Question Regarding 9/11 Planes...

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.

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.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
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

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
news

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message

news
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

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.

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

"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.

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 -

"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
____________________

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