Question Regarding 9/11 Planes...

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.

Orval Fairbairn wrote in message .. .
In article ,
(builderbos) wrote:

Hi all,

I don't know anything about flying, and would like some answers from
anyone interested in responding.

For the record, I'm not here to debate this issue. I'm here for
opinions from people whom I'm assuming would know far better than I
what is a reasonable answer to this question:

It is claimed that the manouvers it took to fly the planes into the
two towers (leaving out the other planes) would've been exceptionally
difficult to perform. Some so-called professional pilots claim that
it would be very difficult to not only hit the two targets with that
degree of accuracy, but also that the turn in the air somehow elicited
some kind of excessive "G's" or whatnot (you'll have to fill in
whatever it is I heard elsewhere...I'm assuming it related to the
difficulty a human being would have to withstand the last turns at the
speeds that the plane was going at while maintaining control of the
craft, etc.).


No excessive G's. The videotapes show only small bank angles -- so no
high Gs.

That's exactly what I always thought...excessive G's didn't even
apply, but it's been mentioned, so I brought it up.


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?

You are pretty much right on here.



I don't see how it'd be that exceptionally difficult...but I'm very
open minded and would like to hear from those who'd know what they
think on this matter.


It obviously wasn't that difficult.

The conspiracy theorists are usually in deep denial over some aspect of
9/11 -- Muslims over the fact that Muslim fanatics did it; USA - haters
like to think that the government did it; then we have the nuts trying
to capitalize on one psychocermic scenario or another.

I'm a person who has a lot of problems with the current affair of
government, like many people. So I like to see challenges brought in
on all these issues.

BUT, I can't stand it when stupid ideas are brought forward to try and
convince people of something. There is a lot of verifyable, obvious
"conspiracy" in our clearly corrupt government...but I'm also
clear-headed enough to not buy into all the rest of the bull**** from
the anti-govt crowd.

It gets rediculous, and this was just one more fine example.

I even entertained holograms...yet when you question those people
sincerely, they label you a disinformation artist, (just by mere
QUESTIONS) and......

....(sigh)....

Thanks to you and the others for your responses. Very helpful.

"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.

Others have given most of the answers but on a point of detail...

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
(builderbos) wrote:
but also that the turn in the air somehow elicited
some kind of excessive "G's" or whatnot (you'll have to fill in
whatever it is I heard elsewhere...I'm assuming it related to the
difficulty a human being would have to withstand the last turns at the
speeds that the plane was going at while maintaining control of the
craft, etc.).


No excessive G's. The videotapes show only small bank angles -- so no
high Gs.

The objection you may have heard about the G forces is not a physiological
one but an aerodynamic one. When a plane is being flown by hand, the forces
in a turn will tend to make the aircraft lose altitude and require the pilot
to make an adjustment in his vertical guidance. The pilots in question
seemed to be doing that successfully. But this effect can be learned on MS
Flight Simulator; it wouldn't be hard even for unskilled pilots to
understand and master. And, as Orval said, the bank angles were small so the
effect was minimal.

It's also possible to fly the plane in such a way that the forces imposed
will damage the integrity of the airframe, but although they were going
faster than they should, again the turns wouldn't have done any more damage.
Yes, I understand the distasteful image that conjures up, but they did need
the aircraft's wings to stay on until the point of impact.

-- David Brooks

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

Gene Seibel wrote:

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.

Nonsense. If all I have to do is hit somewhere on the runway, it's ridiculously easy
to do. Keeping the plane intact is the hard part. All these guys had to do was keep
the tower in the same place in the windshield. Piece of cake.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

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.

I think the lay explanation given was an oversimplification. I think the
appropriate answer (as I remember vaguely) was that limitations on
airspeed were exceeded. This could have caused overstress to the
airframes, but the degree to which this occurred I do not know.

I would not chalk that up to skill, but rather ignorance of airplane
specific practices on the hijackers' part. This was their first actual
experience in flying those aircraft, and so they wouldnt have known what
an overspeed alarm sounds like. While they DID have arabic language
manuals at their disposal, I dont know how much attention they paid to
them before doing their deed... Remember, Japanese Kamikaze pilots had a
bare minimum of training before being dispatched. THey didnt need to
know how to land or how to fly the airplane "safely" so it would last a
long life..

Dave

builderbos wrote:

Hi all,

I don't know anything about flying, and would like some answers from
anyone interested in responding.

For the record, I'm not here to debate this issue. I'm here for
opinions from people whom I'm assuming would know far better than I
what is a reasonable answer to this question:

It is claimed that the manouvers it took to fly the planes into the
two towers (leaving out the other planes) would've been exceptionally
difficult to perform. Some so-called professional pilots claim that
it would be very difficult to not only hit the two targets with that
degree of accuracy, but also that the turn in the air somehow elicited
some kind of excessive "G's" or whatnot (you'll have to fill in
whatever it is I heard elsewhere...I'm assuming it related to the
difficulty a human being would have to withstand the last turns at the
speeds that the plane was going at while maintaining control of the
craft, etc.).

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 don't see how it'd be that exceptionally difficult...but I'm very
open minded and would like to hear from those who'd know what they
think on this matter.

Thanks. I look forward to quality answers. And again, I just want an
unbiased opinion, I'm not here to argue politics or conspiracy
theories.

"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?