Question Regarding 9/11 Planes...

Remember, Japanese Kamikaze pilots had a
bare minimum of training before being dispatched.

A good deal more than the 9/11 pilots. They had demonstrated their
ability to land and take off in a Zero, most of them. (There were
indeed a few Ohka flying bombs that were air-dropped: "flight with no
return".)

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

"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.

"Gene Seibel" wrote in message

Hitting the building is easy.

Somewhat.

Hitting it in while in a bank for
maximum spillage of fuel takes a bit of planning.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. On impact, the fuel tanks will be torn
asunder, and fuel will spray everywhere, while almost immediately
fireballing. I don't see the bank at impact as an issue.

I don't see the bank at impact as an issue.

More likely, a sign of an inexperienced pilot trying to correct an
earlier misjudgement.


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
...

Remember, Japanese Kamikaze pilots had a
bare minimum of training before being dispatched.

A good deal more than the 9/11 pilots. They had demonstrated their
ability to land and take off in a Zero, most of them.

Some of the first ones, yes.

(There were
indeed a few Ohka flying bombs that were air-dropped: "flight with no
return".)

(Note: This is something read in the long ago, so it may not be accurate to
the 3rd decimal point)

AIUI, in the last several months of the war (probably from late 1944 on),
most kamakazi pilots had only enough training to take off and follow a
leader to the target. That might be as low as ten hours. I vaguely remember
reading that many were so thinly trained that they crashed on takeoff.

The 9/11 pilots didn't even have to execute a takeoff.

"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
om...

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

Hitting the building is easy.

Yep...stationary target.

Hitting it in while in a bank for
maximum spillage of fuel takes a bit of planning.

Pardon?

Dave S wrote in message link.net...

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...

I need to point out that everything you stated here is pure
speculation.

I'm satisfied with the explanations given. I just have a problem with
stating things that cannot be proven without a reasonable doubt. You,
and no one, knows as a fact any of the statements made above. We
couldn't possibly. Your statements are derived from conclusions
you've arrived at via what the media has promoted. We really have no
idea how many actual flights they'd been on or if the manuals actually
existed for the supposed people involved.

Too much trust in a media conglomerate that too often tells a
different story from other news sources around the world. THIS, I can
prove to you, and easily. The media monopoly has been a problem for
over fifty years, only getting worse by the decade. It would be
foolish to believe everything that is marketed to us via these outlets
that are all edited and controlled by so very few.

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.

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
. com

......... and reported by an ignorant press to a generally ignorant
(regarding aviation knowledge) public...

I don't think you needed the aviation caveat, unfortunately.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"builderbos" wrote in message
m...


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.


I don't think it's that difficult. Now try to *avoid* hitting the buildings
while going 500+ mph in an around a city (try MS Flight Sim), now that would
be hard and put a lot of G forces. I don't think it could be done flying
below the skyscraper line, even at 200mph.