Question Regarding 9/11 Planes...

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Though I've never used an airplane as a missile, I think it would be
very much easier than landing it safely.


I think we're debating about something where we have the data points right
in front of us. Going backwards from those I think is more reasonable, that
is, we can say that in three cases, three highly motivated (but probably
average in terms of piloting) people were able to accomplish that task with
relatively basic training.

three highly motivated (but probably
average in terms of piloting) people were able to accomplish that task with
relatively basic training.

Peter, I think the questions were meant to draw out arguments that the
individuals who are said to have hijacked the aircraft weren't capable
of having done the job of piloting them into the WTC towers. Therefore
some other agency did so. Therefore you can't argue back from the same
evidence that's being challenged.

Early on, there was a lengthy post to rec.aviation.military explaining
that NORAD piloted the planes by remote control:
www.warbirdforum.com/norad.htm

Enjoy!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

What hasn't been discussed here so far:

Couldn't the hijackers have simply dialed the coordinates of the WTC towers
along with the desired altitude into the FMC and let the AP do the work?

Then you wouldn't need any flying knowledge at all, just a knowledge of the
FMC.


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

three highly motivated (but probably
average in terms of piloting) people were able to accomplish that task
with
relatively basic training.

Peter, I think the questions were meant to draw out arguments that the
individuals who are said to have hijacked the aircraft weren't capable
of having done the job of piloting them into the WTC towers. Therefore
some other agency did so. Therefore you can't argue back from the same
evidence that's being challenged.

Early on, there was a lengthy post to rec.aviation.military explaining
that NORAD piloted the planes by remote control:
www.warbirdforum.com/norad.htm

Enjoy!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
three highly motivated (but probably
average in terms of piloting) people were able to accomplish that task with
relatively basic training.

Peter, I think the questions were meant to draw out arguments that the
individuals who are said to have hijacked the aircraft weren't capable
of having done the job of piloting them into the WTC towers. Therefore
some other agency did so. Therefore you can't argue back from the same
evidence that's being challenged.

You can "think" all you want. I made it clear the questions had no
motives outside of getting the anticipated responses...that indeed it
wouldn't be difficult at all to have done what appears to have been
done.

And in that regard, I'm convinced. I've been on small and large
planes about a dozen times in my life, and I'm convinced even I
could've done it with just a bit of training; meaning, anyone with the
desire and motivation.

As much as I appreciate their endeavors, the theorists are full of
**** on this issue as far as I'm concerned. My easy rationale was
always "if they can hit a landing strip, surely they can hit a huge
building." I believe that I, and everyone who claims it's entirely
possible and likely even easy, is completely correct. The black hawk
technology exists I know, but as far as it being used on 9/11, it's
all pure speculation with zero proof.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Peter, I think the questions were meant to draw out arguments that the
individuals who are said to have hijacked the aircraft weren't capable
of having done the job of piloting them into the WTC towers. Therefore
some other agency did so. Therefore you can't argue back from the same
evidence that's being challenged.

Early on, there was a lengthy post to rec.aviation.military explaining
that NORAD piloted the planes by remote control:
www.warbirdforum.com/norad.htm


Oh yes, *that* theory. But, aren't these the same people who *want* NORAD
to be able to remotely control the planes, in order to protect us?

(half kidding)

Hey, maybe we can get those two groups to slug it out and leave us alone?

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Here's my thinking (again, as someone with zero experience)...if a
pilot can aim/land on a landing strip, why couldn't he/she aim/land in
the largest skyscrapers on the planet?

Though I've never used an airplane as a missile, I think it would be
very much easier than landing it safely.


Japanese kamikaze's during WW2 received as little as six or eight hours
training and were hitting moving ships that were much smaller than the WTC.

(builderbos) wrote in message om...

Here's my thinking (again, as someone with zero experience)...if a
pilot can aim/land on a landing strip, why couldn't he/she aim/land in
the largest skyscrapers on the planet?

I'm not one who knows. It would take some level of training. One thing
I wanted to point out is that when one lands an airliner, the speed is
reduced to 130 knots or so. These planes hit at 300 knots or higher,
which would have added to the difficulty of hitting the target.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
om...
(builderbos) wrote in message
om...

Here's my thinking (again, as someone with zero experience)...if a
pilot can aim/land on a landing strip, why couldn't he/she aim/land in
the largest skyscrapers on the planet?

I'm not one who knows. It would take some level of training. One thing
I wanted to point out is that when one lands an airliner, the speed is
reduced to 130 knots or so. These planes hit at 300 knots or higher,
which would have added to the difficulty of hitting the target.

Disagree. Big target. Tremendous visibility. Long, long time to set up the
approach on that day...


--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

Kyle

Agree. Piece of cake.

Big John


On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:27:22 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:


"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
. com...
(builderbos) wrote in message
. com...

Here's my thinking (again, as someone with zero experience)...if a
pilot can aim/land on a landing strip, why couldn't he/she aim/land in
the largest skyscrapers on the planet?

I'm not one who knows. It would take some level of training. One thing
I wanted to point out is that when one lands an airliner, the speed is
reduced to 130 knots or so. These planes hit at 300 knots or higher,
which would have added to the difficulty of hitting the target.

Disagree. Big target. Tremendous visibility. Long, long time to set up the
approach on that day...


--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message ...
"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
om...
(builderbos) wrote in message
om...

Here's my thinking (again, as someone with zero experience)...if a
pilot can aim/land on a landing strip, why couldn't he/she aim/land in
the largest skyscrapers on the planet?

I'm not one who knows. It would take some level of training. One thing
I wanted to point out is that when one lands an airliner, the speed is
reduced to 130 knots or so. These planes hit at 300 knots or higher,
which would have added to the difficulty of hitting the target.

Disagree. Big target. Tremendous visibility. Long, long time to set up the
approach on that day...

Hitting the building is easy. Hitting it in while in a bank for
maximum spillage of fuel takes a bit of planning.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.