Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11?

And I was referring to getting the plane to the Wtc above... Not the pentagon.. That would take a missile.

Speed is not an issue?

Yet another one of your debunking polls George..

And as pilots we are aware of ground effect.. At that speed, flying low enough to break light poles off the freeway, he could push the column forward with his foot and not have much of a chance of hitting the face of the building.

Well that's an exaggeration.. But you get the point, any excess speed post flair leads to considerable floating etc....

Last Edited by EscapeVelocity on 02/15/2013 09:03 PM

^^^This^^^

Thanks for your participation . . .

Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11?
POLL: Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the sp
7) No   25.6% (10)
8) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed   17.9% (7)
6) Probably not, it would be very hard to do   15.4% (6)
1) Yes   12.8% (5)
2) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward   12.8% (5)
4) Yes, but it would have been very difficult   5.1% (2)
9) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed   5.1% (2)
10) No, the plane could never even reach that speed.   2.6% (1)
11) I don't know   2.6% (1)
3) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration   0% (0)
5) Probably, but they were pretty lucky   0% (0)
Blank (View Results) (6)

Non-Blank Votes: 39

Q) Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11? (the pilots were assumed to have earned a commercial license within the previous year) (Tower #1 = 473 - 510 Knots Groundspeed, Tower#2 = 430 Knots Groundspeed, Pentagon = 460 Knots Groundspeed)

Why. . . I don't think they could have hit 3 for 3. . . . I don't know how but I have a few theories?

To answer, yes it's total jet wash... They could not even be comfortable in a single engine during stall training.. Add all the factors the other poster said and also add the load factor on the AC and their own bodies and its a wrap.. No way for the pentagon IMO

As for the Pentagon - you point the plane where you want to go, it's as simple as that!

Thanks for your vote!!

Do you think you could do it???

I voted 'Yes, it would be straightforward'...

Its been done in simulations (and not just Microsoft Flight Simulator) I have seen REAL pilots do it in 10 million dollar Boeing simulators. When I got a chance to use one of these simulators, even I was able to fly at full throttle under the span of golden gate-sized bridge (without crashing, to prove accuracy and control). We're talking 500 knots + in a DC-10! (Now I'm not a REAL pilot, I've just been flight simming for fun since childhood)

Here is a video of a Flight Simulator X recreation. Although the realism is debatable, one thing you may appreciate from the videos are the relative speeds, the approach and control of the aircraft... In these aspects, there is very little difference between FSX and a full blown 10 million dollar full cockpit simulator (I have seen and 'flown' both)

You will see that the most important aspect of hitting the target is the approach (whether the target is a runway when you're landing, or an enemy tank you're about to strafe in an A-10... Its all about approach)

A simulator cannot simulate real atmospheric conditions . . . the limitations of the airframe and control surfaces near its maximum air speeds . . .

Please tell.

Nope.

For example like this dutch roll . .

Here is a remotely piloted 720 where a Dutch Roll at landing speeds nearly ruined a crash test . . .



Last Edited by George B on 02/15/2013 09:36 PM

You make some great assumptions, so let me make some.

The hijackers were trained on simulators for big jets, before coming here for some "real, live" training on small aircraft. They could have received this training in Saudi Arabia. Just coming here to get some real time experience. It can be very confusing, going backward from complex operations to simple ones.

The pilots were most probably removed from the cockpit then slaughtered by some of the other hijackers. so no blood, little adrenalin.

The aggressive banking turn could have been cause by the auto pilot being engaged, set for a new heading.

How do we know it was Box cutters? What is the proof? Any razor knife might be called a "box cutter".
In the right hands it can be a deadly weapon.

Many times in History the "trained experts", have been proven wrong by someone without the knowledge to know it was "impossible".

What do you think of this . . .?

[link to www.youtube.com]



And this pilot . . .

Reasonable points . . . so you are not surprised they could do it 3 for 3??

Last Edited by George B on 02/15/2013 09:45 PM

You think he is nuts?

Interesting video comparing Egypt Air 990 . . . with the flights that hit the towers . . . challenging the maximum controllable air speeds for the 767 . . . What do you all think?


[link to www.youtube.com]



Captain Rusty Aimer is one interviewed at the end of the video above at 21:37 minutes above . . . see below as well

[link to youtu.be]



Last Edited by George B on 02/15/2013 10:01 PM

I didn't say that. You ask if it was possible, I answered. No need to beat my head against a wall, when you already have your mind made up. See ya.

EAS = A(sl) Ma [(Sq Root (P/Psl)]

A(sl) = is the standard speed of sound at 15 degrees C (661.47 Knots)
P= is static air pressure
P(sl)= Standard Second Level Pressure (1013.25 hPa)
Ma= Mach number???

This is something like the formula that they say they calculated the speed would be in Mach equivalent air speed at 22,000 feet for an air speed at 2,000 feet . . .

"Mach 1 based on a standard day temperature at 22.000 feet = 609 knots true air speed.

.86 Mach = 522 knots

522 knots at 22,000 feet, in less dense air has the same effects as 369 knots at sea level in more dense air.

NOTE THE BIG DIFFERENCE OF AIR PRESSURE ACTING ON THE AIRFRAME.

Flight 175 reportedly reached the speed of 510 knots at sea level.


The max operating speed SET BY BOEING OF 360 KNOTS FOR LOWER ALTITUDES IS TOTALLY IGNORED.
THEY ALSO IGNORED THE EFFECTS OF AIR DENSITY AT LOWER COMPARED TO HIGHER ALTITUDES AND THE REASON THAT BOEING HAS TWO DIFFERENT MVOs FOR DIFFERENT ALTITUDES.

.86 MACH/586 KNOTS AT LOWER ALTITUDE HAS THE SAME EFFECT ON AN AIRCRAFT AS 805 KNOTS.
805 KNOTS = 1.32 MACH AT 22000 FEET = SUPERSONIC SPEED "

[link to www.911oz.com]

No I don't . . . the only thing I feel is I don't think any set of pilots could do it 3 for 3 . . .

Last Edited by George B on 02/15/2013 09:57 PM

I respectfully disagree. Airliners have wings that are designed for MASSIVE lift and engines with enormous power. You can throw an airliner around and maneuver hard, even a 747 (as you can see some of the videos below). I'm NOT a real pilot, I've just been flight simming since childhood... A 757 isn't that hard to fly, its easier than you might think. Holding a flight heading an altitude is fairly easy, all the main instruments are easy to read and assist greatly in holding heading and alt even for a rookie (the plane has a glass cockpit, but still has gauges as a backup).

Check out these videos:

^THIS (the part bolded and highlighted in red!)

No. It was a blue beam hologram.

The buildings were imploded.

Thanks for your participation . . .


Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the speeds observed on 9/11?
POLL: Could pilots with a commercial licencse have hit the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with a 767 or 757 at the sp
7) No 27.4% (17)
2) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward 17.7% (11)
8) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed 16.1% (10)
6) Probably not, it would be very hard to do 14.5% (9)
1) Yes 8.1% (5)
9) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed 4.8% (3)
4) Yes, but it would have been very difficult 3.2% (2)
10) No, the plane could never even reach that speed. 3.2% (2)
3) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration 1.6% (1)
5) Probably, but they were pretty lucky 1.6% (1)
11) I don't know 1.6% (1)
Blank (View Results) (11)

Non-Blank Votes: 62

Trade center yes Pentagon shit no oh and building 7 that's right no plane hit that so why did it collapse?
And don't start shilling with your "fire" lie.