The improbability of piloting UA175

[spooked911]

Officially, UA175 was piloted into the south WTC tower by a complete novice Boeing 767 pilot, Marwan al-Shehhi.

It was flown for the last few seconds of its existence at approximately 540 mph, and right before impact, the plane made a sharp bank to hit the south tower nearly dead on. The south tower was 208 feet wide, and the jet had a wingspan of 156 feet. There was therefore only about 50 feet leeway for a complete dead-on hit.

There has been a lot of discussion about whether a speed of 540 mph is even achievable near sea level with the type of turbofan engines that UA175 had. The official story thus holds that the plane was coming out of a "power dive", in order to reach this extreme speed. Nonetheless, 540 mph appears to be over the maximal operating velocity of a Boeing 767 at 1000 foot altitude.

The other issue is how capable Marwan al-Shehhi was of piloting a 767 to its target in the first place. The official story holds that once a plane is in the air, the only tricky part is landing, and that guiding it up and down, left and right, is not particularly hard. There is probably some truth to this argument, although one could see that an inexperienced pilot could easily lose control of the aircraft if there was too much maneuvering involved. Further, relatively easy piloting would only be applicable to ideal flying conditions-- not a life-or-death situation, where the plane was at an almost unmanageable speed. We are expected to believe that this amateur pilot was able to precisely aim the jet AFTER coming out of a stomach-churning, heart-stopping power dive.

Thus, the critical point remains that it is ridiculously improbable -- essentially impossible-- for an inexperienced pilot, under extreme duress, to steer a large jet plane, flying at or over maximal possible speed, to hit a very narrow target, within a few hundred foot altitude window.

Yet, people still believe the official story.

WHY????

[zappaman]

1. "Why"?

Got a better story?
Love to hear it.

[Larry L. Burks]

2. I don't know.

The only way that they could have done it is if they didn't do it.


Think about



They didn't fly planes in to the buildings. It's the only way that they could pulled it off.


On the day of 9/11. There was a clear blue sky.

If you prerecord hand filmed a plane flying across a clear blue sky.

Then after they used a DEW system on the Twin Towers.

The TV stations were operating on a ten minute time delay on 9/11.

If you were watching the instant replay of a ball game. And not the real time of the ball game. As it was being played.

You wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

As the events unfolded on 9/11 They were being were recorded and replayed on a ten minute time delay.

They told every body that they were watching live TV. When in fact it was a ten minute time delay recording that you was watching.


Ten minutes that they had to play with would be enough time to dub in a prerecord er plane flying across the clear blue sky. Into the clear blue sky events of 9/11. And make it look as if there was a plane that ran into the buildings. Blue on blue makes blue.

Then play the doctored recording as if it was live on TV.

You would never know the difference.

They fooled every body. But a few.

Spook? You know this. Why did you make this post?

You know that 9/11 didn't have jack shit to do with planes.

What are you doing?

Larry

[zappaman]

3. Thanks Larry!

YOU make sense.

[jberryhill]

6. Someone has GOT to look into the abject failure of the chemtrails program

It is clear to me that the mind control chemicals are failing miserably.

[jberryhill]

5. Larry, how is your energy machine coming along?

Now, a while back, you were fixing to build a pumped hydropower storage system that ran all by itself.

Have you given up on that? Or did you have something new involving magnets?

[T S Justly]

20. I don't believe the OP was saying there were planes (nt)

[jberryhill]

4. Ah, spooked, enjoying the holiday weekend?

How nice to hear from you.

[KDLarsen]

7. Texas sharpshooter fallacy coming through!

You posit that Marwan al-Shehhi intended and planned to hit the south tower the way he did, that the last minute bank was planned and performed intentionally.

I posit that because Marwan al-Shehhi was a crap pilot, he forgot to correct for crosswind, realised he was about to miss the south tower entirely, probably yanked hard on the yoke and barely managed to hit it in the end.

[spooked911]

8. "correct for crosswind"

I posit that the "crosswind" was the least of his putative concerns.

I never said the bank was planned. I do submit that such a precise bank by an amateur pilot at 540 mph is impossible.

[OnTheOtherHand]

9. if it wasn't planned, then in what sense would it be "precise"?

You seem to assume what you intended to demonstrate.

This was interesting, too:

There has been a lot of discussion about whether a speed of 540 mph is even achievable near sea level with the type of turbofan engines that UA175 had. The official story thus holds that the plane was coming out of a "power dive"....

"Thus"? Do you have an iota of evidence that what you call the "official" flight path was concocted in order to account for the plane's speed?

[spooked911]

10. "precise" in the sense of the visible execution and end result

I used "thus" because I only heard the "power dive" argument after the non-official conspiracy theorists starting saying how the plane was going over its Vmo. I presumed the "power dive" argument was concocted to explain the extreme speed.

[OnTheOtherHand]

16. say whaa?

"precise" in the sense of the visible execution and end result

He managed to hit a really, really big building.

V_MO, per Federal Aviation Regulations, "is a speed that may not be deliberately exceeded in any regime of flight (climb, cruise, or descent), unless a higher speed is authorized for flight test or pilot training operations." So, in effect, you're saying: "OMG, the plane was speeding -- yeah, right." It's odd.

spooked, I don't think it is unreasonable for readers to hope that your posts will reveal more about 9/11 than about yourself. I accept your observation about when you "heard the 'power dive' argument," but really, what does that have to do with anything?

[spooked911]

17. you're hopeless

"He managed to hit a really, really big building."

Per my OP, not that simple, but nice try.

Did you read WHY Vmo should not be exceeded? Hint, it's not simply "speeding".

As far as the "power dive argument", I am just recounting the way the argument proceeded, from my recollection. It is not irrelevant. If you have a better recollection, let me know.

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. if you had better arguments, you'd get better results

With no apparent awareness of the fact, you're repeating arguments that have been repeatedly rebutted over the last ten years -- and you take no account of the rebuttals.

If you really want to go back to your OP:

The south tower was 208 feet wide, and the jet had a wingspan of 156 feet. There was therefore only about 50 feet leeway for a complete dead-on hit.

Except that the plane hit at a considerable angle (38 degrees, according to NIST). That allowed it to hit well off-center while still getting the wingtips into the building -- not that it's apparent why that would matter. So, (1) it had far more than 50 feet leeway, and (2) the hit was far from "dead-on." Ten years after the event, why not get at least this much right?

Your OP also asserted that the plane was "flying at or over maximal possible speed." So I'd say the burden of proof is entirely on you to show that you know what V_MO is, never mind what you think it has to do with your point.

If you are actually interested in how the argument proceeded, as distinct from your own subjective state of mind, you could always look it up. I am not holding my breath.

[spooked911]

28. I may not have taken account of every rebuttal, but certainly I pointed out the power-dive rebuttal

and I pointed out the common thesis that it is easy to fly if you don't have to take off or land.

I'm not sure what other rebuttals I haven't taken account of.

You're doing a typical nitpicking/semantic argument about dead-on and leeway. The basic point is still the same, and in any case, it's very hard to believe that they would bank in order to make the target easier to hit.

My OP said that 540 mph appears to be over the Vmo. If you know otherwise, show me.

"If you are actually interested in how the argument proceeded"... huh? What argument are you referring to?

[OnTheOtherHand]

31. wake up

You've provided absolutely no support whatsoever for your (to be polite) conjecture that the "official story thus holds that the plane was coming out of a 'power dive', in order to reach this extreme speed." You may believe, deep in your heart, that NTSB cooked the flight path in response to questions about the "extreme speed" -- or maybe you believe something else. Who really knows what you are trying to say?

You're doing a typical nitpicking/semantic argument about dead-on and leeway. The basic point is still the same...

You're doing a typical bob-and-weave, or maybe a duck-and-cover. There's nothing "semantic" about the fact that your "50 feet leeway" assertion is, objectively, bullshit. It's revealing that you think your "basic point" stands even though its stated factual premise is dead wrong -- as if premises are supposed to follow from conclusions, rather than vice versa. It is small wonder that you're "not sure what other rebuttals (you) haven't taken account of," if this is your standard of taking account.

...and in any case, it's very hard to believe that they would bank in order to make the target easier to hit.

Who on earth suggested that they did? I don't even think it matters much whether they managed to plant both wingtips in the tower. The point is: if they had managed to hit the tower dead level and dead center, I would at least see the basis of your suspicion; but they were nowhere near dead level, nowhere near dead center, and you're incredulous anyway.

My OP said that 540 mph appears to be over the Vmo. If you know otherwise, show me.

Oh-kay, let's go to the tape....

OP, emphasis added

...Nonetheless, 540 mph appears to be over the maximal operating velocity of a Boeing 767 at 1000 foot altitude....

Thus, the critical point remains that it is ridiculously improbable -- essentially impossible-- for an inexperienced pilot, under extreme duress, to steer a large jet plane, flying at or over maximal possible speed, to hit a very narrow target, within a few hundred foot altitude window.

So....

Do you think that V_mo (which I assume you are equating with "maximal operating velocity") means "maximal possible speed"? Do you hope that readers will think that it does? Is it really a semantic nitpick to wonder how you got from V_mo to "maximal possible speed," when the regulatory definition of the former makes clear that it doesn't mean the latter? If you're not very interested in the details, why try to cite them?

[spooked911]

33. are you a lawyer in real life?

I get the distinct impression that you would rather nitpick on every little word than try to make a basic assumption about what a person is trying to say.

You've provided absolutely no support whatsoever for your (to be polite) conjecture that the "official story thus holds that the plane was coming out of a 'power dive', in order to reach this extreme speed." You may believe, deep in your heart, that NTSB cooked the flight path in response to questions about the "extreme speed" -- or maybe you believe something else.

I could look up the DU thread where this was discussed, but I didn't think it was a significant point of contention-- the point that the official story held that the "power dive" aided the ability of the plane to reach that extreme speed. I don't think the NTSB cooked up the flight path in response to questions about extreme speed at all. I suspect that the radar data was a military simulation as part of the wargames going on, if you really want to know.

The "dead-on" argument is silly. Clearly they needed to hit the tower close to the core to get collapse-worthy damage, which officially they did. 50 feet or 100 feet, whatever-- it's still a fairly narrow window. And what you wrote did seem to suggest you though the hijackers banked in to make it easier to hit within the tower. But this is not a important point.

As far as the Vmo, I wish I could be more precise about the max possible speed. The problem is we don't have concrete numbers for maximum possible speed the plane could be operated at without breaking up or being inoperable. I suspect some of this is because Boeing is hiding their full data on the planes, but a fairly simple extrapolation indicates that 540 mph is WAY over Vmo at that altitude, and that 540 mph likely exceeds the max possible speed the plane could be operated at.

This video series from Pilots for Truth is good on this exact issue, particularly if you don't prejudge what they have to say. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg_GArE7UBQ

[OnTheOtherHand]

34. I think you should stop impugning me and spend more time on your posts

I get that you Just Don't Believe that an inexperienced pilot flew that plane into the tower. Beyond that, your argument seems to depend on (1) unsubstantiated opinions and (2) factual errors. Maybe you would find me friendlier if I limited myself to saying "Thanks for sharing," but I don't think it is blameworthy to respond to the substance of your posts.

... the point that the official story held that the "power dive" aided the ability of the plane to reach that extreme speed.

If you could explain to the rest of us where this so-called "official story" is engraved, maybe we could verify this assertion for ourselves.

I suspect that what this means, more or less, is that (1) someone expressed incredulity that UA 175 could be going so fast; (2) someone else pointed out that the plane was diving at about a mile per minute, and argued that this would contribute to its speed; (3) you decided that this was "the official story."

If you could somehow discipline yourself to avoid that phrase entirely, and confine yourself to referencing specific sources, that would be useful.

The "dead-on" argument is silly.

Well, I agree -- but then, I wasn't the one who made it. My goodness.

So, the new improved spooked argument is that "they needed to hit the tower close to the core to get collapse-worthy damage, which officially they did." In order to develop this into an argument with some persuasive force, you would want to provide, at a minimum, (1) a rationale about how "close to the core" the plane would have had to strike (bearing in mind, of course, that the strike itself didn't cause the tower to collapse) and (2) a rationale about why that degree of accuracy would be difficult to attain, presumably based on some facts about handling characteristics of 767s. You'd still have a "Texas sharpshooter" problem, because the tower didn't have to collapse in order for 9/11 to be regarded as a national catastrophe, any more than the Pentagon had to collapse. But at least you would have some possibility of convincing someone who doesn't already agree with you.

The problem is we don't have concrete numbers for maximum possible speed the plane could be operated at without breaking up or being inoperable.

Indeed you don't. Ten years in, you're still citing irrelevant V_MO figures because, apparently, they are all you have. And, yes, that is the problem. I'm not sure why it doesn't bother you more than it seems to.

[spooked911]

36. funny, coming from someone who endlessly impugns me

you're a freaking genius at picking apart statements, but in terms of being able to read a larger conclusion, not so much.

YOUR points of contention about power dive and the official story and the dead on hit are silly and a waste of time.

The Vmo argument is quite important, not "irrelevant".

Your inability to see how massively exceeding the Vmo by a novice pilot is a problem.

If you'd watch the video I cited, then maybe you'd understand the issue better.

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. I try very hard to be patient

If I believed what you believe, I would feel ethically obligated to offer better arguments than the arguments you offer. That's definitely a source of tension between us.

That said, I think it's utter bullshit -- and, perhaps not coincidentally, a wild derail -- to say that I endlessly impugn you.

Your inability to see how massively exceeding the Vmo by a novice pilot is a problem.

"massively"? "a problem"? spooked, it isn't my responsibility to make your arguments make sense, much less to find the supporting evidence. That is your responsibility. If the best you can do is to tell me to watch YouTubes, then at some point I have to wonder if you even know what your argument and evidence are. If you feel impugned by that, well, I'd encourage you to stop whining about it and change your behavior.

ETA: When I was, maybe, 12, I read a book about the Bermuda Triangle, and I pretty much accepted everything it said. So I told one of my older brothers about it, and he started asking pointed questions -- like, "Do you know of any evidence corroborating this claim?" and even "Is there any possible way that the author could know this, even if it is true?" Pretty soon I realized that (1) a lot of the author's purported facts might or might not be true, and (2) the author wasn't a reliable source. That may have been my first lesson in skepticism.

The pilots' citation of an irrelevant technical document to interpret the log files indicates that they aren't a reliable source. That doesn't mean that they are wrong about everything, but I don't feel any obligation to slog through their five-part video on the off chance that there is a pony in there somewhere. If there is, I honestly think that you are ethically obligated to bring it to our attention -- not to complain about how effing lawyerly I am.

[spooked911]

43. On your general points, I understand your sentiments, and thanks for the anecdote.

Also, thanks for the patience.

However, on the ethics point, I would say you have some obligation to make an effort to grasp my basic point without me having to present a lawyerly disposition on the topic. I don't think my arguments are so non-sensical.

The argument for the OP very simply is that:
1) we had a novice pilot who would have trouble flying the plane to begin with
2) officially they were going at very high speed, making the piloting more difficult
3) they had to hit a relatively small area
4) these factors greatly multiply the improbability of the official flight 175 hijacker pilot story

What is not clear here?

Or just tell me what kind of argument you DO find convincing. Just one example, so I know what to shoot for.

Now the Vmo argument is a bit complex and I thought the video series did a better job of explaining it than I could, without me spending a couple of hours taking notes and then writing a coherent post. If you just need me to give one number as the Vmo, I can do that though, even though there are caveats to that.

Nonetheless, I think it is entirely fair to say 540 mph is massively over Vmo at 1000 foot altitude. I also think that this point isn't so hard to grasp as you seem to make out.

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. that is clear, but not at all convincing

It's an argument from incredulity a la adverb ("very," "relatively," "greatly"). The supporting evidence is weak.

Like many arguments from incredulity, it is even less persuasive when one turns to alternative explanations. If it is so implausible that a 767 traveling over 500 mph could hit one of the towers more or less on target, why write that into the "official story" in the first place?

I suppose an example of a convincing argument would be an engineering study that shows that a 767 cannot be maneuvered near sea level at speeds over 500 mph.

If you just need me to give one number as the Vmo, I can do that though, even though there are caveats to that.

As I've already pointed out, V_MO by definition is a speed that sometimes can be exceeded; it's a regulatory limit, not a physical limit. That isn't to say that 767s don't have physical limits, just that if you don't have any useful information about them, well, then you don't.

And now maybe you can explain to me why that point is hard to understand.

[spooked911]

45. do you think the "regulatory limit" of Vmo is arbitrary or for a reason?

If for a reason, what do you think that might be?

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. so a bullshit Socratic number is the best thing you've got?

Hey, for fun, let's stipulate that I'm a brainless denialist who never heard of V_MO, notwithstanding all previous threads on the topic.

Now, at any point do you intend to start answering my questions? Otherwise, I accept your concession.

[spooked911]

54. I've answered plenty of your questions... jeesh

why do I feel like I touched a nerve?

What questions do you want answered?

[OnTheOtherHand]

57. spooked, I could not make it more clear

I am waiting for evidence that it's somehow impossible, or improbable, for a 767 to do what that plane apparently did.

V_MO isn't such evidence, no matter what you ask me about it.

[hack89]

49. Since Vne = "never exceed speed" why are you so concerned by Vmo?

Vne seems to be the actual speed limit.

[hack89]

51. The Vne of a 767 is .86 mach = 560 knots at 1000 feet.

http://www.flywestwind.com/hangar/aircraft_files/foms/B...

http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html

[OnTheOtherHand]

52. I think your first link is as I've pasted below

http://www.flywestwind.com/hangar/aircraft_files/foms/B763ERFOM.pdf

In general, Mach is only one constraint on airspeed -- and flywestwind.com isn't self-evidently a reliable source, anyway.

ETA: Not that I just became a "no-planer." I think one of the problems here is that frankly, for most purposes, no one cares how fast a 767 could go near sea level, because it has no business going fast near sea level. So it's hard to find an authoritative source that is on point.

[hack89]

53. But you agree that Vne is the speed you need to concern yourself with? nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

58. let me put it this way

1. I'm not sure that the 767 has a V_NE, per se.

2. I believe that when planes have both V_MO and V_NE, V_NE typically is substantially greater than V_MO.

3. I do not believe that even V_NE is an absolute limit on how fast a plane can go.

4. Ergo, I am utterly unimpressed by arguments about V_MO.

5. In principle I could be persuaded that the 767 had done something implausibly difficult, regardless of V_MO.

6. I am not holding my breath.

[spooked911]

55. it's not at all clear that Vne = 0.86 mach at 1000 feet

In any case, even if Vne is important, wouldn't you say Vmo is there for a reason?

[hack89]

56. Then find a different calculation that gives a different result.

the point is that Vne is a higher number than Vmo - which means that planes are designed to fly at speeds greater than Vmo.

[spooked911]

46. btw, it's funny-- you clearly are interested in conspiracies,

but you're not exactly a hardcore debunker/naysayer. Yet you can't seem to find a conspiracy angle to suit you, that I've seen. Are you searching for some ever-elusive proof or what?

[OnTheOtherHand]

48. ?

I'm interested in all sorts of things, including conspiracies both real and imagined.

It is hardly a matter of "ever-elusive proof." If UA 175 really was (supposedly) going impossibly fast or even unmanageably fast, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to make that case better than through references to V_MO and bare assertion. I'm not sure why you can't see the weakness of that case.

(edit to fix formatting)

[spooked911]

11. please explain how you think I used this fallacy

I read this, but it doesn't seem to really apply to what I wrote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

[ryan_cats]

12. I'll be you $1000 dollars I can do it. in a simulator

I'll be you $1000 dollars I can do it in a simulator.

Give me only 4 hours in the simulator and I would be able to recreate that flight easily. Since I don't have to take off, I don't have to worry about items such as V1, V2, engine settings, being able to raise the gear and reset the flaps and slats.

I don't play video games so I have no experience there.

All I need to worry about is, control of the plane at altitude. How to turn off the transponder. Locate NYC and then the WTC and aim for it. It's not exactly stick and rudder like in a P-51 Mustang. There is speculation that instead of using the Nav on the planes, they had, handheld GPS receivers to point them the way.

In fact, anyone on this board with any kind of mechanical background could do it. The only controls you need to worry about are, 1) Throttles, 2) Yolk, 3) rudder, 4) Auto-pilot, how to turn off, 5) turn off transponder, and you have to be able to read a few instruments like compass and altimeter and the artificial horizon.

The premise of your whole post is way off and slightly racist since you assume these dark skinned folks couldn't have done it.

[jberryhill]

14. "1) Throttles, 2) Yolk, 3) rudder"

You get that yolk all over the controls, and you are going to have one sticky mess, though.

[ryan_cats]

22. I like my yolks, sunny side up

I like my yolks, sunny side up. I hate when they break, especially when I'm flying a plane.

[Old and In the Way]

23. I don't think you'd need 4 hours to do it.....

I set-up the flight up in MFS 2000 and was able to hit it on my 2nd or 3rd attempt....the Pentagon hit was completely different, though....it took about 30 attempts before I could get that one figured out. Most of those attempts ended up with 'frame overstress' - a mid-air breakup essentially. It took the right combination of air brake, flaps, descent rate, and bank angle to make keep the plane flying through the turn. Once I figured that out, it took a few more attempts to get the course right for the Pentagon and a few more to finally hit the Pentagon the level and location.

Back on 175, I don't think it was traveling anywhere near 540MPH. The tapes I've seen seem to show the plane going a lot slower than that. 540MPH is about 800ft/sec. Doesn't seem to me that the plane was 800ft away a second before it hit the building.

[spooked911]

26. doing it at 540 mph is impossible

period

[ryan_cats]

29. Plane breaks up

While in MFS, it shows the plane breaking up past its safety margins, I'm willing to bet that the plane can exceed those numbers by a large margin. The problem normally is using the plane again; since that wasn't their problem, it didn't matter.

[spooked911]

37. did you hit it going 540 mph?

that's the hard part

[spooked911]

25. I have tried -- using Flight Sim

it's impossible

Also--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcPP-0Kvpzo&feature=related

[ryan_cats]

42. I know you have a high opinion of yourself...

I know you have a high opinion of yourself, don't know if it's justified (I'm being nice here) but you think because you can't do it in flight sim, no one can. Sorry, not gonna believe it, wouldn't be prudent.
I'm talking about a real simulator not a computer one. You know, the ones that recreate the cockpit and are on hydraulic rams to simulate motion?

[sgsmith]

13. A few points of discussion

First, I'd throw out any and all of your "extreme duress" arguments. If the official story - Islamic militants with a martyr wish - is true, I'd bet that they had all made peace with their god and were willing to die. They had a mission to accomplish and trained for that mission.

Second, I believe that the last second bank was a planned maneuver, since it was done on both of the planes that flew into the WTC towers. A large bank has the the affect of damaging more floors, which had to have some greater damage. At a minimum, the wing fuel tanks would have exploded across more floors.

Finding the towers wouldn't be that hard of a task if the pilots either had hand held GPS units, or were able to program the aircraft autopilots with a latitude/longitude fix. Certainly, having perfectly clear weather on that day would have made a visual approach easier.

The good videos certainly show a descending aircraft prior to impact. Whether or not that's a "power dive", a descent certainly increases aircraft speed. Whether or not the aircraft was flying beyond a theoretical maximum velocity, I can't say. But aircraft are pretty solidly built machines that sometimes exceed the designer's plans.

As to your assertion that an inexperienced pilot could not fly the aircraft, let me share a personal story. I was a very low time private pilot, who went with my father on a visit to a major airline simulator complex. I had to opportunity to "fly" a Boeing 707, in a simple night simulator to landing at Atlanta Hartsfield. Not really expecting to get in the left seat, with a dark cockpit and a night approach, I still landed cleanly on my first (and only) attempt. I didn't have multi engine time, nor did I have a commercial license, and certainly I didn't practice ahead of time. If the hijackers had a PC with Microsoft Flight Simulator, they could have practiced for hundred of "flights".

[spooked911]

27. Thanks-- a few points in response

1) even assuming they were willing to die, it was an extreme amount of pressure and a rough ride, and alarms were going off in the cockpit due to being over speed

2) It's not clear that cutting across more floors does more damage than going in evenly-- it's either more damage and fuel across one floor, or less fuel and damage across several floors. Also, it's a bit hard to believe they knew to come in at an off-target angle, such that they could then bank into the tower. That seems like a difficult thing to plan.

3) I agree

4) It's clear the plane officially was flying over Vmo

5) that's interesting but it's not clear how much it relates to flying overspeed and hitting a narrow target


What do you think of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcPP-0Kvpzo&feature=related

[sgsmith]

39. Response

1) Who the frak cares, especially if you've already decided to die? You know - last will and testaments, instructions to family, etc. Soldiers perform under extreme amounts of pressure, pilots fly rough rides, and alarms go off on the flight deck. Your argument is weak.

2) If one plane behaved that way, you could attribute it to lousy pilot skills. But since both of the planes banked, I believe it was intentional. Not difficult to plan, but difficult to execute.

3) Cool.

4) Trying to put together a response on Vmo. From what I can find, it's not the number that you think it is.

5) Hitting a narrow target? You're kidding, right? The runways at KATL are 150 ft wide. The WTC towers were 208 ft wide.

re: the video. I disregard everything about "landing" on an aircraft carrier. The fact that these guys had difficulty landing on a moving target, as a carrier would be moving at sea, isn't really surprising. Besides, large aircraft have landed on carriers.

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp

[deconstruct911]

30. I don't get the planned maneuver part

why didn't flight 11 do it then? From what I see in the Naudet film there wasn't even an attempt to make the radical bank. If they thought for even 30 seconds in their 9/11 planning that ensuring building collapse is important WHY fly the first plane (which would kill the most people) towards the 95th floor...

[sgsmith]

32. But flight 11 did bank.

Or how did the damage end up banked?

[LARED]

15. Spooked, you are right on time

I was thinking as I booted up the computer that it was about time for you to post something wacky.

Bless your heart.

[T S Justly]

18. good info, thnx (nt)

[mrarundale]

21. cuz they saw it on teevee

Yet, people still believe the official story.

WHY????

Just like "War of the Worlds", except no one told them afterwards that it was fake. (well some of us tried....)

[salvorhardin]

35. The idea that there was mass panicking following Well's WotW broadcast is a myth

There was some panicking, but most people understood that it was a radio play. Furthermore, most of the panicking that did occur wasn't because of people who heard the broadcast, but because of people who heard from panic stricken friends and neighbors that an otherworldly attack was underway.

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15470903 and W. Joseph Campbell's Getting It Wrong for more. Campbell also has an excellent discussion of the myth of the 38 idle witnesses to the Kitty Genovese murder in Getting It Wrong.

[mrarundale]

40. How do you know?

Were you there?

[terrafirma]

24. That is an excellent question...

WHY

WHY, after 10 years, does your same argument of "novice pilot", "impossible airspeed", etc fail to convince people?

WHY, after 10 years, can you not even CONSIDER the possibility that you're way off base?

Your first excellent question ever, Spooked.

Congrats.

[mrarundale]

41. Many don't believe it

I've found out recently from an informal survey.:) They just don't spend a lot of time on it. I would guess that the people who actually believe the OCT are actually in the minority...(or who pretend to believe it)

[hack89]

50. The Vne of a 767 is .86 mach = 560 knots at 1000 feet.

http://www.flywestwind.com/hangar/aircraft_files/foms/B763ERFOM.pdf

http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html

[deconstruct911]

59. This has been posted before

But should be here with this trhead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtDtns0IPEE

[mrarundale]

60. It's ALL been posted before D911

and no one cares. Just like no one cares about section 31 of the Defense Authorization Act....

[deconstruct911]

61. You got me

I don't even know what that is.