Question Regarding 9/11 Planes...

[builderbos]

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.

[Orval Fairbairn]

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.




> 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.

[HECTOP]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> No excessive G's. The videotapes show only small bank angles -- so no high
> Gs.

that's all the videotapes captured, I've seen the second plane coming long
over the New York Harbor, can't judge the difficulty of performing such
maneuveres in a 767, but it was handled like a bitch by a master (pardon my
french). If I only knew then what he was up to: http://www.maxho.com/wtc/


HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[Peter Gottlieb]

Still chilling. While you were taking pictures I was telling people in my
office a few blocks away to leave immediately and get the heck out of
downtown. A couple of fools stayed in the area and ended up breathing a lot
of nasty dust, most fortunately left and overall we were very lucky as there
were no casualties from our office.



"HECTOP" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
>
...
> > No excessive G's. The videotapes show only small bank angles -- so no
high
> > Gs.
>
> that's all the videotapes captured, I've seen the second plane coming long
> over the New York Harbor, can't judge the difficulty of performing such
> maneuveres in a 767, but it was handled like a bitch by a master (pardon
my
> french). If I only knew then what he was up to: http://www.maxho.com/wtc/
>
>
> HECTOP
> PP-ASEL-IA
> http://www.maxho.com
> maxho_at_maxho.com
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"builderbos" > wrote in message
m...
>
> 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.

That claim is made by very ignorant people.

[Cub Driver]

>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.

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]

(builderbos) 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?
>
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.

[Kyle Boatright]

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

[Cecil Chapman]

> That claim is made by very ignorant people.

Agreed.

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

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL
Student-IASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

[Peter Gottlieb]

"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.

[Big John]

Kyle

Agree. Piece of cake.

Big John


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

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

[builderbos]

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.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"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.

[David Brooks]

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

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> 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

[Cub Driver]

> 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

[Bill Denton]

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

[G.R. Patterson III]

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.

[builderbos]

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.

[Dave S]

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.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"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]

>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

[Gene Seibel]

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

[John Gaquin]

"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.

[Cub Driver]

>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

[Tom Sixkiller]

"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.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"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?

[builderbos]

Dave S > wrote in message et>...

> 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.

[John T]

"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_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[S Narayan]

"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.