PDA

View Full Version : How did the 9/11 Hijackers Navigate?


Deathrow558
12th Mar 2008, 20:49
Granted, the Twin Towers weren't exactly a small target but how did they manage to hit both of them? The same goes for the Pentagon.

Glacier1900
12th Mar 2008, 20:54
I don't think a response to that is a good idea. What if it helped to other crazies do it again? Nope.

airfoilmod
12th Mar 2008, 20:56
LooseChange.com. A veritable smorgasbjord of conspiracy posits and counterposita. A grain of salt is necessary, but as a pilot, I have a personal difficulty believing a non English speaking Saudi young man with a grand total of twenty-one hours in a C-172 could have manouvered that behemoth, switched off transxpdr, and turned perfectly at 500 AGL at a speed of 400 knots (a LEFT turn) to sever a corner of a building hardly wider than "his" wingspan. Just Sayin'.

Deathrow558
12th Mar 2008, 20:58
@Glacier: I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious.


airfoilmod: Well clearly they DID do that. So how did they manage it? Pot luck?

Ka8 Flyer
12th Mar 2008, 21:33
They clearly had B757/767 cockpit knowledge so I guess inputting a PBD into the FMS wouldn't be too difficult. The required coordinates could be obtained with any handheld GPS (or just look it up on a map!)

Wingswinger
12th Mar 2008, 22:03
It being a lovely sunny morning I'd have thought they just looked out of the window.

5150
12th Mar 2008, 22:16
Even 'big' planes fly the same as little ones so where's the drama there?

They weren't being asked to do anything requiring a great deal of skill - point plane at one of the world's largest buidings and hit it, as mentioned before, on a perfectly clear day.

There's plenty of information out there that would have assisted them in navigating the aircraft towards the city itself, albeit it tuning in a basic navaid or as Ka8 mentions, bunging something into the FMC.

Golf Charlie Charlie
12th Mar 2008, 22:24
But - I suppose - they were lucky in having gin clear visibility that day. Did they take a chance on this - some days in New York the ceiling could be half the height of the WTC.......

milkybarkid
12th Mar 2008, 22:42
Microsoft Flight Simulator

WhatsaLizad?
12th Mar 2008, 23:18
Been in the cockpit of an AA B767 on the same type of clear mornings more than once. From where they took over, you can see straight down the Hudson river to Manhattan. The streets also gave a perfect aimpoint for flight 11.

The Pentagon plane was a little different. They obviously knew the basic FMS steps to go direct to DCA. There was some talk that the circle maneuver there was due to them being unable to find the White House. It is tough to see the first time from the air. The Pentagon is easy to pick out though.

My bet is they had a decent FMS program simulator, or had some late night access to a middle east carrier's 767 or sims from a sympathetic employee. It would'nt take much to learn the basic steps to point a Boeing the right way despite what the loose change idiots think.

RFFS
12th Mar 2008, 23:28
Whatsalizad....you still believe that was a large aircraft that hit the Pentagon.........!!!!! as posted earlier loosechange.

Milt
12th Mar 2008, 23:35
I suppose you are going to have to ask them!!

Mk 1 eyeballs are pretty reliable unless there was heavy smog/cloud.

das Uber Soldat
13th Mar 2008, 00:06
The sheer stupidity of people buying the conspiracy theories from 9/11 honestly makes my head hurt.

Here is the debunking of what I can only label the embarrassment 'Loose Change', a film so absurd that even other 9/11 conspiracy nut websites have posted their own rebuttals to distance themselves from it.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html (http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html)

There are plenty of others.

On topic I have never flown a 767 before but when I had a go in the sim it was no different to any other aircraft I've ever flown. If something on the ground is stationary in the windscreen, you're gonna hit it. Fairly straight forward.

Brian Abraham
13th Mar 2008, 05:24
you still believe that was a large aircraft that hit the Pentagon

Oh dear. :{

If something on the ground is stationary in the windscreen, you're gonna hit it

Don't confuse them with science. :p

18-Wheeler
13th Mar 2008, 07:05
The sheer stupidity of people buying the conspiracy theories from 9/11 honestly makes my head hurt.

Here is the debunking of what I can only label the embarrassment 'Loose Change', a film so absurd ...

Indeed.
It's up (down?) to version three or four now, and has toned down from the first version, which featured such delights as the aircaft that hit the towers either being holograms or having rockets fitted underneath the fuselage.


My personal theory of how they hit fairly accurately is they just put a dot on the windscreen right in front of the pilot, and used that to line the plane up. Keep the dot on the target, and you will hit it.

mason
13th Mar 2008, 08:40
So did the Turbines really disintagrate in the pentagon?

rubik101
13th Mar 2008, 09:38
'Direct' to KJFK and LNAV perhaps?

deltayankee
13th Mar 2008, 10:01
On a day like that they didn't need any help with the navigation. New York isn't hard to find and WTC was easy to spot. But like someone said above, was that just their luck or did they expect it? Did the forecasts from the day they bought their tickets already show CAVOK conditions in both NY and Washington for 9/11? Maybe they were waiting for a VFR day since I am not sure a low hour pilot could hit their targets using just instruments.

Brian Abraham
13th Mar 2008, 11:20
So did the Turbines really disintagrate in the pentagon

Just a rough guess mind you, they might have. Depends of course what turbines you are referring to. :hmm:

AirRabbit
13th Mar 2008, 19:26
So did the Turbines really disintagrate in the pentagon?
Who said they did?
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t35/74732/Aircraft%20Accidents/pentagonwreckage6.jpg
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t35/74732/Aircraft%20Accidents/pentagonwreckage7.jpg
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t35/74732/Aircraft%20Accidents/pentagonwreckage8.jpg
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t35/74732/Aircraft%20Accidents/pentagonwreckage2.jpg

electricdeathjet
13th Mar 2008, 21:10
Tom Tom....:cool:

barit1
14th Mar 2008, 15:27
Following the Hudson from Albany to NYC on a CAVU days is maybe the easiest thing a pilot could ever do. And I strongly suspect they chose a CAVU day precisely because it would have the greatest influence (Live AM TV coverage) politically.

Actually hitting the target at that speed? They could have practiced a few hundred times on FS. They probably had secondary targets chosen in case of a go-around, which is likely the case at the Pentagon.

And as the photos show, healthy turbine discs do not disintegrate on impact.

Golf Charlie Charlie
14th Mar 2008, 23:55
<<<
Following the Hudson from Albany to NYC on a CAVU days is maybe the easiest thing a pilot could ever do.
>>>

Right, but did they know it would be a CAVU day when they bought their tickets ? I don't think they did, so I believe they were lucky in this respect.

WhatsaLizad?
15th Mar 2008, 00:17
I don't recall how far in advance the tickets were bought. I don't think it was very long. A calm high pressure system in the US in September will get you days of 100 mile clear vis.

owainglyndwr1416
3rd Apr 2011, 05:47
Whats the lowest altitude a 767 could manage at 500MPH taking into account ground effect ??

The plane (Alleged)was pictured on security camera flying level , not nose up ..

Can a 767 maintain level flight at 500MPH in the first place ?? You all know the answer to that "No"!!

The Engines thrust ?? Whats that about at full power ?? 60,200 lb Thrust
? You know the wake would have destroyed the lawn.. The only thing that flies that fast and that low is a TLAM .. The Blast signature is the same too .. This is not idle conspiracy theory , this is being of sound mind and knowing a Plane that size will not fit into a small hole !!

Brian Abraham
3rd Apr 2011, 07:06
http://www2.kelloggs.com/ServeImage.aspx?BID=91509&MD5=2fcd10d8d572e78ca5d56df11968f620&w=220..........

gobbledock
3rd Apr 2011, 07:21
This is not idle conspiracy theory , this is being of sound mind and knowing a Plane that size will not fit into a small hole !!
Oh dear..I agree with Brian Abraham on this one !
The aircraft disapeared into the Pentagon easily. As you say, take one plane at 500 mph that is made from tin and spear it into multi layered building constructured of multiple steel and concrete walls and what you get is small entry hole that disintegrated the aircraft. No conspiracy in that, sheer mathematics will prove that.
As for the Towers, it was not difficult to mark them on a beautiful sunny NY day, regardless of the speed and dynamics of the aircraft. If you can drop a 767 on the piano keys at JFK then you can line one up with the two giant beacons they struck. The :mad: who pulled off the stunt were lucky with the weather, but had enough training to steer an already airbourne craft.
There is no conspirancy in all this. Sadly the Yanks saw themselves ( and to a degree still do) as indestructable and some people still do not want to believe that the events of 9/11 could be pulled off by a group of nutters so easily. Sorry frriends, but it was that easy for them.

jcjeant
3rd Apr 2011, 07:30
Hi,

h dear..I agree with Brian Abraham on this one !
The aircraft disapeared into the Pentagon easily. As you say, take one plane at 500 mph that is made from tin and spear it into multi layered building constructured of multiple steel and concrete walls and what you get is small entry hole that disintegrated the aircraft. No conspiracy in that, sheer mathematics will prove that.You right ..

But ...

constructured of multiple steel and concrete walls and what you get is small entry hole that disintegrated the aircraft. No conspiracy in that, sheer mathematics will prove that.

Can you comment (with the same argument) about the hole on the other side (the out ? hole) .. far from the entry hole .. if the aircraft was desintegrated by the external wall ?

BTW .. comment also on this ... please (you know the altitude of the last seconds flight path I suppose)

Can a 767 maintain level flight at 500MPH in the first place ?? You all know the answer to that "No"!!

The Engines thrust ?? Whats that about at full power ?? 60,200 lb Thrust
? You know the wake would have destroyed the lawn.

aviatorhi
3rd Apr 2011, 07:31
Every time the fruitcakes ask me about my "professional" oppinion on the events I like to use the saying "anybody can fly, but not everybody can land". Flying an already airborne plane in clear weather is so easy a child can do it.

aviatorhi
3rd Apr 2011, 07:35
@owainglyndwr1416

I don't even see the sense in proving you wrong, you can't and won't be proven wrong because you think you know the "truth".

That being said, you have no understanding of flying an aircraft, the physics involved or how jet thrust actually works, so continue to believe whatever yo uwill believe, I just hope that Darwin is right and the ones missing a few synapses here and there don't pass their genes on to the next generation, alongside the terrorist nutjobs.

EXEZY
3rd Apr 2011, 08:51
YouTube - 9/11 Inside Job - The Most Damning Evidence Yet!

How do you explain building 7? The tower wasn't even hit by an aircraft. It is impossible for jet fuel to collapse two towers at free fall speeds.

The number of inconsistencies in this are alarming, I find it offensive that you would consider anyone who questioned the "official" story of 9/11 a "nutjob", one has to be a nutjob to believe the official fairy tale version of events in my book.

Why would anyone question the ability of a known psychopath, President Bush, along with Mossad and the CIA in carrying this out? He took us to war with Iraq illegally, claiming that there were WMD, which we all know to be a lie. 9/11 served as the pretext in carrying out another illegal war with Afghanistan, which allied troops are still engaged in, how many innocent people have died in these two conflicts alone, on either side!

Before any sycophantic moron on this site criticizes me for debasing the memories of the people killed, let me just say this. There are a sizeable group of people including relatives of the deceased that question the fairy tale story of 9/11, this also includes pilots, engineers and fireman. To say that we are nut jobs is insulting not only to us but to the memories of those killed in these horrendous acts on the American people by their commander in chief.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth (http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/)

AE911Truth.org (http://www.ae911truth.org/)

Remember Building 7 | Stand with the 9-11 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ? (http://rememberbuilding7.org/)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s


Enough of this conspiracy name calling claptrap, get you're heads out of you're asses and do the research!

Green Guard
3rd Apr 2011, 08:56
at 500 mph that is made from tin and spear it into multi layered building constructured of multiple steel and concrete walls and what you get is small entry hole that disintegrated the aircraft. No conspiracy in that, sheer mathematics will prove that.


I see....just wonder why pelicans and other similar birds,
on much slower speeds
while diving into the water for their own "terrorist" attacs on poor fishes
FOLD their wide wings, JUST prior to IMPACT with water level ?

:}

Shytehawk
3rd Apr 2011, 09:37
EXEZY

I sincerely hope that you have not and will not contaminate the gene pool.

john_tullamarine
3rd Apr 2011, 09:47
Tech Log isn't really the best place for conspiracy theory arguments.