Professional Pilot Instructors Discuss Airliner Approaches

The only thing they would have to do to prove a 757 hit the pentagon is show pictures of the tail section that flew over the top of the building.

But we get a video that shows nothing, does this not scream of cover-up to you guys? It should.

sy.gunson: good posts.

I'm not quite sure what JL is on about, but as you stated VMO is not the same as VNE. There have been instances of aircraft accidentally flying supersonic and surviving, which is a whole new ball-game in aerodynamics. It happens occasionally on trans-atlantic flights even now with the larger of the Airbus and Boeings. Not pleasant, but they survive.

To say that an aircraft flying at 500kts can't be flown at a building is wholly incorrect, and to say a pilot couldn't land that fast is also wrong. He'd hit the tarmac, but wouldn't necessarily remain in one piece afterwards.

The Shuttle lands at 400 kts regularly. I think some research is needed. It lands on a strip of tarmac some 15,000 ft long by 210 ft wide.

You drive your car on a road way no wider than 10 ft, and can park mere inches from the sidewalk without hitting it, so why is it so impossible to deliberately hit a building 210 ft wide, with an aircraft with a wingspan of 160 ft at 450 kts anyway?

[edit on 4-7-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
To say that an aircraft flying at 500kts can't be flown at a building is wholly incorrect,

LOL you really need to understand how a large passenger plane handles, VERY SLOWLY. Small adjustments take a while, and at high speed it could take a mile of distance to make a turn. Too fast and too small of a target.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

It happens occasionally on trans-atlantic flights even now with the larger of the Airbus and Boeings. Not pleasant, but they survive.

Could I please have your references to the statement that "occasionally trans-Atlantic flights with the larger Airbus and Boeings" go supersonic? Thanks.

The Shuttle lands at 400 kts regularly.

This statement is incorrect. The Shuttle landing speed is 193 knots or about 225 mph.

I think some research is needed.

I would second that motion. Type: shuttle landing speed on Google and press enter. Thanks.

You drive your car on a road way no wider than 10 ft, and can park mere inches from the sidewalk without hitting it, so why is it so impossible to deliberately hit a building 210 ft wide, with an aircraft with a wingspan of 160 ft at 450 kts anyway?

Its not impossible. Its very difficult. There are numerous factors that come into play, but I can assure you it is not like driving your car on a paved road.

I don't agree with everything John Lear says but when he talks about any thing related to flying I think *ALL OF US* need to listen up. Arguing with someone with his knowledge of flying is not wise. We can twist statements until we are all blue in the face but the facts are the facts.

There is something completely unbelievable in unseasoned pilots doing what was done on 9/11.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
sy.gunson: good posts.

I'm not quite sure what JL is on about, but as you stated VMO is not the same as VNE. There have been instances of aircraft accidentally flying supersonic and surviving, which is a whole new ball-game in aerodynamics. It happens occasionally on trans-atlantic flights even now with the larger of the Airbus and Boeings. Not pleasant, but they survive.

I need a source for your presumed assumption of the above.

To say that an aircraft flying at 500kts can't be flown at a building is wholly incorrect, and to say a pilot couldn't land that fast is also wrong. He'd hit the tarmac, but wouldn't necessarily remain in one piece afterwards.

Its about controlling the plane that makes it impossible. Think about it for second. A Boeing 757 being controlled only inches off the ground to hit the Pentagon head on, without losing control of the plane whilst knocking out poles etc.

The Shuttle lands at 400 kts regularly. I think some research is needed. It lands on a strip of tarmac some 15,000 ft long by 210 ft wide.

Landing speed for the shuttle is roughly 219mph, which is about 190.

Source

You drive your car on a road way no wider than 10 ft, and can park mere inches from the sidewalk without hitting it, so why is it so impossible to deliberately hit a building 210 ft wide, with an aircraft with a wingspan of 160 ft at 450 kts anyway?

Ummm, driving and parking a car is not the same as flying a Boeing 757

BeZerK

Could I please have your references to the statement that "occasionally trans-Atlantic flights with the larger Airbus and Boeings" go supersonic? Thanks.

My source is first-hand and flies A330s. He had a minor transgression once (M1.01) but it was only transient as you might expect. He was cruising at Mach 0.86.

LOL you really need to understand how a large passenger plane handles, VERY SLOWLY. Small adjustments take a while, and at high speed it could take a mile of distance to make a turn. Too fast and too small of a target.

May I suggest some sim time in a heavy? It isn't impossible.

@JL: fair comment on the road, but I hope the idea was clear. As for the shuttle - I've watched it land several times on NASA TV and when they show the HUD during the flare and landing and it reads (or did when I watched, anyway) 350kts or so.

[edit on 4-7-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Impossible to hit the towers? I am approaching a million flight miles and strangely enough I can't recall many instances when a plane would have veered significantly off course, bouncing right and left in a manner that would indicate that it is extremely difficult to aim a commercial jet at a point and stay on course. Sure, commercial pilots have more experience but rookie pilots fly jets too, and I believe that the terrorists were smart enough to let the most proficient pilots among the 19 to take the controls.

Heavy turbulence happens but even then the movement is more up and down or wing dips, not yawing of the nose right and left and there is a reason for that in that the momentum of the plane is straight forward and it is harder to disturb that than to influence the plane along other vectors.

I know that there are exceptions to everything so don't bother with some real or theoretical examples to the contrary, physics speak for itself. And 9/11 weather was very clear (I know about CAT too so don't bother either).

On my latest cruise of the USS Stennis I spoke with several F-18 pilots, who know something about aiming for narrow targets, and they all laughed at the notion that an average person with decent flight training could not hit a target like the Twin Towers. And there is little difference between aiming at 100 knots or 500, actually due to aerodynamics and momentum it can be easier to maintain steady course at higher speeds.

As for those who surmise (clearly without any facts to back themselves) that it would have been impossible for the hijackers to hit the Pentagon because of 'ground effect' and 'buffeting', or to descend at the required rate, apparently they have never flown or otherwise they would have found to their astonishment that planes routinely land by very gradually reducing altitude until they hit the tarmac (they may be confusing planes with the way helicopters land, an easy mistake to make). I don't believe that there can be more than a handful at most of the 4,000+ daily commercial US flights that crash on landing because of ground effect. In most fields that 99.9% sucecss rate is phenomenal and I believe that the terrorist pilot just possibly could have beaten those odds. On the other hand, these people may have made a wise choice to never fly if it is so unlikely that the hijackers could have pulled all this off after their flight training. I will have to reconsider putting my life at risk every time I fly if US flight schools cannot produce pilots who could at least master some of the most basic flight routines.

Finally, it is a sad commentary on the credibility of this site that there isn't even a trickle of experts, experienced pilots, scientists to come on and dismiss all the ignorance.

Some of guys are forgetting something. I posted it earlier. Bin Laden didn't reveal a "LETTER" of the plan to many of the hijackers! They were only informed before boarding.

It is totally unbelievable to think that they went on to do what they did given what the *STAR WITNESS* in the Official story stated.

Originally posted by blackbayou

Finally, it is a sad commentary on the credibility of this site that there isn't even a trickle of experts, experienced pilots, scientists to come on and dismiss all the ignorance.

After reading your post I can understand why.

Originally posted by blackbayou
On my latest cruise of the USS Stennis I spoke with several F-18 pilots, who know something about aiming for narrow targets, and they all laughed at the notion that an average person with decent flight training could not hit a target like the Twin Towers.

Were they F-18 pilots like the (mentally limited) one who dropped bombs on the Canadians in Afghanistan?

It’s getting ridiculous here on ATS how even ultimate experts – such as John Lear – are being questioned. As talisman so wisely said, when it comes to aviation issues we all need to listen up when John Lear speaks (and keep our pie-holes shut). While we may or may not agree with him on extraterrestrials and alien UFO’s, he IS the closest thing to a gold-standard we’re going to get as a source of knowledge concerning airplanes.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by blackbayou
Finally, it is a sad commentary on the credibility of this site that there isn't even a trickle of experts, experienced pilots, scientists to come on and dismiss all the ignorance.

Rofl at none other than John Lear's response above.

And check the organization that owns the site this came from, because they feature several experienced pilots of their own. In fact, look at the first post of the thread and follow the link.


Edit to ask, how surprising would it be if your military guys were stroking their egos in responding to you? There wasn't even a punch-line to what you asked them, so I think their "laughter" was motivated by some other feeling that you seem to share.

[edit on 4-7-2007 by bsbray11]

If you look at the NTSB animation of a plane that hit the Pentagon you will notice a lot of subtle movements of the steering wheel (I know it's called a yoke, but I'm not going to pretend more technical knowledge than a casual observer.) These adjustments are being made in the moments before the simulated impact.

Presumably they are necessary adjustments to maintain trajectory. They imply an elevated degree of sensitivity to an aircraft's responsiveness to the controls. I find it hard to believe that an amateur flying an airliner for the first time after putzing around unsucessfully in a Cessna single prop would have the sensitivity or experience to make that complex sequence of gestures at the controls to keep that plane on target.

Also, speeking to the difficulty of hitting the towers. Flight 11 was a good hit but from what I've read it didn't come in at high speed. The noise of the engines in the Naudet brothers soundtrack doesn't sound like they are revving that high to me.

Flight 175 on the other hand, according to the air traffic controller watching it at the time, went through a series of highly unusual manoevres culminating in a 10,000 fpm. descent before levelling out and slamming into the South Tower. When it hit the tower it was banking sharply to the left before slamming into the right hand corner of the building. Isn't that an obvious near miss?

One question I would like to know the answer to is if the planes were being controlled remotely, would they be flying trajectories entered at the moment the transponders were turned off or would there be real time control by a human sitting at a computer monitor up to the moment of impact. Mr. Lear?

[edit on 5-7-2007 by ipsedixit]

for the pentagon flight.....the plane hit the ground then bounced into the pentagon....it wasnt constantly flying just feet above the ground... to wich somebody said ground effect wouldnt let it fly just feet off the ground....

when your planes hieght is roughly 1/2 the wingspan from the ground, then it takes effect...and allows you to basically float at lower speeds keeping you from touching the ground....however....at high speeds if you point it at the ground it's going to hit....and it hit the ground then bounced in between the first and second floor...

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Presumably they are necessary adjustments to maintain trajectory. They imply an elevated degree of sensitivity to an aircraft's responsiveness to the controls. I find it hard to believe that an amateur flying an airliner for the first time after putzing around unsucessfully in a Cessna single prop would have the sensitivity or experience to make that complex sequence of gestures at the controls to keep that plane on target.

My opinion is that the Flight #77 Pentagon flight profile was flown at a different place at a different time previous to 911. Then that FDR was given to the FBI as if recovered inside the Pentagon. Looking at the FDR tabular data I find that whoever was flying the airplane from beginning to end was highly experienced in flying the Boeing 757. The autopilot is used many times, is turned off and on, is programmed with the scratchpad for altitude settings, turns are 30 degree banks which is standard, altimeters are set on descent. The only really weird thing is the right hand turn over the Pentagon. Its impossible to fly the profile as recorded on the FDR from over the Pentagon in a right hand bank back into the Pentagon from the left seat with one smooth turn without correcting simply because you wouldn't have been able to see the Pentagon from the left seat to gauge the turn. Just look at the heading information on the FDR. The right turn starts over the Pentagon and continues until the rate of turn is shallowed until it is dead on. Not one single time is there a correction back to the left. Now that is some really accurate flying, to be able to judge a turn, and judge a rate of descent, at high speed and come out EXACTLY on heading toward the Pentagon without having to turn left once. I know I couldn't have done it.

I also believe that some of the tabular data was faked specifically the altitude of the alleged Boeing 757 at the time of the crash. I believe the FDR records an altitude something like 70 feet. (Pentagon is 30 feet or so.) Well what the people who faked the FDR data didn't know was that FDR altitude is recorded from a standard barometric pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury, not from either of the pilots altimeters. It has to be corrected after a crash to find the exact altitude of the airplane. So if you correct what the FDR said at the Pentagon crash from 29.92 to 30.21 which was the actual local barometric pressure you get a little over 400 feet. So somebody was faking something.

Also, speeking to the difficulty of hitting the towers. Flight 11 was a good hit but from what I've read it didn't come in at high speed. The noise of the engines in the Naudet brothers soundtrack doesn't sound like they are revving that high to me.

It would be interesting to take the Naudet brothers video and determine the exact or approximate speed of the aircraft at that time.

Flight 175 on the other hand, according to the air traffic controller watching it at the time, went through a series of highly unusual manoevres culminating in a 10,000 fpm. descent before levelling out and slamming into the South Tower. When it hit the tower it was banking sharply to the left before slamming into the right hand corner of the building. Isn't that an obvious near miss?

One question I would like to know the answer to is if the planes were being controlled remotely, would they be flying trajectories entered at the moment the transponders were turned off or would there be real time control by a human sitting at a computer monitor up to the moment of impact. Mr. Lear?

My opinion would be if, and I say IF real airplanes did in fact crash into the WTC towers, the scenario would have been to switch airplanes after takeoff (the pilots would have been in on it) and a remotely controlled (probably an Air Force 767-300) substituted and flown from an Airborne Command Post. The pilot of the remotely controlled 767 would have been sitting at the controls in the Airborne Command Post just as if he were sitting in the 767 itself but with a wide creen TV or monitor in front of him. Since it would have been far too difficult to hand fly this maneuver with any certainty of crashing into the towers probably a laser beam or signal was being focused on the side of the tower which the automatic flight controls where programmed to follow, just like you see in the footage from Iraq you see the laser guided bombs hitting their target.

But the one factor that I think everybody is overlooking here is how 'they' (whoever ever 'they' were) got everybody who had to be in on 911 to go along with it. You're simply not going to get as many people who had to be 'in on it' to go along with this kind of murderous campaign without a really good convincing reason. It couldn't have been just "bringing democracy to the middle east " thats plain silly. It couldn't have been just 'oil'. A lot of 'good' people participated in the murderous 911 campaign because they were told 'something else'. They were given information that the rest of us don't have that made them think that the murder of 3000 innocent civilians was worth whatever 'else' was going to happen.

Either that or our government really is in the control of some murderous thugs who only objective is control of drugs and oil in the middle east.

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret

for the pentagon flight.....the plane hit the ground then bounced into the pentagon....it wasnt constantly flying just feet above the ground... to wich somebody said ground effect wouldnt let it fly just feet off the ground....

when your planes hieght is roughly 1/2 the wingspan from the ground, then it takes effect...and allows you to basically float at lower speeds keeping you from touching the ground....however....at high speeds if you point it at the ground it's going to hit....and it hit the ground then bounced in between the first and second floor...

The plane bounced? A Boeing 757 bounced in front of the Pentagon? You mean it 'bounced' like a ball? You mean it 'bounced' so carefully that no engines came off and there was no damage to the grass in front of the Pentagon? Could you please post what evidence you have that the Boeing 757 'bounced' into the Pentagon? Thanks.

johnlear

But the one factor that I think everybody is overlooking here is how 'they' (whoever ever 'they' were) got everybody who had to be in on 911 to go along with it. You're simply not going to get as many people who had to be 'in on it' to go along with this kind of murderous campaign without a really good convincing reason. It couldn't have been just "bringing democracy to the middle east " thats plain silly. It couldn't have been just 'oil'. A lot of 'good' people participated in the murderous 911 campaign because they were told 'something else'. They were given information that the rest of us don't have that made them think that the murder of 3000 innocent civilians was worth whatever 'else' was going to happen.

This is a great point. Something that many of us don't spend enough time thinking about. The only thing I can think of is that they were convinced that this act was to prevent a future NUKE in a major city by Al'Qaeda, so in the interest of National Security they did this. To bring in the Patriot Act etc.

Its sort of like telling a Pilot to kill Children and Women in a Plane to prevent the greater evil of it flying into a large building.

Once you convince people they are preventing a greater evil then I think people will do things that are out of the norm.

My personal belief is that the hijackers were double agents thinking they were doing some kind of War Game Drill only not knowing it was not a Drill. The planes were remote controlled into their targets.

I also believe the planes were disguised military craft with a larger payload of explosiveness then we think.

Regarding Flt.175 again. The flight path immediately prior to the impact was bizarre. Is it possible that (given what John Lear says about the difficulties of getting everyone to go along with a murderous program) there could have been some kind of struggle, not in the cockpit of the airplane but in the airbourne command post in front of the computer terminal remotely controlling the plane? Food for thought.

[edit on 5-7-2007 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Regarding Flt.175 again. The flight path immediately prior to the impact was bizarre. Is it possible that (given what John Lear says about the difficulties of getting everyone to go along with a murderous program) there could have been some kind of struggle, not in the cockpit of the airplane but on the ground in front of the computer terminal remotely controlling the plane? Food for thought.

No. If there was a struggle it was staged. The operation had been planned and practiced for many years. There had to be no chance of a screwup. The planes 'had' to hit where they hit in order for the controlled demolition to take place. Everything you saw was carefully planned and choreographed. There was no struggle anywhere. Everyone knew what their job was and everyone did it.

If I could just hear one recording that occured on 911 it would be the casette tape made by the controllers in New York center that afternooon as they sat around a table and each contributed what he saw and what he heard and what he did.

Of course, that casette tape was destroyed by an FAA supervisor a few weeks after.

Originally posted by johnlear
The plane bounced? A Boeing 757 bounced in front of the Pentagon? You mean it 'bounced' like a ball? You mean it 'bounced' so carefully that no engines came off and there was no damage to the grass in front of the Pentagon? Could you please post what evidence you have that the Boeing 757 'bounced' into the Pentagon? Thanks.

i used bounce pretty much to state that when it hit the ground....that it'd come back up a little..if the gear was down...that'd be slightly possible....but with research the only site that isnt a truth site that said it as in "the official story", was snopes.com

www.snopes.com...


p.s.

here's a great timeline site

www.cooperativeresearch.org.../11=aa77



[edit on 5-7-2007 by wenfieldsecret]