WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

Somebody posted a photo here a couple of days ago showing the Manhattan skyline pre-911. One thing that was noticeable from the photo was the way the Twin Towers stuck out far above every other building around, making them extremely easy for an inexperienced pilot to find and crash into.

Dave

You would have to find those towers not from the city skyline but from many miles away under the duress of a hijacking and the fear of intercept. How do you find them?
Would the pilots know their location from instrument only?



Would these pilots have the knowledge to find the target via instruments only and then the ability to fly the plane to that target?
 

Attachments

  • capsim757_77.jpg
    capsim757_77.jpg
    65.1 KB · Views: 3
Here is the skyline after the impacts but before the collapses

1363946d93665326b3.jpg


Notice, how the twin towers strike out. And notice, how difficult a target WTC7 would be. It's claimed that some third plane was supposed to hit that building.
 
Would the pilots know their location from instrument only? Would these pilots have the knowledge to find the target via instruments only and then the ability to fly the plane to that target?

Since they all had commercial pilot's licences, one might suspect that they had learned something about navigation.

Dave
 
Here is the skyline after the impacts but before the collapses
Notice, how the twin towers strike out. And notice, how difficult a target WTC7 would be. It's claimed that some third plane was supposed to hit that building.

I think it is speculation not a particular claim.

However, take that same logic and try to hit the Pentagon. Makes it a rather remarkable hit don't you think?

What is your explanation on how would they would have justified the building collapse, if none of the debris from the towers had hit the building, and fires would have never even started? It would have been a rigged building ready for demolition, but no obvious excuse whatsoever to actually demolish it without getting caught.
Remember all of those reports of van's and explosives some of those detailed here. Yeah I know, the host site is questionable but the data is accurate. Or you can google it.
That would make a convenient excuse especially after the OKC fiasco. Easiest way to bring down a building seems to be a truck bomb and fire these days.
Or the FBI's working hypothesis at the WTC complex of a van packed with explosives in the basement would also help.

If none of the debris hit the towers?? I don't think physically that would be a consideration to ponder. But I understand what you are saying.
 
Since they all had commercial pilot's licences, one might suspect that they had learned something about navigation.

Dave

Of course having a licenses in the form of paperwork and having the knowledge are two separate things.

To my knowledge, the FAA hasn't released the information of where Hani received his license so at this point the data is suspect in light of the FAA lying to the 9/11 Commission.
 
Last edited:
Of course having a licenses in the form of paperwork and having the knowledge are two separate things.
Yes, because they hand out these licenses without having to prove you have the knowledge. Of course.

Do you think before you post, or just place random words on the page, and hit "Submit"?
 
Of course having a licenses in the form of paperwork and having the knowledge are two separate things.

That's a continually retreating position. First you imply (I note that you didn't actually state it) that they didn't have enough knowledge of navigation, then you retreat to the position that it can't be proven that they did have enough knowledge of navigation. You don't have any evidence that they weren't proficient enough to navigate to within visual distance of NYC, and it's not unreasonable to suppose from their level of certification that they were capable of doing so.

Dave
 
However, take that same logic and try to hit the Pentagon. Makes it a rather remarkable hit don't you think?

Show us a picture of all the similar-sized buildings in the way of hitting the Pentagon.

If none of the debris hit the towers?? I don't think physically that would be a consideration to ponder. But I understand what you are saying.

You don't think the possibility of no debris hitting WTC7 is worth considering? Given that there are probably still people in the truth movement who dispute that any debris hit WTC7 anyway?

Dave
 
I think it is speculation not a particular claim.

However, take that same logic and try to hit the Pentagon. Makes it a rather remarkable hit don't you think?

The length of each outer wall at Pentagon is 921ft (280 meters).
WTC7 was 140ft (43 meters) wide.

There were no significant obstacles in the way towards Pentagon.

Here is a comparison:

1363946d93665326b3.jpg


1363946efcc397afdb.jpg



I would say Pentagon is an easier target to hit.
 
Repeat after me
"I Zensmack89, believe that under the circumstances of that day, the demolition of a 47 storey structure known as WTC 7 was a secure and efficient way to destroy sensitive materials."
.

It appears that Zen went to bed about the same time I posted this, so to make sure he/she sees it I am reposting it.

Swing Dangler, just how difficult do you think it is to find New York city? The terrorists had taken lessons in navigation. Hunters in Minnesota can use a GPS with 10 minutes of looking at the instructions. As a school child in grade 6 we were taught how to use a compass and a map. I suppose that you subscribe to the "Arabs are too dumb to do this" mentality.


Once you are within 20 miles of the towers they stick out as the highest object on the horizon and the pilot aims the plane at them. There is then no further need for instruments at all.

WTC 7 would however be just another tall structure amoung others of similar height.
 
You would have to find those towers not from the city skyline but from many miles away under the duress of a hijacking and the fear of intercept. How do you find them?
Would the pilots know their location from instrument only?



Would these pilots have the knowledge to find the target via instruments only and then the ability to fly the plane to that target?


First, they were pilots and knew how to read the instruments. A 757/767 instrument "T" is basically same as a Cessna's. Now since Cessnas are a bit different from 757/767's outside of the "T", and also have different handling characteristics - they had to prepare for that.....and they did. Please do some research.


http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MN00102.html

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MN00103.html

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM00757-1.html

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM00757-2.html

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM00757-3.html

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM00757-4.html
 
Swing Dangler, . . . . I suppose that you subscribe to the "Arabs are too dumb to do this" mentality.

Of course, and the Japs were too nearsighted to attack Pearl Harbor, the Sioux were ignorant savages incapable of defeating Custer, the Jews deserved to be exterminated by the Nazis, yada, yada, yada.
 

Can you provide empirical evidence that the hijacker pilots were trained how to navigate a 757's at altitude via the instruments?
 
Can you provide empirical evidence that the hijacker pilots were trained how to navigate a 757's at altitude via the instruments?

I suspect you don't understand what "empirical evidence" includes. "Empirical evidence" includes their training, licensing, statements by their teachers, etc. And for heaven's sake it also includes the fact that they successfully flew the things on 9/11.

If you reject this as providing empirical evidence of their ability to fly, then you might as well just out with it and say, "I won't accept any empirical evidence." Which may be the point.

I am glad no one on the juries on which I've served was like that. (1 conviction, 1 acquittal, by the way.)

I'm still brooding since learning that New Yorkers collectively and individually profited from 9/11, and therefore stuck with the "planes done it" story. Where's my cut? (Yes, I know it was S.Dangler, it was Z.Smack. I said I'm brooding and I may add sullen.)
 
I'm still brooding since learning that New Yorkers collectively and individually profited from 9/11, and therefore stuck with the "planes done it" story. Where's my cut? (Yes, I know it was S.Dangler, it was Z.Smack. I said I'm brooding and I may add sullen.)

APOLOGY! I meant to say it "wasn't" S.Dangler.

See? Brooding and sullenness are bad for my typing.
 
I would say Pentagon is an easier target to hit.
Please post a view of the skyline from when the location at which the hijackers took over the plane.

You don't think the possibility of no debris hitting WTC7 is worth considering?
No I don't think it is worth considering from the "planners" stand point. Determining the amount of damage from the debris prior to the attack is debatable, however.
You don't have any evidence that they weren't proficient enough to navigate to within visual distance of NYC, and it's not unreasonable to suppose from their level of certification that they were capable of doing so.
Yes, because they hand out these licenses without having to prove you have the knowledge.
Can you document the level of certification? Has the actual license been released into the public domain? I can say Joe Jihad has been trained in flying a 757 but providing empirical evidence to prove that is another matter.

I suppose that you subscribe to the "Arabs are too dumb to do this" mentality.
HACHOOO! So much straw in the air during allergy season!

Arabs too dumb? Of course not. I question whether the hijackers had the knowledge and training to navigate a 757 to target. Controlling a rudder, yoke, and pedals are one thing, using a navigational computer under duress is a tad different. One would have thought the flight manual left behind would have helped in that regard.
 
I suspect you don't understand what "empirical evidence" includes. "Empirical evidence" includes their training, licensing, statements by their teachers, etc. And for heaven's sake it also includes the fact that they successfully flew the things on 9/11.
I am glad no one on the juries on which I've served was like that. (1 conviction, 1 acquittal, by the way.)
I've served on 1 jury as the foreman with 1 conviction.
Training to fly the plane and training to navigate the plane from altitude are two separate issues. I'm not a trained pilot, but I was able to fly a 'Grasshoper' from the Vietnam era. Taking that same knowledge and applying it to a navigational computer in a 757/767 are separate issues.

Can you point to the license in the public domain or has that been released by the FAA?
 
Would these pilots have the knowledge to find the target via instruments only and then the ability to fly the plane to that target?
Yes, while there aren't a lot of windows on the flight deck of a jetliner as compared to, say, an F-16, what you can see out the windows is limited only by weather conditions. If it's a clear day, you can see to the horizon easily. And since you're flying at altitudes, you can see much further than someone standing on the ground.

Not only that, but a tiny 322x258 pixel image posted on a message board doesn't even come close to representing what you can actually see when sitting in a cockpit. (This is a refrain you'll commonly find on forums discussing combat flight sims — the level and detail of visibility on a computer screen is nowhere near to what the human eye can make out in the real world in a real cockpit, hence the various "cheats" computer flight sims have to use to make up for that.)

As to the instrumentation, that's no mystery. There are only a handful of key instruments you really need to know about — the altimeter, the artificial horizon, the vertical speed indicator, the compass, and the airspeed indicator. If you know and understand those you know enough to steer an aircraft from point A to point B. Microsoft's Flight Simulator is enough to teach you the basics of how those instruments work.

Of course, if you want to be efficient in navigating, then learning a bit about VOR and DME would be useful (and not all that difficult). And that's not even touching upon the ubiquitous GPS.

Considering that long before VOR, DME, and GPS pilots were able to navigate by nothing more than dead reckoning, being able to get an aircraft from one point to another is not some sort of task only the most expert can accomplish. It only requires a bit of research and some practice to do competently.
 
Last edited:
You would have to find those towers not from the city skyline but from many miles away under the duress of a hijacking and the fear of intercept. How do you find them?
Would the pilots know their location from instrument only?



Would these pilots have the knowledge to find the target via instruments only and then the ability to fly the plane to that target?

In theory the towers could be visible from (Sqrt 415+10600)x3.85 = 404km away. Assuming a plane at 10,600m. Of course 400km visibility would be exceptional, probably impossible.

But even 10% of that visibility would be enough for the hijackers to locate Manhattan.
 
In But even 10% of that visibility would be enough for the hijackers to locate Manhattan.
Indeed. Read the accounts of WWII naval pilots from, say, the Battle of Midway, about how easy it was to spot burning ships from many miles away if the skies were mostly clear. One can find the occasional period photo which also demonstrates this.
 

Back
Top Bottom