Pilot who flew 2 planes used on 911 doesn't believe official Story

So did their big plan rest on untrained and unskilled pilots fresh from Cessnas and simulators, or would they have thought to make sure the key part of the plan - the piloting - was in capable hands?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is interesting, that we have a bunch of people who don't have the respect for the capabilities of the enemy to plan a execute a operation of this magnitude, all of the Pilots from 9/11 seem to have had licenses.

I have had fairly extensive experience with playing with simulators, and yes you can learn to fly on a simulator, you learn procedure, and location of instruments, and control boards, CRT's, and how to input data properly into the Auto pilot with out killing your self doing it for real.

One of the hardest thing to teach a pilot to do on a bomb run is to keep his nose out of the dirt, it is very easy to get target fixation and fly right down the bomb path and merge with your target, it is a whole lot easier and safer for the body to start in a simulator so if you screw up you can do, a do over, you don't bleed in a simulator, but you sweat bulllets.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you had been planning 9/11, would you have relied on simulator training for your pilots, who otherwise had no experience flying these or any other planes in this manner?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That depends, iceaura, on whether one is planning rationally or not. Buffalo Roam wants us to consider terrorist planners rational, but only within certain US-government-certified Party-Line boundaries of investigation.

Look BR, the easiest way to find an Islamist-fanatic pilot who can murderously and suicidally slam a big jet balls-to-the-walls and precisely on target is to recruit from the ranks of Arab military pilots. People from all over the world are trained as fighter and fighter-bomber pilots at impressionable young ages. If I were a terrorist mastermind, brainstorming about how to best fuck with western heads, and pondering how best to upset the Mideast apple-cart, I would start any aerial-attack schemes with consideration for military-aviation talent, of which there is an abundance.

Similarly, if I were a terrorist mastermind, planning to ram an LNG supertanker into Boston, I wouldn't go to the local boating clubs to find my captains. I'd find disgruntled Muslim blue-water sea-captains. They would be much more likely to dependably know how to git 'er done than wannabes who failed their exams in little boating clubs. In complex operations like simultaneous mega-terror attacks, why skimp on experience?

Like you say, BR, we shouldn't underestimate the intelligence of murderous terrorists. There is an ample source of radicalizeable young fighter pilots in the Arab world. I just can't understand why you refuse to entertain scenarios involving 9-11 attackers with jet experience. It's as if you find the idea disturbing and unapproachable. It's all the more bizarre, knowing that you are a pilot. Unless you were a really crappy one, you should have a certain professional appreciation for an attack (however horrific) well executed.

From within any trade, it is recognizable when someone displays a high level of competence. The 9-11 attacks were flown with a higher level of competence than can be logically expected from 2-bit civvy flight-school dropouts who couldn't even pass a simple checkout to rent a fucking Cessna 172. I could forego sleep for a few days, get drunk, have a mint, and pass such an evaluation easily. This story of losers flying these airliners so well, and so beyond their normal limits is just too much to believe.

 

But your are the one who claims that they were losers, and didn't have the skills to pilot the Plane, Your the one who has brought up the fact that they were supposed flight school drop out, I just pointed out that the enemy has the skill for planning, and the where with all to acquire the human assets for a major operation, as far as I know none of the official reports paint the Terrorist as flight school drop out, those sentiments come from people out side the investigation, and you.

And it seems that they did attend terrorist training camps to learn hand to hand,

the family tree of 9/11.


So even if they were skilled pilots and nothing that they did suggest other wise how does that change a thing, remember the the original post;

By the information that you provided, I have shown that the Aircraft wasn't flown past its limits, it wasn't well over 100kts, above its VNE, the turn made by the pilots, would have been no were near 5,6,7, G's, and the effect is that they didn't train only on a 172, the schools that they attended had a Full Flight Simulator training program, its all in the information,

Here are the offical numbers for the speeds, and the Vne for all aircraft.

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

North Tower-AA11-Boeing 767-200, impact 8.46am, 691 km/hr, 429 mph.

South Tower-UA175-Boeing 767-200, impact 9.02am, 810 km/hr, 503 mph.

(VNE, velocity not exceed) for a Boeing 767 is 954 km/h, 593 mph / 516 knots

Pentagon-AA77-Boeing 757-200, impact 9.38am, 555 km/hr, 345 mph.

Maximum speed: 530 mph (Mach 0.8) (850 km/h)



http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/kephart.html

 

Those speed limitations are all for high altitude flight, BR. I realize you're a rotorhead, but if you think real hard, you may remember that most of the atmosphere is much thinner than the thick lower part, where helicopters fly, and where airliners slow way down. Helicopters can't cruise around at 40,000 feet. You would have a very hard time keeping control of one up there. 757s, and other jet airliners, are not designed to go faster than around 250 knots down low. Pushing them that hard in thick air makes them very difficult to manage. At 370 KIAS, an obnoxious overspeed warning sounds in the 757. At speeds greater than that down low, any big, elastic airliner requires a very steady hand, and a lot of experienced anticipation to hand-fly accurately.

 

This is a nice discussion, I had no idea how much was involved in flying a plane, even though I've had good friends who were pilots

 

It really depends on the plane. The ones that Mohammed Atta, Hani Hanjour, and others flew in flight school weren't that hard to manage. I routinely solo student pilots after 8-10 hours dual instruction in simple planes like that. But there is a very big disparity between light trainers and modern jet airliners, so big that there is really no comparison in other vehicles.

Transitioning from basic flight-school airplanes like the Cessna 172 to Boeing 757s is a very big step up (never normally done in one leap) in terms of basic handling and workload, for reasons of system complexity and physics. Not only are big airliners complex, but quadrupled speed presents huge challenges to mental processing about anticipating vertical and lateral maneuvering. Imagine doing any kinetic task 4 times as fast as you are accustomed to doing it. Additionally, big airframes have an elasticity that small airframes lack- the wings flex, and respond with a delay that an inexperienced pilot can get out of phase with, causing a phenomena known as pilot induced oscillation. The motion resembles the fanning of the arms that happens before someone falls off a tighthrope or beam. Because of the idiosyncracies of elasticity, high-speed maneuvering with accuracy requires experience. Inexperience shows up right away, with wild misses of the neophyte's planned trajectory.

That's part of the fun of being an advanced flight instructor- you get to watch big-headed hotshots humiliate themselves on a regular basis, because these things take practise.

 

And AA11, was flying 164 mph below Vne, which would still be below Vne for the lower altitude,

UA175 was probably at Vne, being 90 mph below the listed Vne, but that was at impact, that is were the speed is quoted for.

AA77 was 185 mph below Vne, again below Vne for the altitude,

But then aren't you the one who so conveniently pointed out that just maybe the pilots had more flight training than was apparent? after I pointed out that there would have been more than one pilot in the cockpit.

But then I had to tell you about underestimating your opponents, and your changing the parameters, of your supposition.

 

"AA77 was 185 mph below Vne, again below Vne for the altitude"

What data do you base that conclusion on? In my understanding, and 757 is not happy at over 300 knots down low. It would certainly be loudly complaining.

I'm all ears about any revelations of more training having been received by these pilots than we were initially told. I've already expressed why I don't believe their flying performance matched the bios, especially considering their unimpressive flight training and flight experience backgrounds. I'm sure there is more to this story.

 

OK hypewaders as a big shot IP, and stunt pilot extraordinaire, how about you showing your expertise, and show me that I am wrong by posting the Vne's for the altitudes that the Aircraft were flying at, you are the one who claims that I am wrong, so show, I check the bet to you, I am only a 120knt rotor head, now shit or get off the pot.

One other set of question, does a aircraft immediately self destruct upon reaching Vne, or does it have the ability to hold together for a unknown length of time and at some point past Vne start to come apart, is the self destruction that a plane past Vne, catastrophic?, or do part start to leave the plane first and then progress to catastrophic failure?

 

Buffalo Roam: "OK hypewaders as a big shot IP, and stunt pilot extraordinaire, how about you showing your expertise, and show me that I am wrong by posting the Vne's for the altitudes that the Aircraft were flying at"

I don't consider myself a big shot, and I don't do "stunts". I have taught a lot of folks to fly, teaching primary through multi-engine and instrument ratings. I also enjoy aerobatics, soaring, and formation flying. In my aviation circles, people often compliment my flying abilities. I just think that anyone is bound to get good at anything one loves doing, and does a lot of.

But I don't fly Boeings. I know enough about large airliners to know that they aren't normally flown so fast down low because it's wasteful, rough, and generally not a nice (or legal) way to transport passengers. Obviously these big jets can be pushed hard, but that's just not for beginners.

"show me that I am wrong by posting the Vne's for the altitudes that the Aircraft were flying at"

I'm not in a dispute with you over 757 limitations. I think we both can agree that the 9-11 attackers were far exceeding normal operating limits. I am curious where you found VNEs by altitude for the 757. Can you post a link?

"you are the one who claims that I am wrong, so show, I check the bet to you, I am only a 120knt rotor head, now shit or get off the pot."

I am not, and have not been debating with you whether 757s can go this fast down low. My point is that such operation would be completely unusual and challenging for type-rated pilots, and very tricky flying for beginners. You're just twisting my questions out of proportion, in order to give the appearance that you are responding directly. It seems as if you often play a silly games of pretend "gotcha" instead of sincerely exploring topics.

"does a aircraft immediately self destruct upon reaching Vne,"

Of course not. But near the edge things do get unruly, and less forgiving of mistakes.

..." or does it have the ability to hold together for a unknown length of time and at some point past Vne start to come apart, is the self destruction that a plane past Vne, catastrophic?"

That's right- planes can hold together past VNE, and like any limits in engineering, there are margins-of-error and safety factors built into all limitations. The relevant fact here is simply that big, fat, aeroelastic jets certainly do get progressively harder to fly with precision when flown at unusually high speed in thick turbulent air.

 

Even at starting at 300 and going to 1500 agl, inverted in a707 is a extreme maneuver, and it show the skills of the man who did it, and now where did the 9/11 suicide killers even come close to that kind of maneuver. up side down in a 707, dam I wished I could have been there for that, the pilots watching that, would have creamed their jeans.

But both runs in to the Towers were straight and level, come around, line up and push the throttles forward, no heavy maneuvering, and as for control problems the second jet was starting to drop its port wing, as it hit the tower, so just maybe Vne was having a effect, but to late to do any good, and I wonder just how many people would have died had the wings come off due to exceeding Vne, the aircraft would still have crashed into the city, a shopping mall maybe?, residential areas?, a school?, the first tower was already compromised, and going to fall, so what difference does it make as to the out come of the whole suicide attack, minim training, extensive training, they still killed 2900+ innocent people for the glory of Islam, and Allah.

The same thing about the Pentagon Attack, no heavy maneuvering, a turn out away from the target to extend the time and set up the suicide run, no speed increase until after they had come around and had the Pentagon lined up for the suicide run, and that was a straight in run over approximate 4 mile, with a slight decent to impact, and it appears to have been a 2 deg. descent angle nothing heavy about that kind of maneuver, just keep the point of impact centered in the wind screen

 

glad someone else pointed this out
and here's the link, not from a conspiracy website but from the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

" His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world. Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco."

 

So were isn't it possible for this to have happened, the speeds were not at Vne, and you just admitted that they can go fast down low, and it seems from the information that you posted, that the aircraft didn't accelerate to speed until after they had turned to final for the run, and I agree that they may have had more than basic training, the schools they attended had 4 axis flight simulators, and the Air Force, and all of the Airlines that I know of use Flight simulators for training, (procedural, emergency, and flight training), D level simulators.

You keep saying aero-elastic, as if it is something bad, and yes, I have seen the wings flex in flight, I have even seen film of a rotor flexing as it rotates, this summer I was out to Boeing at Everet, and saw the Sims of the new 777, and if you want to talk about aero-elasticity, that wing flexes over a 20 ft. arc.

One of the reasons for that flexing is to prevent catrostropic failure of main components, under stress, it is designed into the system, a rotor system wouldn't be able to function with out it and it goes through more stress induced flexing than any component on a Medium Airliner, hell just watch a B-52's wing, that flexes 16 feet I hear, and they made their penetration runs in the dirt. below 1000 agl. and the flex was necessary to the function of low level performance.

This and a Lady named Leslie, at Boeing, I called Boeing was directed to her, and ask the question about Vne of 757 and 767 aircraft, plus;

plus;

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

Target Flight Aircraft Impact Time Velocity
km/hr mph
North Tower AA-11 Boeing 767-200 8:46:20 AM 691 429
South Tower UA-175 Boeing 767-200 9:02:48 AM 810 503
Pentagon AA-77 Boeing 757-200 9:38 AM 555 345

The velocities listed in this table for the two WTC planes are in excellent agreement
with flight data based on radar provided by the NTSC1. The radar speeds are basically 10%
larger, a difference that could easily be explained by the higher altitude at which the aircraft
may have remained visible to radar and the probable speedup caused by the descent. Indeed,
during their final approach, the airplanes ¾whose transponders had been disabled¾ were
flying as low as some 300m (1000 ft) above the ground (I.e. the height of impact), an altitude
that is barely above the rooftops of the skyscrapers in lower Manhattan, so radar is likely to
have been blind to them. By contrast, the estimates given herein are based on the last mile of
flight prior to collision.


Some one posted a youtube clip of a modified, Royal New Zealand Air force 757, flying a hundred feet above the tarmac at some sort of air show. Needless to say the guy reckoned it was traveling at 500mph.
I got on the RNZAF website & emailed them the question. They said the max speed at sea level would be 400mph remembering that still not Vne.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRiCHgQnf9s


Here's their reply

"Thanks for your enquiry.
The Boeing 757 as currently operated by the RNZAF, is (in terms of performance) very similar to that of any 757 you will find around the World. The main difference is that we operate Rolls Royce engines which produce slightly more thrust than the more common Pratt & Whitney variant. Our maximum speed at sea level is approx 350 knots, or when converted to miles per hour equates to 400MPH.

 

hypewaders, the Vne's came from a sight that you posted, I thinlk it was a underlined (Here), and took you to the maps, of the Flights on 9/11, and the Vne's were in a link from there, and I can't find the first link, so as to find the second link.

 

It was from a site that you posted and the Vne's were for 33,000, and I can't find the link you posted, but it was a link you posted and from there you go to a second link, and that was were the Vne's were posted.

This site has disapeared;

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sep...cial_story.htm

 

Prospect for Nuclear Power Industry in US
The limiting speed (VNE, velocity not exceed) for a Boeing 767 is 954 km/h (593 mph / 516 knots) at 35000 ft (10667 m). The maximum cruising speed is about ...
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=73508&page=3

google.com/search?q=wtc+velocity+mph+175+%22cruising+speed+of +the+planes%22

--
South Tower UA-175 Boeing 767-200 9:02:48 AM 810 [km/h] 503 [mph]

 

I do regret bumping this, having been away for a while. I just delivered a biplane to the Midwest, and ferried another aerobatic plane back to the Northeast USA. Having returned, I find there's way too much heap-big Buffalo-sign for me not to at least kick a couple of the biggest piles over. As usual, I am forced to repeat myself somewhat, having again had my own observations grotesquely mischaracterized and misassociated.

And by a fellow pilot, no less. Harumph. My thoughts have been twisted by a fellow pilot who knows damn well that it would be tricky (for instance) for a washout Mother-Rucker cadet, with only a few wobbly hours in a Schweizer trainer to deftly commandeer a Blackhawk he's never flown, and make a perfect autorotation landing on a designated spot, assuming the Blackhawk's controls for the very first time in cruising flight. BR also knows that similarly lining up 3 washout cadets, plunking them into 3 Blackhawks, and expecting them to start and hover them, then approach from treeline at high cruise, shut off both engines, and make 3 fast autos onto a 3 designated pads is a bit of a stretch.

In fact, it isn't a likely scenario. Why? because certain tasks in complex aircraft require a certain level of experience on the part of the crews, in order to reliably carry out those unusual tasks. This is why we have flight training, and why we have specific flight training for specific flying tasks. We all know that the 9-11 attacks were flown at high speed. We know that the approaches to IP were flown at high speed- that is at considerably higher speeds than authorized, type-rated crews are authorized to fly at, when at lower tropopause altitudes.

Why is the RNZAF 757 in the video link not exceeding 250 knots in the clean fly-by and steep climbout? Well, that's because the crew was not authorized to do so: Even during military demonstrations, it just isn't authorized to conduct flight testing in front of a public crowd, and it isn't authorized for crew to attempt any maneuver they have not thoroughly rehearse. And does the NZAF practise high-speed (let's say over 250 Knots) at low level in their big Boeings. Hell no. Why? We could compile here a long, boring list of reasons from flight manuals and milspecs.

Let's just use one common-sense one: The windshields can't handle a birdstrike at such speeds. Because they are not rated, the aircraft is not operated at high speed and low level. Maybe by a rogue crew it could be, but not by a crew operating in public, and interested in continuing their careers. The fly-by in the video is cool, and the climbout seems extreme, but it's just a chandelle initiated from about 250 knots and low over the runway in a very lightly-loaded '57. here's more of that same flight demonstration. The 9-11 attacks were flown much faster, and in fully-loaded aircraft.

That's enough for one post, maybe I'll kick over some more dung in another.

 

My B767-200 Flight manual states that the VNE or never exceed speed at sea level is 360 indicated. (Actual wind blast on pitot sensors) or max Q, 300 Pounds per square foot on the airframe.. That is were the red and white painted "Barber Pole" needle sits on the crews airspeed indicators,as a warning that triggers the master caution light on the glare shields in front of both crew,and also triggers the audio warning. As the aircraft climbs to cruise level, this barber pole slowly moves counter clockwise down to about 260 indicated at 41000 feet,as air density decreases. UA175 was way over speed,and should have been shedding parts,and exhibiting severe flight control fluttering at the least. As a counterpoint,If I remember my FAA airframe and power plant training in tech school, I think US aircraft have to be certified for 150% over max ,for failure, In order to gain FAA certification? But as usual, something smells rotten in Denmark,as the saying goes. The fact that they wont release the FDR's is very telling,But they could cook the data if they wanted to any way. My only comforting thought is that God was watching that day, and the guilty ones will be held to task.