Boeing spokesperson laughs at the idea of a Boeing 767 going at 500 MPH at 700 feet

Agreed, Zaphod - totally.

And I think the airframes can take much more (which basically equivocates to your point) than most think they can. I would be curious to have the performance numbers ran.

Pilots, at air, shows are not carrying multiple tons of payload and luggage or military cargo. Commercial jetliners can only maneuver to the point their design capability allows - with and without additional contents being carried inside their bodies.

Capability to maneuver defines maneuverability under what conditions the highest point can be achieved, at given time and physical weight load - empty compared with contents carried inside.

Anyone can show-off hot dog it with a plane. But can that plane safely hold up to some egomanical hot dog piloting some plane?

Well, I have not read of any "hot dog piloting" associated with the 911 attacks. I've read people speculate that untrained pilots couldn't do what they did - but that doesn't equate to to them pulling off inconceivable maneuvers, or "hot dog piloting".

This thread is actually about whether the PLANES could perform at the level they had to for the WTC attacks. That's a good question that I think we should focus on and try to get an answer to.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Here's the CBS video of the approach and impact.
Remember that the depth of field of the camera lens gives the dive a steeper appearance than it actually was.

UA175 Dive

Wow Pilgrum. Thanks for the video. That was quite a nose dive.
Can you explain why the nose dive isn't present here LINK

If you can debunk that one for me perhaps you can explain this compliation video that shows every angle of flight 175s impact? LINK2

There was no plane nor hologram. Only CGI graphics.

[edit on 10/18/2007 by titorite]

The difference in the two angle shots can be explained easily and I don't think we have to resort to CGI.

The first one published by Pilgrum shows the plane coming in from a significant distance in a dive and then we see the plane level off and fly into the building. I count 3 seconds or more of level flight toward the building.

The second link has a very small (compared to the first) field of vision and shows the plane headed into the building after the level off. I only count 1 second of flight time in between the plane coming into the video frame and the impact with the building.

reply to post by Valhall

Thats actually why I posted that second video which shows all five different approach angles.

Okay, then I'll comment on the third link in the post (the compilation).

The first angle shows slightly over 1 second of level flight between plane entering frame and impact...again, within the 3 second level flight of Pilgrum's footage.

The second angle is above the impact zone and we just see the fireball.

The third angle shows 1 second of level flight before impact - again within the 3 seconds of level flight on Pilgrum's.

The fourth angle shows the plane coming in at a far distance at a dive, going out of sight behind WTC 1 and then about 5 seconds later impacting WTC 2...doesn't contradict Pilgrum's footage, actually compliments it, but we can't say what it was doing (diving or leveling) once it went out of sight.

Fifth angle I can't even see the plane (we're looking at from front on and it's coming from behind the building).

Sixth angle I see the plane rotate from dive to level and approximately 3 seconds later impact building.

Seventh just shows fireball.

Eighth shows between 1 and 2 seconds of level flight between entering frame and impact.

Ninth shows 1 second between entering frame and impact - skewed camera angle but looks close to level to me.

Tenth shows 2 seconds of near level flight between coming into frame and impacting building.

And the beauty of it is - it's all right there for you to view yourself. No commentary trying to make you see it differently than it is, just watch the footage you supplied, watch Pilgrum's - they don't contradict each other. They reinforce.

It had to be hot dogging to pull off the unpracticed manuevers alleged by the "official" reports. Professional pilots have stated that in their presentations from Pilotsfor9/11Truth. In fact, at least one expert pilot author, on that website, admitted he would have to practice it several times, in order to have more assurance of hitting a target where intended.

He did not say it could definitely be done no matter how much practice was done. If someone is going to survive any real time practice trials, he or she has to have a plane he or she can swiftly maneuver, to keep from hitting while still in the plane. Or a lot of money to waste jumping out of and parachuting away from planes, before planes make contact with another solid object.

I am going to take the word of professional pilots, Boeing engineers, and aerospace experts over opinions of laypersons. I do that because I did study the laws and principles of aerodynamics, plus, applied those principles to real life situations - my own experiences, plus, what I can readily ascertain is and is not possible, in consideration of all factors and conditions involved - case by case.

Aye... comments like Valhalls' remind me why I avoid the 911 subject. Thier is no point in debate when you debate a person that insists Black is White and up is down. Show them every evidence you want and nothing will sway them because they simply do not want to accept the truth of the matter.

And this is why I stopped posting on these forums long ago. Those that know don't need to be informed and those that trust the government will not accept information.

And now to stop posting in the 911 forums for another few months.

[edit on 10/18/2007 by titorite]

Originally posted by OrionStars
It had to be hot dogging to pull off the unpracticed manuevers alleged by the "official" reports....
I am going to take the word of professional pilots, Boeing engineers, and aerospace experts over opinions of laypersons.

Well first of all you (and whomever you're quoting) are treating the issue as if the pilot had some pre-planned fantastical flight plan that included such things as - getting that damned close to the ground just before going into the Pentagon. No he didn't - he was aiming for the building. You can look at it as some fantastical flying feat, but some of us look at it as he almost botched the whole thing...he ALMOST dove it into the ground!

The WTC impacts (from a flying standpoint versus a performance standpoint) are rather "unremarkable"...they flew them into the biggest buildings sticking out of the landscape for pete's sake. Fly - aim - hit.

As for whose word you take I've already learned how you work and don't care to get another dose of your vacuous verbage and self-appointed importance.

I'm not a layman in this area by the way. I'm a degreed Aerospace Engineer. I graduated top of my graduating class. And your insolence means nothing when your words show ignorance of the subject. In this area - your facade falls down, much like your comments of hot dogging.

The topic of this thread - HOWEVER - is the performance of the planes and whether they could fly at the prescribed speeds, at the altitudes they were at. I believe that merits investigation - no matter how hard you and others try to divert the topic.

Originally posted by OrionStars
I am going to take the word of professional pilots, Boeing engineers, and aerospace experts over opinions of laypersons. I do that because I did study the laws and principles of aerodynamics, plus, applied those principles to real life situations - my own experiences, plus, what I can readily ascertain is and is not possible, in consideration of all factors and conditions involved - case by case.

Ok, here are some words of professional pilots and engineers for you to take.

This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

I and others are going by the allegations in the "official" reports compared to real life precedents set by documented aviation history. Allegations never proved by those feeding out the "official" reports.

Many of us citizens contend they are impossible, until those feeding the general public those "official" reports physically prove it, which has never been done by them.

Originally posted by OrionStars


I am going to take the word of professional pilots, Boeing engineers, and aerospace experts over opinions of laypersons.

I tend to agree. However, I am not going to accept what a few isolated individuals claim if it's not necessarily representative, or if it conflicts with what other professionals say. Talk to a random sampling of commercial pilots, and one will tend to discover very quickly how marginal are the views espoused by the impossible/highly unlikely maneuvers theorists. I retest this proposition every few weeks just to make absolutely sure I'm on solid ground. Again and again, you will find not far from unanimous consent among commercial pilots that there were no violations of aerodynamics in the accepted view of the 9/11 flight parameters. So I tend to go with the professional majority view here.

Originally posted by OrionStars
I and others are going by the allegations in the "official" reports compared to real life precedents set by documented aviation history. Allegations never proved by those feeding out the "official" reports.

Many of us citizens contend they are impossible, until those feeding the general public those "official" reports physically prove it, which has never been done by them.

Since there's no proof the maneuvers were impossible, there's no greater obligation to prove the "official account" than there is for skeptics to prove they were in fact impossible. I don't have an absolute "aerodynamic proof" for either position. Do you?

Originally posted by Valhall
some pre-planned fantastical flight plan that included such things as - getting that damned close to the ground just before going into the Pentagon

Yeah, you can't fly that close to the ground at high speeds without risking crashing into some building, tree, or terrain feature. While these would create near impossible scenarios for individuals who intend on keeping their pilot's license, it's not an inhibitor for those who don't mind crashing. It's only laughable if you have a healthy fear of death.

I'm sure any USAF Thunderbird pilot will tell you that doing an inverted loop and pulling out 10 feet off the ground is laughable, but that doesn't mean you can't do it. You just avoid those scenarios if you want to keep your plane intact. You can find several videos on YouTube of just such a scenario. When the experts say it's not possible they mean in normal flight scenarios. Of course they're not going to tell you that you can do unsafe things. They're not safe to do.

As far as getting that close to the ground. That's sort of a necessity if you're going to crash into a building that's only a few stories tall.

[edit on 6-2-2008 by dbates]

One of the quotes that was constantly used was by a controller at Dulles. She said that you don't see commercial planes maneuver that way, or something to that effect, and that's where the quote stopped. Well if the quote had gone on a little farther, she would have added "...it's not safe." There's a big difference between they CAN'T do a maneuver, and they DON'T do a maneuver because it's not safe for passengers and crew. All of the maneuvers that were done on 9/11 seem to be of the latter. I've seen multiple quotes from pilots saying that they could have done them, and that they were not beyond the aircraft's performance envelope. In fact in the quote I posted above, they were flying a 757 at tens of feet at 550mph in the simulator. Those simulators are almost as real as being in the actual plane.

Until those issuing the "official" reports prove anything scientific, those reports stand as allegations and opinions and nothing more. In order to be authenticated scienitifically, they has to be validated by the professional peers of those making allegations and expressing opinions of no proof. That has never been done.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Until those issuing the "official" reports prove anything scientific, those reports stand as allegations and opinions and nothing more. In order to be authenticated scienitifically, they has to be validated by the professional peers of those making allegations and expressing opinions of no proof. That has never been done.

And one may say the same thing of the accusations against the official account. There has yet to be a scientific, peer-reviewed/supported validation that there was anything aerodynamically impossible in the official account of 9/11. It's just a few claims floating out there, as far as I can see, backed up not by science, but by personal intuition. So where does that leave us?

reply to post by OrionStars

I and others are going by the allegations in the "official" reports compared to real life precedents set by documented aviation history. Allegations never proved by those feeding out the "official" reports.

Where is it documented that the 767, either one of them, could not perform the maneuvers that were performed on 9/11? I would prefer the laws of physics and quantum mechanics if you don't mind. No need for hearsay or personal intuition.

Originally posted by Boone 870


Where is it documented that the 767, either one of them, could not perform the maneuvers that were performed on 9/11? I would prefer the laws of physics and quantum mechanics if you don't mind. No need for hearsay or personal intuition.

The people passing out the "official" reports proved nothing, and prevented others from physically validating or disproving those report allegations and opinons. Proof - all the groups and individuals calling for a new independent hearing, that the people putting out those "official" reports must prove them to be true.

We, the people, are the government of this country. Bureaucrats are our employees. They are supposed to beneficially work for us. We are not their employees beholden to them for anything. So sayeth the US Constitution.

We, the people, are entitled to accept or reject those unproved reports, based on nothing but unproved allegations and opinions.