8K feet and immediately nosed down (these float equipped planes have an unpowered glide slope just a bit better than a rock, though more stable). Even at the under 180 mph that we were travelling the negative g was enough to cause my camera to come up off my lap, and wake the pilot up. BTW it takes only about a minute to switch tanks pump the line and restart. The area where we were is full of lakes anyway so at worst he'd have been making an unpowered landing.
jaydeehess
Senior Member
Second anecdote as per WW's last post: Yes, the remote locations were always circled first to ascertain wind direction on the lake and any boat traffic that may be on these remote lakes or fly in fishing aircraft that might be there as well. It was during one of these that the pilot explained that the thing to watch for when circling was that since vertical component of lift decreases in a bank, he had to make sure he compensated to remain at the same altitude.
In addition to the Beaver, I was in several Otters (piston as well as single and twin turbo ) , one Norseman, Cessena 175, 260 and Caravan, and several Beech Expeditor. In places where there was a landing strip we took King Air usually.
ETA: OOPS forgot the old dinosaurs that are the DC-3 and Hawker Sidley that I flew in while in the Arctic as well as my trip into my weather station on a C-130 while sitting in the jump seat. (My second trip in a C-130 was a military personnel transport so I had to sit in back. Much more mundane of course is my being a passenger in plain old passenger jets such as 707, 727, 737, 757, 767, DC-9.)
In addition to the Beaver, I was in several Otters (piston as well as single and twin turbo ) , one Norseman, Cessena 175, 260 and Caravan, and several Beech Expeditor. In places where there was a landing strip we took King Air usually.
ETA: OOPS forgot the old dinosaurs that are the DC-3 and Hawker Sidley that I flew in while in the Arctic as well as my trip into my weather station on a C-130 while sitting in the jump seat. (My second trip in a C-130 was a military personnel transport so I had to sit in back. Much more mundane of course is my being a passenger in plain old passenger jets such as 707, 727, 737, 757, 767, DC-9.)
Last edited:
Hetware
Member
Having years of hands-on experience with automated guidance systems, and an intimate familiarity with the lay of the land of the final approach into the Pentagon, I can say with confidence that automated guidance is the ONLY viable explanation. The plane followed the absolutely lowest available terrain, basically threading a needle between the Navy Annex and I395. It continued at full thrust close enough from the ground to clip several lamp posts, and hit the first floor of the building on a trajectory parallel to the ground.
Here are some statements regarding the piloting ability of the accused suicidal flying ace:
Edit to add: at timestamp 0:27 we hear the following:
External Quote:
Last edited:
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Nope.
Sorry, but let me STOP YOU RIGHT THERE.
I happen to have looked into this particular aspect of 9/11. I can discuss at great lengths, and also, as an experienced pilot ON the B757/B767.
Do you wish to continue?
Hetware
Member
By all means. Is there anything that you dispute regarding my account of the final approach of AA77 into my place of employment?
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Your "place of employment"?
OK...let me begin. On September 11, 2001 I was employed with a major airline (COA) and on that day, was scheduled for a trip the next day. So, it was one of my "days off".
I was at home, on September 11, 2001...that morning, and had workmen in my backyard, building my deck...(who I told to GO HOME, as the tragedy unfolded, on the news).
My home (then) was near the corner of Fillmore Street and Pershing Drive, in Arlington Virginia. (Please feel free to GoogleMap that location....look for 'Lyon Park' as an anchor point...THAT was actually my voting site, during elections....want to know more???)
I was home, that day. As I mentioned, my next trip (on 12 September, 2001) was to Sao Paulo (KEWR - SBGR)...a layover IN Sao Paulo (a city I've been to MANY times), then over to Rio (SBGL).....I was looking forward to my layover in Rio Di Janeiro....I still have never visited there!
BACK to my experience. I felt it when the upper floors of the Pentagon fell...Only after the fact did I realize what I felt, in my house, was related to the collapse of the Pentagon's upper floors.
ALSO>...I lived there, I drove by the area for MONTHS!!!
I could go on and on and on.......wanna talk about the airplanes of 9/11?? I can chat there, too. Another thread, please just search...
Hetware
Member
Every person who has learned to fly understands the concept of the "overhead approach". Usually it is meant for the locating and ascertaining of an uncontrolled airport or other place to land (when uncertain of its specific location). Once flown over, then a controlled turn around combined with a descent will set up the airplane for an approach to the airport (or landing spot). In the case of 9/11 at the Pentagon, of course "landing" was not the intent...but the same principles are involved.
The "Military Overhead Break" is similar, for reference:
Perhaps a better image taken off of the Internet:
What was "different" on 9/11 RE: the Pentagon and AAL77 was merely the amount of turn, being about 330° rather than a "conventional" 180° and a "racetrack oval" with another 180° turn.
EDIT: On a personal aside....one would think that any website on the Internet who self-claim as "pilots" would be able to understand this very basic principle!
http://www.simairforce.org/downloads/SUPT Study Guide and lesson.pdf
So we are to believe a crazed suicidal terrorist who wasn't interested in learning to land nor take off, and was flying one of the only aircraft aloft on the east coast was trying to avoid congestion? The description of the maneuver in the training manual you cribbed the image from is signally different from the maneuver executed by AA77 on final approach.External Quote:
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
NO!
I think your perception of how aviation actually works is distorted by....maybe a variety of sites...and also maybe some horrible versions that tend to embed in the public "phsyche" due to HollyWood movies.
IF (And, I do not pretend to know your financial situation)....but IF you took just a few flying lessons?? Would help a LOT in understanding.
EDIT: JUST one link...(there are SO many more options!!):
http://cessnaflighttraining.kingschools.com/
Hetware
Member
I don't need to google the location. I know the area well. On 9/11 I was starting the process of joining a contract in direct support of the office of Lieutenant General Timothy Joseph Maude. http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/tjmaude.htm
Unfortunately my online research was lawyered off the internet: http://www.politicalfriendster.com/ The data is still there. I just haven't found an easy was of reproducing the interface. Of particular interest is the entity call "aircraft blotter". Not only did I have all the major details of the flights and aircraft involved in 9/11 smartly cataloged and referenced, I had losts of other goodies such as N987SA and N900SA, to name but a few. But I digress.
Hetware
Member
Again, you have failed to address the substance of my post.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Then, I am confused as to your "point"?
Did you work at the Pentagon, on 11 September 2001? If so, what was your status? Keeping in mind that a LOT of employees at the Pentagon were then, and still are, civilian. (I know the area, so please keep this in mind too!)
Syrez
Member
The manager rated his flying ability as average to below average. One of his instructors said he had no flying ability (paraphrased, perhaps). Which is noteworthy.
Could I ask you to elaborate a little as to why a conclusion of automated guidance is the only viable explanation?
Last edited:
Hetware
Member
The third iteration of Loose Change is by far the best. It started out with a couple of junior college film students wanting to make a no budget fictional flick about 9/11. It later became a serious investigation into 9/11. I spent considerable time on the LC boards fact-checking and critiquing the content of the first two iterations. My sources regarding AA77 are the NTSB reports, the FEMA report, the various accounts given by witnesses, the laws of physics, an understanding of the principles of avionics, and decades of experience with automated systems, to include 5 years working on automated guidance systems.
I know the animation you posted quite well. I examined and processed the raw data upon which the animation was based. You have stated your opinion regarding the final minutes of AA77. Others have stated contrary opinions.
It's a shame that the audio recordings preserving the immediate recollections of the air traffic controller on duty during the attacks was intentionally destroyed.External Quote:
External Quote:
Syrez
Member
But at least 530 records in the Wayback Machine. Must've been popular
I will check it out.
http://web.archive.org/web/http://www.politicalfriendster.com/
NoParty
Senior Member.
Hey...um...we just shared a thread a few minutes ago in which you also began similarly...and, well, the DNA stuff didn't go well.
So, before I jump into this thread--in which you, as a non-pilot, have begun by telling a bunch of pilots what must have happened...
I just gotta ask: Are you truly open-minded about an inquiry, or are we gonna go a ways down the road before you reveal that you
believe that "the official story" is some kind of "ridiculous fairytale" ?
TWCobra
Senior Member.
You are referring to a different flight than the one I was. I was referring to UA 175 which hit the WTC South Tower. And my conclusion stands.
cjnewson88
Member
Silly theory that somehow AAL77 was remote guided or what ever.. no such luck I'm afraid, all evidence points to AAL77 being hijacked by 5 terrorists and flown into the Pentagon. See here:
http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
And refer to my post above which shows the details of the flight path.
http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
And refer to my post above which shows the details of the flight path.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Please, allow me to STOP you, right there!!
Stick to one topic, please...and then we can move forward. ESPECIALLY when it involves the airplanes of 9/11. I, and others here, can certainly relate very well on that aspect.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
"Active Social Engineering Defense" and "Large Scale Social Deception"- Latest: MyMatesBrainwashed
