Personal Theory on The Twin Towers Plane Pilots

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by crawdad1914

 

Its commonly called "wing vortex" or "wake turbulence" Something a pilot is well aware of and will allways factor in on his take-offs and landings. You need to know exactly where the plane ahead of you is, relative to the strip so you are not caught in its wake. Getting caught in wake turbulence will flip your plane over quickly, I saw this happen once. Wake turbulence from small planes at low air speed can pose a danger. Imagine what a 757 can do to the landscape and the parked cars below when travelling at over 800 KPH, 30 TO 40 feet above the ground

AA587 November 12, 2001

American Airline Airbus caught in wake of a 747 - pilots overcorrected using too much rudder and snapped
off tail fin

en.wikipedia.org...

Not just small planes.......

Good point.

Someone smarter than me, would need to determine what would generate more potential damaging energy, the plane flying low and slow, as in a take off or landing situation, or low and at the stated speed of 800 plus KPH.

I would not want to be below in either situation.

reply to post by Bilk22

One of the many issues I have with untrained people piloting these jets, is navigation to the targets. They were thousands of feet above their targets and hundreds of miles away. There are no sign posts pointing them toward the target. I don't see these people as having the capability of using the cockpit instrumentation to do it. That leaves visual ground observation as the means to navigate back to the target. I just don't see it happening.

Did you miss the point about the hijackers having training in jet simulators ?

Modern jet aircraft have sophisicated navigation instruments

The hijacker piloting United 93 was recorded on Flight data recorder dialing in the frequency of the VOR
radio beacon at Reagan National - seems had enough knowlwdge to use them

Also the targets were some of the largest buildings in the world, they were located near major rivers
(Hudon in New York, Potomac in Washingonton) giving a visual reference

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Bilk22

 

One of the many issues I have with untrained people piloting these jets, is navigation to the targets. They were thousands of feet above their targets and hundreds of miles away. There are no sign posts pointing them toward the target. I don't see these people as having the capability of using the cockpit instrumentation to do it. That leaves visual ground observation as the means to navigate back to the target. I just don't see it happening.

Did you miss the point about the hijackers having training in jet simulators ?

Modern jet aircraft have sophisicated navigation instruments

The hijacker piloting United 93 was recorded on Flight data recorder dialing in the frequency of the VOR
radio beacon at Reagan National - seems had enough knowlwdge to use them

Also the targets were some of the largest buildings in the world, they were located near major rivers
(Hudon in New York, Potomac in Washingonton) giving a visual reference

Yeah ok And they were able to accomplish this under severe stress from not only knowing they're about to die, but also with having to deal with the possibility they'd lose control of the passengers. Yeah to believe this whole ordeal of 911, means one needs to leave their life experiences, their training and their brain at the door.

reply to post by thedman


Try and keep up. May comments are related to the Pentagon, not WTC, which was plainly hit by a plain (or two)

The Pentagon was not. That is what I believe, but feel free to believe the something else if you like, I have given up arguing about it.

From the latest Federal Aviation Agency Airman's Information Manual: "The greatest vortex strength occurs when the generating aircraft is HEAVY, CLEAN, and SLOW." See, www.gleim.com...[]=61.56#avTab%3DleafNum%3Db14da362.
Now, if the aircraft is supersonic, there will be overpressure waves emanating from the nose and tail and those can be very destructive to things on the ground under a very low flying aircraft.

Originally posted by quackers


Ok, why not? Forgive me, I'm not a pilot and have little knowledge of flight control systems.

Ok....so you are just making all this stuff up then, right? Do you think you perhaps should stay within whatever realm of expertise you may have instead of coming up with some fantasy-based idea that has no foundation in reality and is really nothing more than what you'd like to have happened?