Pilot who flew 2 planes used on 911 doesn't believe official Story

[hypewaders]

BR That person you are quoting is entirely oblivious to what happens when you fly a large airliner far outside the design envelope. Let me put this in terms that you may understand: Imagine diving a Huey straight down, until you have pegged the ASI, and then some. Then imagine trying to a) pull out at low level and b) hit something. You couldn't do it, and you know it- It would be especially impossible if all you had was flunk-out civilian training, as we are told to believe in the case of 9-11.

Those 757's were flown way out of the design envelope. 500 knots + in thick air, down low in the thermals on a bright sunny day is not what they were designed for; same goes for their autopilots- those were physically incapable of flying the maneuvers flown. Simulators are not programmed to duplicate the accelerations and airframe elasticity experienced at those extremes. Low-time civilian pilots can't hit things with accuracy within normal flight envelopes, unless trained to do so. I happen to know this first-hand from, being taught and from teaching how to hit things with airplanes (our own smoke in aerobatics, or dropped streamers of toilet paper). Even high-time civilian pilots consistently suck at hitting objects at high speed without a lot of very specific practice.

The Saudi 9-11 pilots knew all about jet attack. They learned it in the Royal Saudi Air Force. You can't handle the truth.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

BR That person you are quoting is entirely oblivious to what happens when you fly a large airliner far outside the design envelope. Let me put this in terms that you may understand: Imagine diving a Huey straight down, until you have pegged the ASI, and then some. Then imagine trying to a) pull out at low level and b) hit something. You couldn't do it, and you know it- It would be especially impossible if all you had was flunk-out civilian training, as we are told to believe in the case of 9-11.

Those 757's were flown way out of the design envelope. 500 knots + in thick air, down low in the thermals on a bright sunny day is not what they were designed for; same goes for their autopilots- those were physically incapable of flying the maneuvers flown. Simulators are not programmed to duplicate the accelerations and airframe elasticity experienced at those extremes. Low-time civilian pilots can't hit things with accuracy within normal flight envelopes, unless trained to do so. I happen to know this first-hand from, being taught and from teaching how to hit things with airplanes (our own smoke in aerobatics, or dropped streamers of toilet paper). Even high-time civilian pilots consistently suck at hitting objects at high speed without a lot of very specific practice.

The Saudi 9-11 pilots knew all about jet attack. They learned it in the Royal Saudi Air Force. You can't handle the truth.

Imagining that you start your run to target from 10 miles out, you place the target in the center of your wind screen, a 5 deg. decent angle and maintain target fixation, even if you are a few feet short, or a few feet high you have a impact zone of 1154 ft wide X 384 ft deep, how hard is it to hit a target that size, there was no extreme maneuvering required, I can make a air to air gun kill in a simulator, and that take all kind of maneuvering, and I am just a 120 knt. Rotor Head, the thing I find is that the difference between Jet Jockeys and Jet engines, is at least you can shut down a Jet engine and stop the whine, but a Jet Jockey has a high speed whine forever, and there is no shut down procedure to turn it off. You don't have to be superman to fly a plane, any ham handed idiot can fly a fixed wing, now how ever to do it in a Helicopter take Finesse.


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

I've decided the best way to do this is to state the evidence, and facts, and come to a conclusion. Everything I list here as evidence includes links to sources, names of individuals, and notes if I have added any comments or visual aids to any photos.

I may repeat some information and images in this post (from images and information previously posted), and I apologize for the length of the information, and for the size of some of the photos, but I can see no other way to provide the information without losing clarity and quality and most importantly accuracy. It is apparent that without the entire collection of evidence people quickly forget something outlined on a previous post. I will freely admit in this post that I was incorrect on some facts in my previous posts, and I will correct these mistakes here. I will also try to link every image to its original source, unless it is an image I have added comments or visual aids to.

 

[hypewaders]

Buffalo Roam: "Imagining that you start your run to target from 10 miles out, you place the target in the center of your wind screen..."

That's not what they did on 9-11. They weren't shy about turning hard. They made tactical turns closer in, just like we see over bombing ranges and combat zones.

"a 5 deg. decent angle"

That's not what they apparently did on 9-11. The towers were hit in level flight. The Pentagon was dived upon in a 270, then the pilot skimmed the ground in avoiding the much taller Navy Annex, and flew through numerous light poles over the expressway and parking lot, until impact. These pilots were gutsy, but not foolish, were expertly in control of descent rates- and definitely NOT on autopilot. Yet in this extreme regime of flight it would have been very very easy to PIO, overshoot, or undershoot. Any amatuer would have exhibited these errors. They didn't.

"maintain target fixation"

They certainly did that, with vicious single-mindedness. They expertly flew aggressive attack runs including high-g maneuvering that perfectly anticipated the flight dynamics of low-level flight at over 500 knots. That's just not taught in civilian flight schools. And the flight schools that we are told taught the 9-11 attack pilots have said as much.

"even if you are a few feet short, or a few feet high you have a impact zone of 1154 ft wide X 384 ft deep, how hard is it to hit a target that size"

They did much better than that, and 3 for 3, with the aircraft that made it to target area.

"hard is it to hit a target that size"

Very hard, nearly impossibly so, if you aren't trained in jet attack; impossible 3 for 3 without the necessary training.

"there was no extreme maneuvering required"

In the minds of those pilots there was, because they were maneuvering HARD.

"I can make a air to air gun kill in a simulator, and that take all kind of maneuvering, and I am just a 120 knt."

You may be good at Microsoft Golf too, but that doesn't mean you can compete in the PGA Masters. 120 knots and flight simulators cannot teach you to anticipate hard turns and accurately hit something with a 757, with the overspeed warning blaring in your ears. If you told me you haven't been trained for close-in gravity-bomb delivery at over 500 knots, then you can't do what the 9-11 hijackers did 3 for 3. You're just not trained for it.

"You don't have to be superman to fly a plane, any ham handed idiot can fly a fixed wing"

Not like that.

"how ever to do it in a Helicopter take Finesse."

You must understand, as I pointed out earlier, that there is another level of finesse required to successfully operate an aircraft far out of the approved flight envelope. Inexperienced pilots just can't horse around like that at extreme high speed and low level in jet aircraft, and consistently demonstrate the precision we saw on 9-11. We saw consistently expert attacks on 9-11, that were flown by expert military pilots. There is no way that amatuer pilots could have done it 3 for 3.

BTW the post you linked is interesting, but it doesn't address who flew those planes to target.

 

[[a-5]]

Well, they were fanatical about bombing the towers...I think they would have willingly pulled 15Gs if they could.

 

[hypewaders]

It would not have taken much of a bobble at those speeds (remember, modern jet airliners are not made for going that fast in thick low-altitude air) to pull the engines and maybe the wings off long before target. Even without mistakes, at those speeds the structures were certainly bending a LOT in the maneuvering and turbulence. It would have been very, very easy to overcontrol; and very hard not to overcontrol, even for experienced jet attack pilots. 757s are big, heavy, and elastic airframes.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

You must understand, as I pointed out earlier, that there is another level of finesse required to successfully operate an aircraft far out of the approved flight envelope. Inexperiencd pilots just can't horse around like at high speed and low level in jet aircraft, and demonstrate the precision we saw on 9-11.

BTW the post you linked is interesting, but it doesn't address who flew those planes to target

What level of Finesse? what high G maneuvers?, what precision?, straight in runs, and the only low level was at the end of a long approach, yes tell me how hard it is to make a straight in approach, and now prove that high speed maneuvering was done, some citation please, like maybe some video of the aircraft doing the extreme maneuvers that you claim took place? from every video and news film of the Aircraft that hit WTC 1-2, the aircraft were on straight in runs, no extreme maneuvers required, and it was only in the final minuets that the throttles were pushed to the stops, and the aircraft accelerated to their final speed, as for low level, isn't that were he wanted to end up?

As for attack training, what I was taught is that once you identify the target, you turn into the target, at a standard rate turn, no heavy maneuvering, line up the axis of your approach run into the Target, center the target in the wind screen, then in the gun sight, you don't want any major maneuvers, accelerate to aprox. 120 kts, and when the target fills the mil.ring launch your rockets, or in the case of a jet pickel the load, you don't do any maneuvering as you make your run, only after you come off of the target do you worry about getting some G's, and avoiding ground fire, I have a friend named Rags, he was a F-4 jockey in Nam, I didn't meet him till many years later, selling insurance for the same company, he says your full of shit, his statement was if that if a farm boy like him can fly, anyone can fly, and that if a cross sticked plow jockey like me can fly, a camel jockey should have no problem. Flying a plane in the air isn't hard, and there are a bunch of computers in the cockpits now to help in controlling a airframe, they weren't worried about looking good for the press, they were on a mission from God, and there wasn't any hard maneuvers, the runs were straight forward, all you have to do is look were you want to go and go there, and as for the run into the Pentagon, cite any stated airspeed for that plane, the only analyzed speeds are from the WTC aircraft, which were on frame long enough to make a estimation of their airspeed.


Watch this Report, from Jamie Mc Intyre, and then get back to me,
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2006/05/16/mcintyre.911.pentagon.video.affl?iref=videosearch

 

[Buffalo Roam]

It would not have taken much of a bobble at those speeds (remember, modern jet airliners are not made for going that fast in thick low-altitude air) to pull the engines and maybe the wings off long before target. Even without mistakes, at those speeds the structures were certainly bending a LOT in the maneuvering and turbulence. It would have been very, very easy to overcontrol; and very hard not to overcontrol, even for experienced jet attack pilots. 757s are big, heavy, and elastic airframes.

Please show this extream manuvering that you and the conspiracy nut claim took place? Videos please?

 

[hypewaders]

What intellectual laziness, asking me for a video. What astounding ignorance, expecting one. Or maybe it's just theatrical insincerity, challenging me to produce something that you know does not exist.

Regardless, we've both got to rise above this if we really want to understand what really happened.

There are no definitive public videos of 9-11, BR. Whenever there is an accident, the FAA normally does provide radar tapes, FDR playback, CFR playback, transcripts, etc. Those were not made public in the usual ways, and to this day there remain glaring gaps and discrepancies.

There has been some NTSB Flight Data Recorder data released, but it needs public and scientific adjustment before it will fit the physical evidence. For instance, the released AA77 FDR information shows a lazer-straight 5-degree vertical path to impact at the Pentagon. Such a path does not intersect the light poles that were severed and flung onto cars on the expressway below.

I can't supply you with a video. I can't even supply you with a coherent internet source, questioning the identities of the 9-11 attack pilots, that does not also include wild conspiracy bullshit about vanished airliners, illuminati, greys, and other such sensationalist fantasies.

All I can do is appeal instead to reason, and encourage you to educate yourself sufficiently about the techniques and physics of high-speed, low-level jet attack; educate yourself sufficiently about the curriculum of initial civilian airline-pilot training schools; educate yourself on the flying techniques demonstrated by the 9-11 killers. Then think for yourself. I have enough experience as an aviator to recognize with a high degree of certainty that the flying skills exhibited by the 9-11 hijacking pilots were far above the flunking civilian airline-pilot-wannabe, never-flown-a-jet proficiency level. Any purely civilian-trained pilot recently type-rated in 757/767 who is honest about it knows he couldn't fly like that with any confidence or consistency.

This is not a political position. I don't often fly airplanes with politics on my mind. Flying is my favorite way to rise above all that. But as I have progressed through almost every rating that the FAA offers, through more than 8,000 hours flying time, through formation flying, aerobatics, and tactical flying, I have gained the ability to both teach and recognize both basic and advanced flying skills. I am certain we have been lied to about who flew those 9-11 planes. That's not a just a political perspective in this case. Primarily, it's a professional opinion.

You've been a pilot. You can understand the difference between initial and advanced proficiency. Review all you've read and seen (including the short videos of those airliners sweeping in at extremely sporty speeds) and you may come to recognize a certain proficiency, evil as it may be, that far exceeds that of civilian flight-school dropouts.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

What intellectual laziness, asking me for a video. What astounding ignorance, expecting one. Or maybe it's just theatrical insincerity, challenging me to produce something that you know does not exist.

.

Then how do you know that extreme maneuvers were preformed during the flights on 9/11, in you Intellectual Laziness? there seems to be a lot intellectual laziness on your part, to make claims that are not substantiated by video, or photos, and as far as I can find out from Data from the Flight Data Recorders, that information hasn't been released to the public, so were is your proof that extreme maneuvers were used to pilot the aircraft?

Hell you just stated that:

There has been some NTSB Flight Data Recorder data released, but it needs public and scientific adjustment before it will fit the physical evidence. For instance, the released AA77 FDR information shows a lazer-straight 5-degree vertical path to impact at the Pentagon. Such a path does not intersect the light poles that were severed and flung onto cars on the expressway below.

No advanced manuvers by your own statement. I didn't know that AA77 FDR information could show the placement of light poles on the ground?


Can you roll a 707 Boeing at 500 ft?

 

[hypewaders]

Buffalo Roam: "how do you know that extreme maneuvers were preformed during the flights on 9/11"

Because I undertand what overspeed means in a jetliner. Any low-level flying at 500 Knots+ in an airliner is extreme; things happen very fast, and the jet doesn't behave very forgivingly. Big jets don't want to go that fast down low, and their avionics and airframes complain loudly about it, making it very hard to concentrate. It takes a lot of g-force and real estate to get turned around and lined up. Just nailing an altitude would be extremely difficult, and nearly impossible for an amatuer, all of whom are highly prone to over-controlling while many things are happening very quickly.

The 9-11 attack pilots flew with obviously advanced skill. AA 11 did take a fairly direct track from Albany, but the overspeed aspects were still not so deftly manageable by mere civilian flight-school dropouts. The following UAL 175 and American 77 flew much more aggressive maneuvers to target. Special skills are even more evident in those attack runs.

"were is your proof that extreme maneuvers were used to pilot the aircraft?"

Physics. Everything happening in an airliner at 500+ knots and low level is extreme. Making a 2-degree course correction is extreme. Hitting a thermal is extreme.

Here you can look at excerpts of the radar data. As an instructor, I've plotted the flight paths of a lot of students in training. There are always bobbles and noodles as mistakes are made, especially in transistion to higher performance aircraft. I don't see those mistakes in these tracks. The terrorist pilots of 9-11 flew with uncommon confidence and proficiency. Rather than re-hash everything, I would refer you back to a previous thread on this topic.

"No advanced manuvers by your own statement."

They weren't giving an aerobatics demonstration. They were flying visual attack profiles, complete with high-g turns no airline autopilot can make, that never overshot heading. American 77 made an overhead turn after acquiring the target that would have quickly overwhelmed the functional workload and situational awareness of any pilot not familiar with low-level jet attack. The 9-11 attackers weren't out there to compete with the Thunderbirds. Nevertheless, they did demonstrate unique mastery of complex aircraft, operated far outside their normal flight envelopes.

"I didn't know that AA77 FDR information could show the placement of light poles on the ground"

A 5-degree approach to the Pentagon impact site misses the light poles. American 77 clipped them. If air defense radar data were publicized instead of transponder replies, I'm sure we would have a much clearer public picture. But obviously, AA77 came in shallower than the NTSB says they did. The weapon being delivered required shallow delivery for maximum effect.

"Can you roll a 707 Boeing at 500 ft?"

Barrel rolls are easy in any airplane. There are potentially deadly pitfalls for the untrained, like falling out in a split S, overspeeding, or hitting terrain in a failure to anticipate flight path. These dangers are especially present and unforgiving in high-speed aircraft. But to answer your question: Yes, I'm comfortable with barrel rolls from any altitude, right down to about 6 feet under the right conditions. I'm confident of performing them in any aircraft with less than 3 gs applied- Any flyiable airplane can be safely rolled, whether the maneuver is approved or not. Here are the basics:

1. Dive or accelerate for a comfortable margin in the flight envelope affording plenty of kinetic energy, but still some buffer from Vne.

2. Pitch up (fairly briskly but without overstress) to a wings level pitch attitude in degrees that varies inversely with airspeed: Let's generally say 30 degrees at 100 knots, down to about 10 degrees at 350.

3. Apply full aileron and coordinating rudder in the direction of roll desired.

4. Relax elevator for ballistic flight approaching inverted, continuing with full aileron deflection all the way around. Keep track of the horizon ahead right here- this is vital at low level. Roll axis is kept above the horizon until past inverted. Roll axis is only allowed below the horizon terrain and obstructions permitting; with sufficient entry airspeed and initial pull, ballistic flight (momentum) can carry the maneuver through without a loss of altitude. As with any flight above stalling alpha, If you don't point it down, you don't hit the ground.

5. Return to normal flight with wings level.

I could similarly describe aileron rolls and snap rolls, but I won't bore you with that, since it was only a gentle barrel roll that Tex Johston caused such a stir with in the "Dash 80" back in 1955. The attack on the Pentagon was an obviously more criminal feat, and also much more difficult.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Buffalo Roam: "how do you know that extreme maneuvers were preformed during the flights on 9/11"

Because I undertand what overspeed means in a jetliner. Any low-level flying at 500 Knots+ in an airliner is extreme; things happen very fast, and the jet doesn't behave very forgivingly. It takes a lot of g-force and real estate to get turned around and lined up. Just nailing an altitude would be extremely difficult, and nearly impossible for an amatuer, all of whom are highly prone to over-controlling. The 9-11 attack pilots flew with obviously advanced skill. I will admit that AA 11 took a fairly direct track from Albany, but the overspeed aspects were still not so deftly manageable by mere civilian flight-school dropouts. The following UAL 175 and American 77 flew much more aggressive maneuvers to target, and special skills are even more evident in those attack runs.

Now let see you claim that the Aircraft was at over 500kts during the whole flight? and pray tell were do you get that information, the terrorist took over the flight at normal cruse, they went to the targets at standard speeds, they made their line up to the attack at normal speed, once they acquired visual of the target they advanced the throttles, and proceeded on a straight in run to target, at the Pentagon at a already established 5 deg decent, accelerating all the way, to a target some 1700 feet wide 300 ft deep, and 60 ft high, and as a fact he wasn't aiming exactly at that spot, anywhere on the building was ok, just as long as he hit the building, he wasn't making a precision bomb run he was making a suicide, kamikaze, attack against a stationary target that is 5 acres in size, and some camel jockey on a mission for god can't hit a five acre target, dam hype, flying isn't that hard of a thing to do especially if you aren't worried about taking off or landing, or bending the airplane, and a target that is FIVE ACERS IN SIZE? The hardest thing about flying is knowing were the instruments and control systems and panels are, and one other thing, their were two terrorist on the controls, remember 5 man teams, and they all attended flight training schools, they all were total zeros as pilots?

http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/newversion/hb1.htm

"were is your proof that extreme maneuvers were used to pilot the aircraft?"

Physics. Everything happening in an airliner at 500 knots and low level is extreme. Making a 2-degree course correction is extreme. Hitting a thermal is extreme.

Here you can look at excerpts of the radar data. As an instructor, I've plotted the flight paths of a lot of students in training. There are always bobbles and noodles as mistakes are made, especially in transistion to higher performance aircraft. I don't see those mistakes in these tracks. The terrorist pilots of 9-11 flew with uncommon confidence and proficiency. Rather than re-hash everything, I would refer you back to a previous thread on this topic.

And exactly how close and precise are the flight graphs, in navigation a pencil line on a 1 to 250000 map covers several hundred yards, simpler yet for the uninformed look at a road map, and see how little deviation is shown on the route of a highway then drive that route, and see just how much deviation isn't shown on the map. Same for your graphs, and as I have said before, the large airlines have computer assisted flight controls to help the pilots in controlling the aircraft, and these idiots didn't make or have to make extreme maneuvers on their mission from God, they didn't have to avoid fighter interception, or AAA, the only extreme maneuver they had to accomplish was to hold a straight course into the Pentagon, now how good are your nerves? or belief?

"No advanced manuvers by your own statement."

They weren't giving an aerobatics demonstration. They were flying visual attack profiles, complete with high-g turns no airline autopilot can make, that never overshot heading. American 77 made an overhead turn after acquiring the target that would have quickly overwhelmed the functional workload and situational awareness of any pilot not familiar with low-level jet attack. The 9-11 attackers weren't out there to show you a Thunderbirds flight demonstration. Nevertheless, they did demonstrate unique mastery of complex aircraft, operated far outside their normal flight envelopes.

complete with high-g turns no airline autopilot

who said the turns were made on auto pilot?

"I didn't know that AA77 FDR information could show the placement of light poles on the ground"

And your proof of high G maneuvering? again how about something like the information off the flight data recorder? or videos showing these extreme maneuvers? there is no confirmable information showing high G maneuvers, and as for ;

hype..American 77 made an overhead turn after acquiring the target that would have quickly overwhelmed the functional workload and situational awareness of any pilot not familiar with low-level jet attack

They weren't worried about a low level attack profile, that would indicate a desire to survive the mission, they were only worried about a suicide mission, to kill as many as they could at the cost of their own lives, and if you can do a Barrel Roll in a 707;

Boeing company 707 dash 80 completes a barrel roll during early ...
BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY 707 "DASH 80" COMPLETES A BARREL ROLL DURING EARLY AIRLINE FLIGHT TESTING TO SHOW THE AIRCRAFTS ABILITIES ...
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/707_roll_video.htm

just how much over engineering is in a modern Passenger Airliner? .

A 5-degree approach to the Pentagon impact site misses the light poles. American 77 clipped them. If air defense radar data were publicized instead of transponder replies, I'm sure we would have a much clearer public picture. But obviously, AA77 came in shallower than the NTSB says they did. The weapon being delivered required shallow delivery for maximum effect.

"Can you roll a 707 Boeing at 500 ft?".

Barrel rolls are easy in any airplane. There are potentially deadly pitfalls for the untrained, like falling out in a split S, overspeeding, or hitting terrain in a failure to anticipate flight path. These dangers are especially present and unforgiving in high-speed aircraft. But to answer your question: Yes, I'm comfortable with barrel rolls from any altitude, right down to about 6 feet, and absent heavy turbulence, I'm confident of performing them with less than 3 gs applied- That means any airplane can be safely rolled, whether it's legal or not. Here are the basics:

Again if there is enough room in the flight profile to barrel roll a 707, is their enough performance envelope to make a high speed suicide run to a Five Acer Target? even with a few turns thrown in?

1. Dive or accelerate to at least 125% of stalling speed- for a comfortable margin in the flight envelope with plenty of energy, but still some buffer from Vne.

2. Pitch up (fairly briskly but without overstress) to a wings level pitch attitude in degrees that varies inversely with airspeed: Let's generally say 30 degrees at 100 knots, down to about 10 degrees at 350.

3. Apply full aileron and coordinating rudder in the direction of roll desired.

4. Relax elevator for ballistic flight approaching inverted, continuing with full aileron deflection all the way around. Keep track of the horizon ahead right here- this is vital at low level. Roll axis is kept above the horizon until past inverted. Roll axis is only allowed below the horizon terrain and obstructions permitting.

5. Return to normal flight with wings level.

I could similarly describe aileron rolls and snap rolls, but I won't bore you with that, since it was only a gentle barrel roll that Tex Johston caused such a stir with in the "Dash 80" back in 1955. The attack on the Pentagon was an obviously more criminal feat, and also much more difficult.

Now you claim that a barrel roll in a 707 is a gentle maneuver? and a standard rate turn in a 767 is a extreme maneuver? This can be done in a 707, there is enough performance envelope to do a barrel roll, (and a Barrel Roll is a extream mauve in a 4 engine passenger liner), now the killers on 9/11 didn't have to do a barrel roll to complete their attacks, all they had to do was a turn and come around and re-establish a attack line, they seemed to have made the turn far enough out to make the approach to the Pentagon, a Five Acer sized target, in a straight line, so that there was no extreme maneuvering required for the final minuets of the flight, there are no videos, pictures, of flight data recorder information that indicates extreme maneuvers, so again as you admit there is no evidence to show any of what you claim as the profile of the Suicide Run into the Pentagon, I read maps to, it was my job, and your map recon of the flight profile has a large fudge factor just from the data line of the flight path.

...

 

[hypewaders]

Buffalo Roam: "who said the turns were made on auto pilot?"

It's a common but ridiculous claim: That low-time pilots unfamiliar with the B-757/767 could program such an attack into the FMS and that the autopilot would fly the aircraft at such low altitudes, high speeds, and high rates.

just how much over engineering is in a modern Passenger Airliner?"

Not so much as you might like to think. Consider American 587, when a vertical stabilizer separated after a wake-turbulence encounter.

Again if there is enough room in the flight profile to barrel roll a 707, is their enough performance envelope to make a high speed suicide run to a Five Acer Target? even with a few turns thrown in?"

Obviously: They did it. But a barrel-roll requires much less training, and has much more margin for error, than did those attacks. An amatuer can do a sloppy barrel roll with minimal information. An amatuer, or team of amatuers, could not pull off the 9-11 attack flights 3 for 3.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

You did.

They weren't giving an aerobatics demonstration. They were flying visual attack profiles, complete with high-g turns no airline autopilot can make,

 

[hypewaders]

BR: "You did."

I did what

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Buffalo Roam: "how do you know that extreme maneuvers were preformed during the flights on 9/11"

Because I undertand what overspeed means in a jetliner. Any low-level flying at 500 Knots+ in an airliner is extreme; things happen very fast, and the jet doesn't behave very forgivingly. Big jets don't want to go that fast down low, and their avionics and airframes complain loudly about it, making it very hard to concentrate. It takes a lot of g-force and real estate to get turned around and lined up. Just nailing an altitude would be extremely difficult, and nearly impossible for an amatuer, all of whom are highly prone to over-controlling while many things are happening very quickly.

The 9-11 attack pilots flew with obviously advanced skill. AA 11 did take a fairly direct track from Albany, but the overspeed aspects were still not so deftly manageable by mere civilian flight-school dropouts. The following UAL 175 and American 77 flew much more aggressive maneuvers to target. Special skills are even more evident in those attack runs.

"were is your proof that extreme maneuvers were used to pilot the aircraft?"

Physics. Everything happening in an airliner at 500+ knots and low level is extreme. Making a 2-degree course correction is extreme. Hitting a thermal is extreme.

Here you can look at excerpts of the radar data. As an instructor, I've plotted the flight paths of a lot of students in training. There are always bobbles and noodles as mistakes are made, especially in transistion to higher performance aircraft. I don't see those mistakes in these tracks. The terrorist pilots of 9-11 flew with uncommon confidence and proficiency. Rather than re-hash everything, I would refer you back to a previous thread on this topic.

"No advanced manuvers by your own statement."

They weren't giving an aerobatics demonstration. They were flying visual attack profiles,

complete with high-g turns no airline autopilot can make,

that never overshot heading. American 77 made an overhead turn after acquiring the target that would have quickly overwhelmed the functional workload and situational awareness of any pilot not familiar with low-level jet attack. The 9-11 attackers weren't out there to compete with the Thunderbirds. Nevertheless, they did demonstrate unique mastery of complex aircraft, operated far outside their normal flight envelopes.

"I didn't know that AA77 FDR information could show the placement of light poles on the ground"

A 5-degree approach to the Pentagon impact site misses the light poles. American 77 clipped them. If air defense radar data were publicized instead of transponder replies, I'm sure we would have a much clearer public picture. But obviously, AA77 came in shallower than the NTSB says they did. The weapon being delivered required shallow delivery for maximum effect.

"Can you roll a 707 Boeing at 500 ft?"

Barrel rolls are easy in any airplane. There are potentially deadly pitfalls for the untrained, like falling out in a split S, overspeeding, or hitting terrain in a failure to anticipate flight path. These dangers are especially present and unforgiving in high-speed aircraft. But to answer your question: Yes, I'm comfortable with barrel rolls from any altitude, right down to about 6 feet under the right conditions. I'm confident of performing them in any aircraft with less than 3 gs applied- Any flyiable airplane can be safely rolled, whether the maneuver is approved or not. Here are the basics:

1. Dive or accelerate for a comfortable margin in the flight envelope affording plenty of kinetic energy, but still some buffer from Vne.

2. Pitch up (fairly briskly but without overstress) to a wings level pitch attitude in degrees that varies inversely with airspeed: Let's generally say 30 degrees at 100 knots, down to about 10 degrees at 350.

3. Apply full aileron and coordinating rudder in the direction of roll desired.

4. Relax elevator for ballistic flight approaching inverted, continuing with full aileron deflection all the way around. Keep track of the horizon ahead right here- this is vital at low level. Roll axis is kept above the horizon until past inverted. Roll axis is only allowed below the horizon terrain and obstructions permitting; with sufficient entry airspeed and initial pull, ballistic flight (momentum) can carry the maneuver through without a loss of altitude. As with any flight above stalling alpha, If you don't point it down, you don't hit the ground.

5. Return to normal flight with wings level.

I could similarly describe aileron rolls and snap rolls, but I won't bore you with that, since it was only a gentle barrel roll that Tex Johston caused such a stir with in the "Dash 80" back in 1955. The attack on the Pentagon was an obviously more criminal feat, and also much more difficult.

...

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Buffalo Roam: "who said the turns were made on auto pilot?"

It's a common but ridiculous claim: That low-time pilots unfamiliar with the B-757/767 could program such an attack into the FMS and that the autopilot would fly the aircraft at such low altitudes, high speeds, and high rates.

just how much over engineering is in a modern Passenger Airliner?"

Not so much as you might like to think. Consider American 587, when a vertical stabilizer separated after a wake-turbulence encounter.

Again if there is enough room in the flight profile to barrel roll a 707, is their enough performance envelope to make a high speed suicide run to a Five Acer Target? even with a few turns thrown in?"

Obviously: They did it. But a barrel-roll requires much less training, and has much more margin for error, than did those attacks. An amatuer can do a sloppy barrel roll with minimal information. An amatuer, or team of amatuers, could not pull off the 9-11 attack flights 3 for 3.

Check out the Barrel Roll, it was done at 500ft. I think that would qualify as a extream manuver, inverted in a 707 at 500 agl.

 

[hypewaders]

You're not making sense. What barrel roll? If you are referring to Tex Johston's famous one, that barrel roll began at about 300' AGL, and zoomed through 1500' before the Dash-80 707 prototype became inverted at the top. If you think a 707 will barrel-roll in 500 vertical feet, you obviously don't understand the physics involved.

Enough diversion of the thread: The 9-11 pilots displayed more skill than any barrel roll would have demonstrated- Almost anyone can easily be taught to yank and bank through a barrel roll. But flying the 9-11 attacks as consistently as they were flown required military training that is certainly not provided in places like Huffman Aviation.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Buffalo Roam: "who said the turns were made on auto pilot?"

It's a common but ridiculous claim: That low-time pilots unfamiliar with the B-757/767 could program such an attack into the FMS and that the autopilot would fly the aircraft at such low altitudes, high speeds, and high rates.

just how much over engineering is in a modern Passenger Airliner?"

Not so much as you might like to think. Consider American 587, when a vertical stabilizer separated after a wake-turbulence encounter.

Again if there is enough room in the flight profile to barrel roll a 707, is their enough performance envelope to make a high speed suicide run to a Five Acer Target? even with a few turns thrown in?"

Obviously: They did it. But a barrel-roll requires much less training, and has much more margin for error, than did those attacks. An amatuer can do a sloppy barrel roll with minimal information. An amatuer, or team of amatuers, could not pull off the 9-11 attack flights 3 for 3.

Check out the Barrel Roll, it was done at 500ft.

Now for your;

American 77 made an overhead turn after acquiring the target that would have quickly overwhelmed the functional workload and situational awareness of any pilot not familiar with low-level jet attack. The 9-11 attackers weren't out there to compete with the Thunderbirds. Nevertheless, they did demonstrate unique mastery of complex aircraft, operated far outside their normal flight envelopes.

And your definition of a overhead turn? they turned out of their present flight path, and did a simple bank turn, until they came around again, realigned and made the run, simple enough, no extreme maneuvers required, what was their rush, no fighter opposition, no triple A, and the passengers were not trying to retake the aircraft, all they had to worry about was hitting a 5 acre size target.

And now you are saying they were Saudi Air Force Trained pilots?

BR
The Saudi 9-11 pilots knew all about jet attack. They learned it in the Royal Saudi Air Force. You can't handle the truth.

What Truth? your vision of the Truth? Visions from what? from a pipe or roll your own, must be some good shit.:m:

Not so much as you might like to think. Consider American 587, when a vertical stabilizer separated after a wake-turbulence encounter.

From what I have read on the 587 stabilizer seperation, the flutter was a over control pilot induced problem, and flight AA587 was in take off profile, climbing out.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.pdf

The Safety Board notes that the A300-600 yaw damper system allows a pilot input
to override a yaw damper command when the rudder is at the full deflection limit
permitted by the rudder travel limiter system for a particular airspeed. Under these
conditions, a pilot input can override a yaw damper command in the opposite direction
and keep the rudder at the full deflection limit by providing increasing pressure on the
rudder pedals. Simulation and FDR data indicated that the first officer’s rudder pedal
inputs during the flight 587 accident sequence were consistent with a suppression of yaw
damper inputs at the rudder deflection limits. The simulations indicated that, if the yaw
damper inputs had not been suppressed, the yaw damper would have moved the rudder
partially back toward neutral, thereby lessening (but not preventing) the buildup of the
sideslip angle and aerodynamic loads on the vertical stabilizer. Such a delay could have
provided an additional level of safety because the initial response of the airplane to a
sustained rudder pedal input would not have been as severe and could have reduced the
chance of pilot surprise or confusion.

The Safety Board concludes that, because of its high sensitivity (that is, light pedal
forces and small pedal displacements), the Airbus A300-600 rudder control system is
susceptible to potentially hazardous rudder pedal inputs at higher airspeeds. Therefore,
the Safety Board believes that the FAA and the Direction Général de l’Aviation Civile
should review the options for modifying the Airbus A300-600 and the Airbus A310 to
provide increased protection from potentially hazardous rudder pedal inputs at high
airspeeds and, on the basis of this review, require modifications to the A300-600 and
A310 to provide increased protection from potentially hazardous rudder pedal inputs at
high airspeeds.

No correlation to the supposed flight profile that you would have us believe took place on Flight 77,

 

[hypewaders]

Buffalo Roam: "Check out the Barrel Roll, it was done at 500ft."

What barrel roll? What does it have to do with anything we are discussing here?

"... a simple bank turn, until they came around again, realigned and made the run"

Nothing is simple about turning an airliner at those speeds. AA77 came down from 7000 feet in an aggressive spiral, and the pilot never lost mental track of the target, even while the target was mostly out of his view, while descending, turning and accelerating to more than 400 knots in a spiral that had to be a very rough and noisy ride. The pilot then rolled out perfectly at 2000 feet, never bobbled, lined up and accelerated to 530 knots. Remember, we are told the hands at the controls were those of Hani Hanjour with 600 hours total time, whom two instructors had rejected for Cessna 172 rental, because he had trouble controlling a lowly Skyhawk.

But this pilot executed a flawless descending spiral without losing situational awareness, without losing perfect control of an airplane careening at the very ragged edge of the envelope. That pilot lined up perfectly, and took that 757 perfectly into target without a bobble. It wasn't done with autopilot, but with an uncommonly steady hand, in much too perfect an attack for a failed primary airline-trainee to have accomplished.

"And now you are saying they were Saudi Air Force Trained pilots?"

I'm saying it's more probable than the scenario that they were civilian flight-school dropouts.

"What Truth?"

Truth that makes sense.

"your vision of the Truth?"

No, truth is independently verifiable.

"From what I have read on the 587 stabilizer seperation, the flutter was a over controal pilot induced problem"

I often regret any digressions with you, because you are so eager to divert from topic when you encounter difficulty. Every serious pilot knows that when we are told not to stomp the rudder or the tail will come off, that the deficiency is structural. I brought that up only to illustrate that overstress and structural failure was only a twitch away when the 9-11 attackers were moving so low and fast- So was missing the target. They obviously knew exactly what they were doing, and they simply could not have learned those expert skills flying Skyhawks with civilian instructors, who consistently observed that the individuals identified as the villains were lousy pilots.

 

[iceaura]

I just blew up the map of the final, what you call overhead turn, to the Pentagon, to full size, the radius of that turn is 12 miles, meaning that the circumference of the turn was 37 miles, - - - and the acceleration came after he leveled out and made the final run, from almost 12 miles out - - -

Those numbers don't add up.