Kamikaze: F-16 pilots planned to ram Flight 93

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

I think it is time to acknowledge that you are wrong.

There is a reason I wield such massive hubris.

And we are here to deny that.

Deny ignorance bro.

I'm not picking on any side at the moment, as I know nothing beyond the official story of 9/11 and the 'official' debunking theory presented by most conspiracies.

However, so far you have only contributed to ignorance by mostly nitpicking his posts and not putting up any real argument even on the tiny parts you choose not to ignore.

When denying ignorance I would expect one to atleast confront the argument as it is instead of using catch-phrases and circular logic.

These terrorists were not skilled pilots able to fly a damaged aircraft.

Taking out one engine or even tapping the rudder of the airliner with a f-16 wing tip would likely caused enough damage to the plane to have been beyond the ability of the terrorist to control.

F-16s are tough birds.
All US military fighters are tough as they have very good fly by wire controls that take into account for battle. damage.
www.youtube.com...

A F-16 hitting the tip of the vertical stabilizer/rudder would likely still give the F-16 pilot time to check his aircraft and decide if he has to eject.

Just setting a F-16 down on the wing tip of a airliner would be unlikely to take out the F-16 but would be a problem for a unskilled terrorist to handle.

With guns you could take off 10 foot of a airliner wing this would be more then a terrorist to handle but also make it hard to fly into a target.

If there was a skilled pilot aboard flying as a passenger and the terrorist was taken out the skilled pilot would have a chance to save the plane.

reply to post by Exuberant1

And we are here to deny that.

Deny ignorance bro.

Hubris and ignorance are two completely different things.







Those things returned home -before- the advent of avionics to automatically stabilize the airframe in the event of sudden changes in performance (loss of hydraulic pressure... part of your wing falling off... that sort of thing).

www.bahdayton.com... - will cover more modern incidents - but that's going to be like milking a rock, and I doubt our little forum dispute will qualify the need-to-know requirements.

www.bahdayton.com...

Feel free to browse those, however.

www.fas.org... - Relevant, though not really telling. It pretty much goes over the process of "weaponeering" within the USAF.

www.twa800.com...

- Here is an engineering analysis of the damage to TWA 800 (a blast from the past) that specifically searches for evidence of missile damage (and references cases of damage done to other airliners and the types of weapon damage done). It's about as good as it gets when it comes to analyzing damage to airframes.

reply to post by ANNED

These terrorists were not skilled pilots able to fly a damaged aircraft.

Modern avionics remove the need for skill. The planes fly better without pilots, to be honest. (This is coming from an avionics guy - so, I am a bit biased - I prefer pitots to pilots).

All US military fighters are tough as they have very good fly by wire controls that take into account for battle. damage.

Airliners use the same systems and have the advantage of being several times larger.

Just setting a F-16 down on the wing tip of a airliner would be unlikely to take out the F-16 but would be a problem for a unskilled terrorist to handle.

Fluid dynamics is a bit of a bitch.

Placing two moving surfaces next to each other in a fluid (or gas) results in a net attractive force. The F-16 will be pulled into the wing of the airliner. This is also why any fancy maneuvers to shoot specific areas of the airliner are risky - there are powerful vortecies generated by the wings and various surfaces on the aircraft (and on the F-16).

"Back in the day" - an aircraft you have likely never heard of, the XB-70 Valkyrie was doing a fly-by with other aircraft sporting General Electric engines. A pilot of an F-104 got too close to the XB-70's massive delta-wing and was instantly 'sucked' up over the wing and into the tail section of the aircraft - resulting in a loss of both.

xb-70.com...



Not a good idea.

Airliners are much more stable than the XB-70 - a very finicky delta-based design (quite unstable, really). An F-16 will get thrown about like a rag-doll if it gets anywhere close to the airliner.

reply to post by Aim64C


You seem to be a very confused man.

Do you believe that a 20mm round can kill a person?

Yes? ...Of course you do.

Good, then we can expect 105 such rounds to be able to destroy a small group of human persons clustered immediately in front of the gun when it is being fired? yes?

Now you aren't confused anymore.

I think this story is 100% to help hide the fact that 93 was indeed shot down. They must be getting scared somebody is about to spill the beans, so after all this time, they release this story...deniable plausibility....

Sure some of these guys might of had no ammo, but not all.

reply to post by Aim64C


I'll take the word of someone who has worked on jet engines for over 26 years, a very experienced ex-USAF Col. and an ex-Viper pilot who currently flies in the Raptor over yours ANY DAY OF THE WEEK

When an engineer tells me that a single 20mm will wreak havoc on a jet engine running full power, with multiple hits destroying or disabling the engine, I tend to believe him.

When a retired Col. in the USAF who has flown thousands of hours in the F-111D, T-38, AT-38, K-C10, KC-135, E-4A, AWACS, F-18, Airbus A320 and the F-15E in Desert Storm who also has flown commercial jets for JetBlue after retirement tells me that he would be able to take down a commercial airliner with his canon with relative ease if given the time, I tend to believe him.

When an ex-F-16 pilot who currently flies the F-22 tells me that it would be relatively EASY to make the 100 round burst from a Viper count and take down that flying tractor called a 757, I believe him.

I don't really care what you say to try to disprove this. When the real experts that I talked to all tell me the same and one of them even laughing a little at the question, it tells me that THEY are right, and YOU are wrong.


IT--

reply to post by edog11

When a retired Col. in the USAF who has flown thousands of hours in the F-111D, T-38, AT-38, K-C10, KC-135, E-4A, AWACS, F-18, Airbus A320 and the F-15E in Desert Storm who also has flown commercial jets for JetBlue after retirement tells me that he would be able to take down a commercial airliner with his canon with relative ease if given the time, I tend to believe him.

If given the time.

He's got one second of fire.

When an ex-F-16 pilot who currently flies the F-22 tells me that it would be relatively EASY to make the 100 round burst from a Viper count and take down that flying tractor called a 757, I believe him.

You're obviously not part of the aviation community. If asked, every pilot is going to be able to shoot down a MiG with spit wads - and there will be no doubting their ability to do this.

I don't really care what you say to try to disprove this.

"NO! I am NOT thinking about this. I BELIEVE!"

When the real experts that I talked to all tell me the same and one of them even laughing a little at the question, it tells me that THEY are right, and YOU are wrong.

Real experts? Run those by me again... a pilot... who has ... how many combat kills (let alone gun kills)? And a guy who works on jet engines?

Look, buddy - I'll tell you - engines are a vulnerable part of any aircraft. Shooting them causes problems. However, there is a reason aircraft are rarely downed due to loss of an engine in combat. It's a small target by comparison to the rest of the aircraft, and the very nature of the engines interferes with ballistics - not to mention modern under-wing jet engines are just not easy to get an angle on.

Ultimately - you'll choose to -believe- whoever you want to.

What I am saying, however, is that it was far more likely than not that those F-16s would have ended up ramming that airliner. This is coming from an engineer's perspective; from someone who knows how those planes are constructed and the kinds of stresses they are designed to withstand. The pilot thinking: "I am have big gun, I are smash civilian aircraft!" Is going to come back with a new respect for non-military aircraft. The difference between civilian and military aircraft is not the difference between a Humvee and a Honda Civic.

What it all boils down to is your buddy is a fighter jock with little respect for anything that isn't a fighter. It's how it typically goes, right up until they get 'served' a massive dose of "in your face."

reply to post by Aim64C


You definitely dont sound like someone who was born in 1988 (as per the profile ) But thats not a biggie

Just noticed few things thats all.

reply to post by Aim64C


You are missing the point COMPLETELY.
1 Second of fire is MORE than enough.
There will be enough time to make damn sure that those rounds WILL HIT TARGET. Why? Because Vipers are much, much, much and a few more times MUCH more agile than a 757 which equals: A PRETTY DAMN GOOD LINE OF SIGHT to make those rounds hit the bulls eye. Why are you talking about 1 second not being enough to keep your aim and fire and successfully hit a HUGE target (As I said before, which is 2 METERS in diameter)? You make it sound as if those engines are smaller than a dime and as if the 757 would be able to successfully outmaneuver a viper and break its line-of-sight.

For the record, fighter pilots have been forced to go pickle with their guns against much more agile targets from farther away than an F-16 would have to, to make those shots count against Flight 93.

To a pilot who knows what he/she is doing, it's pretty simple.
You get in the most efficient position comfortable to you and switch to your guns. You get the engine in your sight and keep it that way, if the 757 starts to bank, you bank with it. If it starts to roll (Which would be suicidal anyways), you roll with it and keep that pip on the engine or other critical target. When you are comfortable with the situation, you press the button and do a short burst of a few dozen rounds and that's that. If needed, which will be very unlikely, you will repeat and hit again.
Remember, we aren't talking about HAVING to hit the engine a few dozen times before it will be effective, a few rounds will be sufficient.

Also, the F-15 pilot (His favorite plane of the ones he flew, that's why I am referring to him that way) that I was referring to is/was a very highly decorated officer and has gotten through enough # to be very humble and honest and not let his ego and pride get in his way when answering such a simple question. His record alone is proof of this, let alone my opinion of him after knowing him for a few years.
He was also well aware of the limitations of the vipers in question when asked the question and he concluded that it was very, very likely that the 757 would go down.

The engineer I was talking about also knows a hell of a lot more about fighters and commercial airliners than you probably do since he has worked on both categories of planes for more than 26 years and continues to do so to this day. Why he would "lie" or whatever you are assuming of him is very likely to be a false assumption.

The ex-Viper pilot (Current Raptor Pilot) is another example of an excellent pilot who knows pretty damn well what he is talking about. The mere fact that he has been chosen to fly F-22's is proof of that. Let alone my personal experience talking to him.

Fact of the matter remains that I approached 3 individuals who are all experts in this area who don't know each other but know me and they all, interdependently, gave me the same answer: That that Boeing 757 would have stood VERY LITTLE chance against 2 much more agile Vipers with their Vulcans.


IT--