9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph?

Have you conducted a poll on a FORUM???? Until you do you might want to check out the difficulty . . . most Forums don't allow just anyone to do so . . . especially a new unknown person . . . the rules are all different . . . I have not refused . . . I have asked for assistance . . .believe what you wish . . . try to do a poll here why don't you or go to GLP and conduct one . . . have fun!!!!

Anyone can do a poll here. Just start a new thread, and scroll down to see the "Post a Poll" option, check the box, and say how many questions you want



Then after you "Submit new thread" you'd be able to enter the poll questions. It's a good idea to pre-write them, so you can cut-and-paste. You should also generally not make the poll votes public and not multiple choice.



Of course a Metabunk survey will tell you nothing you don't know. 100% of the pilots here think it was possible to fly into the buildings. There's lots of conspiracy theorists here as well. You need a sample of just pilots.
 
Last edited:
I suspect though that you would feel that way about any investigation. It's the nature of things that they cannot describe the entire universe in detail, hence there's always going to be gaps for the suspicious to find their suspicions in.

Can you give an example of ANY investigation of ANYTHING that has met your standards?
Yes . . . The Congressional investigation into the dispersal of Zinc Cadmium Oxide, the Investigation into Human Experimentation including MKultra, the follow-up to the Kennedy Assassination post Warren Report . . . of them all . . . IMO 911 has been the worst . . . especially because of what it was used to justify later . . . the ones above were more complete probably because of a significant partisan split within congress. . . and it was investigating so far in the past the people responsible were no longer reachable or punishable . . .
 
Anyone can do a poll here. Just start a new thread, and scroll down to see the "Post a Poll" option, check the box, and say how many questions you want



Then after you "Submit new thread" you'd be able to enter the poll questions. It's a good idea to pre-write them, so you can cut-and-paste. You should also generally not make the poll votes public and not multiple choice.



Of course a Metabunk survey will tell you nothing you don't know. 100% of the pilots here think it was possible to fly into the buildings. There's lots of conspiracy theorists here as well. You need a sample of just pilots.
It is inappropriate for me to proceed with an unbiased poll . . . I am obviously an advocate of conspiracy . . . to be totally acceptable to use as evidence to support your contentions that an overwhelming number of pilots accept the Official Story one of you needs to conduct it . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Radio controlled aircraft have been around since WW2 - they used to try to fly explosive laden B-17 drones into targets using radio and primitive television - JFK's brother was killed in one when it blew up prematurely.

The ability to fly aircraft by remote control is, essentially, trivial.

Yep -and then coes the question - what is the actual evidence that anything was ACTUALLY used to do so?

The answer is also trivial: There is none beyond uninformed speculation such ash been repeatedly debunked in this thread.

but upthread you said:

767 avionics was originally designed in the 1970's or thereabouts, and is not designed for remote control or autonomous operations at all.

It is designed to present a human pilot with the information required to fly the aeroplane so most of it is measurement and information presentation.

The flying part of it is designed to follow fairly simple courses as input by a pilot in one way or another - manually, via the autopilot, or via the FMS.

So no, it is not "far more sophisticated than the one on a cruise missile".

Can't do it becomes So What? It's old news...

I've seen this before!
 
It is inappropriate for me to proceed with an unbiased poll . . . I am obviously an advocate of conspiracy . . . to be totally acceptable to use as evidence to support your contentions that an overwhelming number of pilots accept the Official Story one of you needs to conduct it . . .

Fine by me.

I will go ahead and ask that very same question on a forum of professional pilots and come back with the results in a day or two.
 
It is inappropriate for me to proceed with an unbiased poll . . . I am obviously an advocate of conspiracy . . . to be totally acceptable to use as evidence to support your contentions that an overwhelming number of pilots accept the Official Story one of you needs to conduct it . . .

George, if I may ask, why be an advocate of conspiracy? Why not just be some random guy with some curious questions on the table?

In my opinion, if one can just look at a subject without any biases, without taking any sides, a lot of explanations make a lot more sense because you become impartial to such self-imposed dichotomies, and therefore you can approach a subject at all the available angles.
 
but upthread you said:



Can't do it becomes So What? It's old news...

I've seen this before!

You have successfully totally confused 2 different issues.

autopilots are not designed to fly by remote control.

But if you wan tto fly an a/c by remote control the requirements have been long known and the sort of modifications required are not really a secret. They would probably also involve modifying the autopilot .....precisely because the autopilot is not designed to be flown by remote control and therefore requires modification to enable it.

I hope that sorts out your obvious confusion.
 
George, if I may ask, why be an advocate of conspiracy? Why not just be some random guy with some curious questions on the table?

In my opinion, if one can just look at a subject without any biases, without taking any sides, a lot of explanations make a lot more sense because you become impartial to such self-imposed dichotomies, and therefore you can approach a subject at all the available angles.
I was making a point about the poll . . . anyone examining my posts would most likely conclude I was biased toward an assumption of conspiracy . . . but yes I didn't start that way back in 2009 . . . and I don't want my position to bias the outcome of the poll . . . I will listen to any facts brought to the table and have . . .
 
George, the split arsed turn that UA 175 did in the terminal phase of its attack is proof that it was not coupled to an autopilot from at least 30 seconds before impact. A guidance system such as the FMC would have had the aircraft in a stable flight path and compensating for the local wind in such a way as to make such a manoevre unnecessary. That manoevre was also beyond the capability of the autopilot installed on the aircraft.

So that means there was a human at the controls. So unless the PTB can convince their minions of doom that they must suicide for the cause, we are left with the, uncomfortable for some, solution that a bunch of "rag heads" succeeded in doing what they had been tryin to do for over five years.

To me that has always been the crux of this CT. It is based on the racist stereotype that these people are incapable of pulling something like this off. That attitude and naivety cost all of the West dearly, not just the US.
 
We should have known better, these are the folks that invented algebra and developed the concept of 1.

Some of the more forward thinking Muslims are pointing that out to ultra conservatives.
 
George, the split arsed turn that UA 175 did in the terminal phase of its attack is proof that it was not coupled to an autopilot from at least 30 seconds before impact. A guidance system such as the FMC would have had the aircraft in a stable flight path and compensating for the local wind in such a way as to make such a manoevre unnecessary. That manoevre was also beyond the capability of the autopilot installed on the aircraft.

So that means there was a human at the controls. So unless the PTB can convince their minions of doom that they must suicide for the cause, we are left with the, uncomfortable for some, solution that a bunch of "rag heads" succeeded in doing what they had been tryin to do for over five years.

To me that has always been the crux of this CT. It is based on the racist stereotype that these people are incapable of pulling something like this off. That attitude and naivety cost all of the West dearly, not just the US.
I have no experience to disagree with your conclusion . . . if we are truly dealing with the technology as you know it . . . there is a possibility that that may not be true but there would be no way to prove that as far as I know . . .

Your contention about a racist feeling that the hijackers could not be competent pilots is interesting . . . that really never entered my mind . . . I just felt it took more exposure for anyone to gain the proficiency to do what they did no matter their ethnic, educational or psychomotor skills . . .
 
Your contention about a racist feeling that the hijackers could not be competent pilots is interesting . . . that really never entered my mind . . . I just felt it took more exposure for anyone to gain the proficiency to do what they did no matter their ethnic, educational or psychomotor skills . . .

I am not accusing you personally, it is just my feeling that is where this comes from generally. It is not just the piloting side but the entire plot and the planning and knowledge required. The West generally underestimates the Arab world.

At some stage I will put together a film highlighting why the last second turn was necessary, hopefully it will illustrate both the absolute necessity of human intervention and also why an inexperienced pilot would not have noticed the wind drift until the last second.
 
(This) is where this comes from generally. It is not just the piloting side but the entire plot and the planning and knowledge required. The West generally underestimates the Arab world.
Because generally they are ALL racist. The English are racist to the Welsh and Scots*. Charity begins at home.

At some stage I will put together a film highlighting why the last second turn was necessary, hopefully it will illustrate both the absolute necessity of human intervention and also why an inexperienced pilot would not have noticed the wind drift until the last second.
That last turn pulled 2G. I'd like to see that.

* It's all perfectly mutual, of course. Seeing that we have all evolved through a tight bottleneck of genetic requirements, and are remarkably genetically homogeneous, expressing less variability than any small ape troop, there's some irony to be found here...
 
I am in the process of making it now. The 767 is cleared to 2.5G with flaps up, so there was no problem there.

Interestingly I found another estimate of the speed of UA175 done by a MIT professor.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter III Aircraft speed.pdf

He calculates the groundspeed at impact as 503 mph. The wind at 1000 feet according to a NIST report was ~345 degrees at 20 Knots. The heading of UA 177 at impact was ~ 027 degrees giving a headwind component of ~10 knots.

Applying all the corrections yields a TAS of 442 Knots and a CAS/EAS of 430/431 knots. Perhaps coincidentally this is the speed I nominated as the speed to which a rational analysis must be done to clear the airframe of flutter as required by FAR 23.629.

If true, then I feel it answers the question about the possibility of the 767 travelling that fast.

EAS2.PNG
 

"The typical cruise speed of a Boeing 767-200 at 35,000 feet is 530 m.p.h. The lower the plane goes, however, the thicker the air becomes, so the slower the plane must travel to avoid excessive stress.


"Flying a Boeing 767 straight ahead at 1,000 to 1,500 feet would not be too difficult, even at more than 580 m.p.h., and it would most likely not threaten the structural integrity of the plane, a half a dozen pilots and a Boeing. .spokeswoman said.


"But accurately turning the plane at that speed and maintaining the proper pitch, or up and down movement, is difficult, the pilots said, particularly for a novice pilot, and turning at that speed would have put excessive stress on the plane.


"An automatic pilot device could have directed the hijacked planes to Manhattan, if the hijackers knew how to enter certain coordinates into the computerized flight management system. But as they approached the city, the hijackers. .almost certainly had to take manual control of the. .aircraft, because the automatic pilot in mavigation mode is not accurate enough to target the center of building, pilots said.


"Video of the approach of United Flight 175 to the south tower shows that it banked westward in the final moments, its right wing going up, its left wing down. That maneuver may have been intended to maximize damage to the building.. .But it has been interpreted by some pilots as a sign that the hijacker nearly missed the tower.


""It was unfortunate luck," said Richard Fariello, a retired T.W.A. captain who works as a consultant to NASA. "The way he was headed, he could have just clipped it perhaps with one wing. There is a good chance that would have been the. .case."
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3903-wtc-ua-175-speed-exceeded-767-design-limits.html


Content from External Source
 
accurately turning the plane at that speed and maintaining the proper pitch, or up and down movement, is difficult, the pilots said, particularly for a novice pilot
Content from External Source
This may be true, but most of us can do difficult things, George. That's why they're called "difficult" and not "impossible".

Not only that, it's obvious that if you are trying to hit a tower, than your "up-and-down" is a lot less important than your "side-to-side".

It is also obvious that if your last maneuver risks breaking the plane, it hardly matters if that is your intention in the first place, and you have arrived at your destination. The tail could have fallen off, or a wing folded (as it did at the Pentagon). But the planes that hit the towers appeared (from the outside, at least) to retain their integrity on their way in.
 
Why would it need to be the same angle and position. It's not as if the hijackers planned it exactly like that. That's just where they ended up hitting it.
 
Why would it need to be the same angle and position. It's not as if the hijackers planned it exactly like that. That's just where they ended up hitting it.

So many treat it as though they were trying to hit a bullseye and did so. It's more like they got lucky and just hit the board.
 
Why would it need to be the same angle and position. It's not as if the hijackers planned it exactly like that. That's just where they ended up hitting it.

What I meant to say is, try hitting the Pentagon with your simulator, if at all. As long as you can hit it straight on....and shrink the plane, defying the law of physics in the process to create a smaller whole than your plane... Let's see it, you think that hit was probable??? Please tell...
 
Eric the sides of the Pentagon are 921 feet wide, an airport runway is 150 -200 feet wide. Even runways that were designed for the Space shuttle were only 300 ft wide.

Pilots are taught to land on those runways and the Pentagon is several times wider.
 
A quick Google fact check doesn't explain nothing.... Obviously the pentagon is large enough to hit as a whole. Please refer to the actual dimensions of said impact site.... Watch this video.

[video=youtube_share;Ypc4ieJO0pg]http://youtu.be/Ypc4ieJO0pg[/video]
 
I am not accusing you personally, it is just my feeling that is where this comes from generally. It is not just the piloting side but the entire plot and the planning and knowledge required. The West generally underestimates the Arab world.

At some stage I will put together a film highlighting why the last second turn was necessary, hopefully it will illustrate both the absolute necessity of human intervention and also why an inexperienced pilot would not have noticed the wind drift until the last second.

Just out of curiosity--why do you think the last second turn was necessary?

Wind drift, or bad aim?
 
you make ALOT of assumptions eric. you also need to learn how to edit your post, this is not AIM/MSN
 
how about doing some really basic research...??

oh...yeah....:rolleyes:
If it was landing gear as ASCE says why the rounded appearance of the hole and what about the other hardened pieces of the aircraft such as the engines, generators did not also make exit holes ??
 
Because they did not have enough energy to penetrate that far - they hit other things, at various angles (the aircraft did not hit "straight on remember??), and they have different masses.

that's what happens in the real world accidents - various components hit different things so react differently.

How about you see if you can find where in the wreckage various of those components were found - there are actualy maps out there you iould look for as part of your research......oh.....yeah.....sorry....:rolleyes::eek:
 
Because they did not have enough energy to penetrate that far - they hit other things, at various angles (the aircraft did not hit "straight on remember??), and they have different masses.

that's what happens in the real world accidents - various components hit different things so react differently.

How about you see if you can find where in the wreckage various of those components were found - there are actualy maps out there you iould look for as part of your research......oh.....yeah.....sorry....:rolleyes::eek:

If it was landing gear as ASCE says why the rounded appearance of the hole??
Content from External Source
 
A rounded appearance is really a trivial thing at this point. Just ask yourself if a large object hits a brick wall if it's really going to leave a cartoon impression when it comes out the other side.

What's important here is whether or not a plane struck the pentagon. It's hard to dismiss the airplane theory when you have various pieces of wreckage scattered across the pentagon's rings. Yes, if you are a really keen conspiracy theorist, you might say they have dressed up a cruise missile to do the deed. Problem with this is that some of the parts found isn't exactly the kind of thing you'd find easily strapped onto a cruise missile. That, and the fact that AA is missing an airplane, with several employees and a bunch of passengers.

See some pictures here: http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/pentagon_9-11.htm
 
A rounded appearance is really a trivial thing at this point. Just ask yourself if a large object hits a brick wall if it's really going to leave a cartoon impression when it comes out the other side.

What's important here is whether or not a plane struck the pentagon. It's hard to dismiss the airplane theory when you have various pieces of wreckage scattered across the pentagon's rings. Yes, if you are a really keen conspiracy theorist, you might say they have dressed up a cruise missile to do the deed. Problem with this is that some of the parts found isn't exactly the kind of thing you'd find easily strapped onto a cruise missile. That, and the fact that AA is missing an airplane, with several employees and a bunch of passengers.

See some pictures here: http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/pentagon_9-11.htm
I am not saying the 757 didn't hit the Pentagon or what hit the Pentagon . . . I am saying if something had the mass and velocity to crash through as a rounded shape it is reasonable to think this represents a rounded projectile . . . as a wrecking ball leaves a rounded whole in a building . . .
 
When you knock a hole in a building, like that, everything falls away until a self supporting arch forms, exactly like you see in the photo.
 
Back
Top