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?

If so wouldn't they want it to seem real including speed of impact etc . . . ?? Why would you include controversial speeds?? Why make people doubt what they think they saw. . .

What fire lie?

Actually, a simulator can and does simulate real atmospheric conditions. A simulator not only simulates the aircraft, but the environment the aircraft is flying in. It simulates all of the control surfaces and the airflow around them. The question is how realistically a simulator can do it? Some are VERY realistic, and as far as FSX its fairly realistic although not ideal I admit. As far as maximum airspeeds, it is modeled but again, how realistically? Fairly realistic, but its not perfect. Its close enough for me to say you can actually simulate the WTC flights.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to say there was no conspiracy. I just think that a human pilot COULD do what we saw on 9/11. Was there even a human pilot? Who knows? What if the the planes were remotely controlled, or completely pre-programmed to do what they did via autopilot?

And the Pentagon, I agree 1 thousand percent that it was TOTAL BULLSHIT. There's no way an airliner hit the Pentagon, even some 9/11 official story people question the Pentagon 'attack'.

I think the hijackers downloaded code into the autopilot using a cellphone to send and receive telemetry and a laser designator was used to paint the towers and Pentagon by a third party . . .

The video above just shows a plane skidding along a runway and exploding. This is a 'dutch roll' (sideslip):



Here is FSX simulating it:



Check out this thread:

[link to www.flightsim.com]

"mgh
10-22-2011, 03:10 PM
FSX is based on the classic 6-degree-of-freedom model for its flight dynamics. This type of model is widely accepted in the real world.

The basic aerodynamic coefficients used (which define the behaviour of individual aircraft) are linear, except for CL-alpha and CM-alpha. There are factor for cl-beta, Cl-p, Cn-beta, Cn-r with angle of attack, in addition to tables to take account of Mach number effects.

These all work well at moderate angles of attack and sideslip but not so well ant high values. For exampe, no matter how much sideslip is applied the vertical stabiliser can never stall.

Before getting too concerned about this, remember that much of the real world data isn't available. In the case of aircraft designed and developed in the pre-comupter era, only the essential data was ever calculated during the design process to get the aircraft about right. It was just too time consuming with slide-rules and later electro-mechanical calculators to calculate anything else! The test pilots then took over and changes were made as a result of test flying. The calculations were not redone to reflect the changes. In the post-computer era more data was created but it's not generally available outside the individual firms. Googling will provide very limited information

The best FS designers know by expereince the effects of different items of data and change them until the aircraft seems to fly correctly.

As others have said, in the absence of the vital visual and motion cues it's very difficuklt to assess just how realistic any aircraft really is."

A possible location where the control code could be downloaded would logically be connected to a receiver (possibly a cell phone) which gets updated with target telemetry from the transponder on the towers or from the laser targeting device . . . It is done in combat all the time . . . Real time from miles away. . . .


Ground-based

U.S. Air Force Joint Terminal Air Controllers and Marine Corps Forward Air Controllers typically employ a lightweight device, such as the AN/PED-1 Lightweight Laser Designator Rangefinder (LLDR), permitting them to designate targets for Close Air Support aircraft flying overhead and in close proximity to friendly forces.[2] Northrop Grumman's LLDR, using an eye-safe laser wavelength, recognizes targets, finds the range to a target, and fixes target locations for laser-guided, GPS-guided, and conventional munitions. This lightweight, interoperable system uniquely provides range finding and targeting information to other digital battlefield systems.[3]
[link to www.ask.com]



Modern autopilots use computer software to control the aircraft. The software reads the aircraft's current position, and then controls a Flight Control System to guide the aircraft. In such a system, besides classic flight controls, many autopilots incorporate thrust control capabilities that can control throttles to optimize the airspeed, and move fuel to different tanks to balance the aircraft in an optimal attitude in the air. Although autopilots handle new or dangerous situations inflexibly, they generally fly an aircraft with a lower fuel-consumption than a human pilot.
[link to www.ask.com]

[link to en.m.wikipedia.org]
Passing the decision height of 150 feet (46 m) above ground level (AGL), the aircraft turned slightly to the right of the desired path. The aircraft entered into a situation known as a Dutch Roll. Slightly above that decision point at which the pilot was to execute a "go-around", there appeared to be enough altitude to maneuver back to the center-line of the runway. The aircraft was below the glideslope and below the desired airspeed. Data acquisition systems had been activated, and the aircraft was committed to impact. It contacted the ground, left wing low, at full throttle, with the aircraft nose pointing to the left of the center-line.

Last Edited by George B on 02/15/2013 10:56 PM

Basically, a hacked/modified, pre-programmed autopilot (which already exists on the aircraft)

-or-

A remote-control 'hi-jack' of aircraft flight controls (think drone technology here)

-or-

There really were human pilots at the controls. (this doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy!)

Who knows? Any of them would have worked in my opinion.

Ah I see. Yes, that makes sense. You'd have to look at what type of 'remote station' they were using. What kind of flight controls to recreate the real controls, what kind of visual display to recreate the cockpit view etc...

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% (21)
2) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward 15.9% (13)
8) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed 13.4% (11)
6) Probably not, it would be very hard to do 12.2% (10)
1) Yes 11.0% (9)
9) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed 7.3% (6)
11) I don't know 4.9% (4)
4) Yes, but it would have been very difficult 3.7% (3)
10) No, the plane could never even reach that speed. 3.7% (3)
3) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration 1.2% (1)
5) Probably, but they were pretty lucky 1.2% (1)
Blank (View Results) (11)

Non-Blank Votes: 82

Pentagon was a missle.

7 was imploded like the first 2.

One minor detail in this fairy tale that often gets overlooked.

The only man in this group of 19 "hijackers" that was actually capable of flying these aircraft, Waleed Al Shehri, a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines, turned up alive and kicking immediately after his alleged suicide.

Along with several of his alleged accomplices.

Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK
Hijack 'suspects' alive and well

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

[link to news.bbc.co.uk]

So how do men kill themselves by crashing airplanes into buildings, and then immediately reincarnate to protest their innocence?

The supposed pilots only had a ppl.

The never exceed speed at that 1000 feet is 290 knots and there is no way the aircraft would stay together.I have worked on 757 they were the first gen of aircraft designed by computers the structure is 30% lighter then the first jets. like 707 727 md80 dc8 dc9 huge deferents they were built using stricter calculation .

I hate when these morons post surveys will multiple YeS and No answers.

Like, are you brain dead.

The answers for the survey should be:

Yes
no
I don't know bah bah cuz im a sheep

Simple, Post your own poll if you don't like this one . . .

Last Edited by George B on 02/16/2013 08:15 AM

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 26.5% (27)
2) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward 15.7% (16)
6) Probably not, it would be very hard to do 12.7% (13)
8) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed 11.8% (12)
1) Yes 10.8% (11)
9) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed 7.8% (8)
11) I don't know 4.9% (5)
4) Yes, but it would have been very difficult 3.9% (4)
10) No, the plane could never even reach that speed. 3.9% (4)
3) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration 1.0% (1)
5) Probably, but they were pretty lucky 1.0% (1)
Blank (View Results) (17)

Non-Blank Votes: 102

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)

1) Yes
2) Yes, it would be fairly straightforward
3) Yes, but it would have needed a lot of concentration
4) Yes, but it would have been very difficult
5) Probably, but they were pretty lucky
6) Probably not, it would be very hard to do
7) No
8) No, the plane would be impossible to control at that speed
9) No, the plane would have fallen apart at that speed
10) No, the plane could never even reach that speed.
11) I don't know
Flight 77. . . Pentagon source

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

NTSB sources
[link to pilotsfor911truth.org]

[link to www.documentingreality.com]

Flight experience source

[link to www.911myths.com]

Not according to these reports . . .

[link to www.911myths.com]

Very confusing at the least . . . we may never know for sure who was there and who was not. . .

Well, we know who WASN'T there. The people our beloved "government" kept telling us were.

Global Hawk is a jet.

It is also a drone.

That tech has been around for decades and can easily be installed on just about any commercial aircraft.

Get it?

I can make no excuses for the honesty of our government or anyone's . . . if their lips are moving they are probably lying . . .

Last Edited by George B on 02/16/2013 10:10 PM

A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow

The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots.

The possibilities as I see them are:

(1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200;

(2) the radar data was compromised in some manner;

(3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or

(4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target.

Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?
[link to pilotsfor911truth.org]

Last Edited by George B on 02/16/2013 10:28 PM

Interesting simulator demo seems to indicate air speed makes aircraft uncontrollable near sea level . . . see 7:15 minute mark . . .

[link to m.youtube.com]

FLIGHT 175 SPEED CHALLENGE
M.I.T. 503 mph - 437 knots?
F.A.A. 586 mph - 509 knots?
N.I.S.T 546 mph - 474 knots?
F.E.M.A 590 mph - 512 knots??!!
MY TEST - above 360 mph - 320 knots level flight is impossible. The ' hijackers ' did not possess the knowledge and training to be able to accurately 'trim' a 767.
They spent a total of 6 hours in an old style 727 cockpit simulator and were given temporary 6 month licenses to fly small 2 engined aircraft.





Last Edited by George B on 02/16/2013 11:12 PM

I understand you recently quit smoking as per your thread I've seen floating around. Congrats I hope you are still successful and might I suggest you try to quit something else??

Lies!!

I know the truth is hard for some, but I simply answered a question I am qualified to answer. Thanks.

A short lesson on "Ground Effect"



We've been told that as the 757 approached the Pentagon, the aircraft was flying EXTREMELY low to the ground, low enough to take down light poles on the nearby freeway, at 500+ MPH.

No attempt has been made to explain how the pilot managed to overcome the exponentially increased lift on the aircraft's wings caused by ground effect.

the planes were fitted out with drone tech and flown remotley.

...??