Merged No Planer calls for scientific study / Missiles of 9/11

[Mikeys]

Hell of a risk? What risk?

And what experience is needed beyond knowing how to pilot a plane? Just aim for one of the largest buildings in New York City. How hard can that be? Do you experience difficulty passing through doors?

Plenty could have gone wrong. It's not just directing a plane into a building but what happens next. The whole world was watching. The plane had to follow the script. Math is abstract science and it won't give you all answers to what will happen in real world. It was either confuse and CGI or the real thing.

 

[GlennB]

Plenty could have gone wrong. It's not just directing a plane into a building but what happens next. The whole world was watching. The plane had to follow the script. Math is abstract science and it won't give you all answers to what will happen in real world. It was either confuse and CGI or the real thing.

The mistake you're making here is in supposing that utter destruction of those buidlings and the death of the occupants was the terrorists' objective. It wasn't, and they admitted as much. Their objective was a spectacular display of terrorism. The collapses were just by-products of that.

 

[Mikeys]

The mistake you're making here is in supposing that utter destruction of those buidlings and the death of the occupants was the terrorists' objective. It wasn't, and they admitted as much. Their objective was a spectacular display of terrorism. The collapses were just by-products of that.

And you believe them! They are honest face liars.

 

[beachnut]

No one knows what would happen. I believed the plane was real but I am not sure anymore after watching this video. Flying a plane into that tower would require a hell of a risk or at best plenty of experience form practical applications in real world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg&feature=related

You sure are gullible. You show us a video made by an idiot who thinks this is true.

In the days after 9/11, numerous pilots and aviation experts commented on the elaborate maneuvers performed by the aircraft in the terrorist attacks, and the advanced skills that would have been necessary to navigate those aircraft into their targets. The men flying the planes must have been "highly skilled pilots" and "extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators," who were "probably military trained," these experts said.

I have flown heavy jets (300,000 pound class aircraft) since 1976 - there were zero "elaborate maneuvers performed" on 911. You post lies, and you can't do physics.

RISK? Hitting 207 foot wide targets are easy for pilots, we do it every flight, under much harder conditions.
RISK? It was a suicide mission, the terrorists were killing themselves! RISK?

Crashing requires zero experience, it is the easiest maneuver pilots do, yet avoid. I put kids in a simulator, and they hit the WTC first try, no flight training. Maybe you can't fly, but most American kids can fly a jet without training good enough to hit the WTC and Pentagon; with no training. In a 767/757. In a 707, many pilots without training in type would have a problem, but the 767/757 are new jets, they don't have the same flying problems found in earlier jets. Sorry, your claims are nonsense.

Some of the terrorists flew jet simulators in types harder to fly than the 767/757. Darn, research steps in and trashes your delusions.

How many hours do you have in heavy jets?

You blindly accept lies as your evidence - lies; why are you so gullible.

 

[Justin39640]

The mistake you're making here is in supposing that utter destruction of those buidlings and the death of the occupants was the terrorists' objective. It wasn't, and they admitted as much. Their objective was a spectacular display of terrorism. The collapses were just by-products of that.

Yeah, I hate reading the KSM testimony. He almost seems human when he mentions he didn't like to kill kids and innocents. He said, basically, war sucks and that's what happens. He gets it, truthers don't.

 

[Robrob]

Plenty could have gone wrong. It's not just directing a plane into a building but what happens next. The whole world was watching. The plane had to follow the script. Math is abstract science and it won't give you all answers to what will happen in real world. It was either confuse and CGI or the real thing.

Their stated goal was to fly the planes into the WTC. No one knew what the results would be. The WTC towers were wider than a runway. You do realize pilots land jets on runways every day without missing?

Ok the plane got sliced by the wall. We are forced to accept plenty unbelievable here why not slicing of a plane. Which object did the cutting?

Honestly, if you can't be bothered to do your own research - why should we do it for you?

 

[beachnut]

Plenty could have gone wrong. It's not just directing a plane into a building but what happens next. The whole world was watching. The plane had to follow the script. Math is abstract science and it won't give you all answers to what will happen in real world. It was either confuse and CGI or the real thing.

Classic 911 truth. Math is not reality, woo is.

You are anti-science; and proud to remain in ignorance.

 

[jaydeehess]

No one knows what would happen. I believed the plane was real but I am not sure anymore after watching this video. Flying a plane into that tower would require a hell of a risk or at best plenty of experience form practical applications in real world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg&feature=related

What risk?
Let's examine the scenario. We have four men with at least some training in flight operation. Let's discount the tough parts, getting the plane in the air and landing safely on a runway as they simply will have no need of those skills.
They take over an aircraft that the experienced pilots have already adjusted for proper trim, the flaps and landing gear are retracted. This means all that is required is a midicum of navigation skills and flight operation skills. Turn the plane in the general direction of New York City and fly until one sees the two tallest and largest office structures on the horizen. First pilot in has it easy he can choose either building from many miles out and line it up for a straight in shot, push thrust to maximum just before he hits. All he needs to do is make slight adjustments to column and pedals.

Second pilot in needs to line up at the non-burning tower, this makes it slightly more difficult. Remember though that he can try anything at all he sees fit to try.
If he is in jeopardy of missing he can wrench the controls ain the last seconds. This will stress the plane more than in a normal passenger flight but he has no concern regarding this. He does not have any concern over the sfaety of the craft or its occupants, in fact he fully intends on destroying them. He is taking absolutely no risk in doing so since even if he does miss the tower all he need do is dive the aircraft into the ground and it still counts as a victory, all on board are dead and many New Yorkers are also dead at the crash site.

At the Pentagon, once again all that needs to be done is navigate to the vicinity of this structure. It is very distinctive in shape and size and lies alongside a major waterway.. Hanjour it seems did not see it until it was too late to descend in a stright line. No problem, he performed a standard 3 minute turn (descending in a turn is easier than maintaining a constant alititude during a turn btw) and came out of it as the Pentagon came into view through the cockpit window, then flew again, in a straight line for miles, to impact.

As for flt 93, I personally think that was destined for the Capitol building. Once again a huge and distinctive structure and again a symbol of American wealth and power.(the Whitehouse is relatively small and all but surrounded by trees whereas the Capitol bldg has few trees near it and is very wide and tall compared to its surroundings.)

With all 4 aircraft there is no risk at all. If the hijackers missed all targets but crashed them it would count as victory. They would have killed a close to two hundred people on the planes and possibly taken out as many or more on the ground(crashing into a street at rush hour would kill hundreds let alone missing the WTC and hitting an apartment building)

 

[Mikeys]

A row of vertical steel beams did the cutting before they failed.

that's getting circular.

 

[Justin39640]

Ok the plane got sliced by the wall. We are forced to accept plenty unbelievable here why not slicing of a plane. Which object did the cutting?

In the Trutherverse, axes never need sharpening!

 

[Mikeys]

You sure are gullible. You show us a video made by an idiot who thinks this is true.

Thanks for verifying. I just saw it

 

[beachnut]

Thanks for verifying. I just saw it

Your video is a lie. Anyone with a grade school education understands that. Did you skip a lot of school? You never took physics, you don't have clue why flying on 911 was not hard to do, and required no experience.

You are gullible.
You failed to present the math, which you think can't work in the real world. Which means you don't know what physics is.

... Math is abstract science and it won't give you all answers to what will happen in real world. ...

You don't do math, or you can't do math? You will not do math.

Too hard?

 

[Mikeys]

You sure are gullible. You show us a video made by an idiot who thinks this is true.

I have flown heavy jets (300,000 pound class aircraft) since 1976 - there were zero "elaborate maneuvers performed" on 911. You post lies, and you can't do physics.

RISK? Hitting 207 foot wide targets are easy for pilots, we do it every flight, under much harder conditions.
RISK? It was a suicide mission, the terrorists were killing themselves! RISK?

Crashing requires zero experience, it is the easiest maneuver pilots do, yet avoid. I put kids in a simulator, and they hit the WTC first try, no flight training. Maybe you can't fly, but most American kids can fly a jet without training good enough to hit the WTC and Pentagon; with no training. In a 767/757. In a 707, many pilots without training in type would have a problem, but the 767/757 are new jets, they don't have the same flying problems found in earlier jets. Sorry, your claims are nonsense.

Some of the terrorists flew jet simulators in types harder to fly than the 767/757. Darn, research steps in and trashes your delusions.

How many hours do you have in heavy jets?

You blindly accept lies as your evidence - lies; why are you so gullible.

I never said hitting a building was tough. I am aware pilots can land in more challenging places than on a side of the tallest tower. What a plane does afterwards is to at least some extend up to unpredictable physics, assuming the criminals were running a script and there was no place for mistakes.

 

[beachnut]

I never said hitting a building was tough. I am aware pilots can land in more challenging places than on a side of the tallest tower. What a plane does afterwards is to at least some extend up to unpredictable physics, assuming the criminals were running a script and there was no place for mistakes.

You posted a video which claims it is hard to fly. Are you retracting that claim?

What? The plane did exactly what 767 would do at 590 mph.
The math say 175 had 2,093 pounds of TNT in kinetic energy. Which means it has 11 times the energy required to break the shell of the very strong WTC.

Physics is not unpredictable, it is used to build the planes we fly. Engineering is used to build the WTC, and the structure can handle 187 pounds of TNT in kinetic energy, and that was seen on 911, when 11 times the energy required knocked a hole in the WTC. The physics is predictable, you are spreading nonsense again.

 

[TheRedWorm]

I never said hitting a building was tough. I am aware pilots can land in more challenging places than on a side of the tallest tower. What a plane does afterwards is to at least some extend up to unpredictable physics, assuming the criminals were running a script and there was no place for mistakes.

The plane crashed. Everyone on board was killed. That was the end of the mission. What else is needed?

 

[Jim_MDP]

I'm just so tired of this "they must have been great pilots to do what they did" crap, I want to puke.

Back in '78 or '79, I was in a high school aeronautics elective class. Think shop for aviation geeks. One day the ten or so of us were lucky enough to get a field trip to SFO (San Francisco Int'l) to spend an hour or so in one of Pan Am's motion base 747 flight simulators flying over New York City.

This will sound crass in a post 9/11 world, but close to the first thing each of us did (with permission) was to crash into a large skyscraper. The Empire State Building took the most hits as I recall. These sims are real enough for logged training time. In fact one of the first crashes threw me, elbow first, into the knob covered engineers panel.

None of us had ANY real life stick time... NONE of us missed.

Just accept it... hitting a building is easy.

 

[Mikeys]

You posted a video which claims it is hard to fly. Are you retracting that claim?

I never claimed that hitting a building would be difficult. I never raised the issue. The video is not about it. The video is a fake, I admit. Someone did it and posted it for fun.

 

[Robrob]

I never said hitting a building was tough. I am aware pilots can land in more challenging places than on a side of the tallest tower. What a plane does afterwards is to at least some extend up to unpredictable physics, assuming the criminals were running a script and there was no place for mistakes.

So now you're backing away from your earlier position?

Please, feel free to elaborate on how you think "unpredictable physics" matter the least when the GOAL WAS TO FLY INTO THE WTC?

 

[Robrob]

I never claimed that hitting a building would be difficult. I never raised the issue. The video is not about it. The video is a fake, I admit. Someone did it and posted it for fun.

Really?

No one knows what would happen. I believed the plane was real but I am not sure anymore after watching this video. Flying a plane into that tower would require a hell of a risk or at best plenty of experience form practical applications in real world.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg&feature=related

 

[triforcharity]

Your equation will work on solid objects only and then you have to think about their densities.

Not really. F=ma and K.E = 1/2 mv2 It's pretty constant. Water, accelerated to a high speed, will cut steel.

You can not plug into an equation numbers freely willy and go home happy as a clam.

Sure you can, if you know the numbers to plug in?

It was an aluminum shell bubble vs steel wall.

Well, aluminum, steel, structural aluminum, etc..

You have been told the shell somehow cut neatly through that crate of hardened steel and was given general physical expression as explanation.

Did you not understand the explanation?

An impact like that would result in anything but what you saw in the videos.

Prove it. Show the math, and list all your assumptions.

There was no way the aluminum shell could cut through the wall without anything done to that wall prior to the impact or at east during the impact. It would have been pancaked, turned to dust, incinerated, and that at any high speed and above.

K.E = 1/2 mv2 f=ma

There was no debris coming down the wall.

Incorrect. Some most certainly did.

There was no explosion on contact, no fire,

The fuel is not stored in the nose. JP fuel also is not explosive in large pools. However, when turned into an aerosol (fine, airborne particles) it does become an explosive reaction. Sugar and flour can do the same thing. It's an FAE, or Fuel Air Explosion.

the plane was just swallowed.

Yep. Sort of.

It was swallowed not because of the kinetic energy with which it hit the wall, but because most likely the columns had been undone in the place of impact, not a big deal.

Right