Amateur Pilot Ability, High Speed - Low Altitude

[Cessna_Only]

Hi. I am very sorry if this is an inappropriate forum to ask this question, which has been puzzling me greatly.

I grew up around airplanes, as my father was an avid pilot. He often took us kids down to the local airport where we'd do "touch and go's" in his Cessna, fly down to see my grandparents, and wash the plane. My dad was president of a local flying club, and I knew all kinds of pilots growing up. There was a time, in my early 20s, when I wanted to learn how to fly the plane. I took a few lessons from my dad. I found flying to be nerve-wracking. Keeping the nose up, and dealing with the tail, and getting the plane to go where you want it to go, it seemed like something that would take tons of practice. I gave up the desire to fly, and just now in my 40s I am starting to explore lessons again.

Like everyone else I know, when 9/11 came along I believed the govt story 100%. But I always had some trouble understanding the flight of these amateurs.

I would like to kindly ask your feedback. Pilots are an elite part of society, in terms of education and physical fitness and overall stature. Pilots are serious people. You can be an idiot and succeed in a lot of things, but you won't become a pilot if you're an idiot.

Based on my (limited) experience, it would be extremely difficult for an experienced pilot to fly directly into a 215' wide skyscraper in New York at 400-500 MPH. I understand that the govt story claims that beginner pilots, with limited training in a flight school, flew directly into their target in a huge Boeing. It doesn't seem possible. They could hijack a plane and fly it into a general area and crash it, sure, but to strike bullseye two times in a row, how likely is that? I just want to know if any airline pilots here can comment on how difficult it would be for two beginners to strike so perfectly at high speed, so at low altitude.

Doing some research online, I discovered that an experienced pilot setup the scenario on a flight simulator. He and fellow pilots were unable to hit the target.

As I know pilots are serious and intelligent people, I feel that if the govt story is indeed bogus, the first people who would call it bogus are pilots. Since pilots seem silent that helps to support the govt story. Also, is it possible that 9/11 occurred using some type of homing beacon/remote control rather than inexperienced pilots?

Thank you for any comments.

[H.Finn]

No, it is not difficult to hit a large, tall building with a jet. And, unfortunately, a few idiots have also become pilots.

[Load Toad]

Complete 911 Timeline: Alleged Hijackers' Flight Training

Google is a useful tool - have a read of that. Remember to get your tinfoil helmet ready.

[Rainboe]

You craftily sneaked yet another 911 conspiracy discussion into an innocent talk about flying days. This eternal rubbish is not welcome here. You claim they couldn't hit the tower, yet used some mysterious 'homing' method to do it? Despite admitting you know hardly anything about aviation and flying, you apparently know enough to decide you don't believe they could do it?

Please stop eternally resurrecting this nonsense and grow up. There is not a conspiracy under every stone. These theories have been done to death here and completely discounted. Some people can't accept it. An inability to accept an explanation and believe in conspiracies everywhere is actually a mental condition. Treat the condition rather than expound this nonsense!

[Planemike]

Rainboe..........

Lighten up.........!!!! Your response comes across as an attack on the original poster. He asked a question, that to me seems fair enough. He admits to limited experience but he has been 'up front' and in control of an aircraft albeit under the supervision of an instructor.

Planemike

[Bla Bla Bla]

If those pilots in the experiment could not hit a bloody big building I wonder how they manage to hit the runway!

[SNS3Guppy]

Pilots are an elite part of society, in terms of education and physical fitness and overall stature. Pilots are serious people. You can be an idiot and succeed in a lot of things, but you won't become a pilot if you're an idiot.

Cessna Only,

Pilots are just like anyone else. While some pilots have advanced degrees and education, many don't. In most cases, the only real application a college or university degree has to flying is it's place on a CV or resume...it's often used to enhance one's marketability when seeking a job. That's about it. Pilots don't tend to be any more intelligent or smarter. With respect to physical stature, pilots come in all shapes and sizes. Many are overweight, many do no exercise. I've met a lot in this business who I'd classify as less than stellar, and more than a few I'd classify as idiots.

Becoming a pilot is simply a matter of money. If one can afford flight training, learning to fly isn't much more difficult than learning to ride a bicycle.

Learning to hit a building is even less difficult. Find a single person who has played with Microsoft Flight Simulator, available the world over, who hasn't run the airplane into a building to see what happens. It's easy.

Based on my (limited) experience, it would be extremely difficult for an experienced pilot to fly directly into a 215' wide skyscraper in New York at 400-500 MPH. I understand that the govt story claims that beginner pilots, with limited training in a flight school, flew directly into their target in a huge Boeing. It doesn't seem possible. They could hijack a plane and fly it into a general area and crash it, sure, but to strike bullseye two times in a row, how likely is that? I just want to know if any airline pilots here can comment on how difficult it would be for two beginners to strike so perfectly at high speed, so at low altitude.

How likely is that? With a little practice using microsoft flight simulator and nothing else, it's nearly guaranteed. Hitting the WTC would have been a very simple matter; it's a target that one could scarcely miss.

Low altitude had nothing to do with it. Low altitude skills involve avoiding obstacles. Hitting them is not a problem; anybody can do that. They weren't "low" anyway, but the altitude at which they struck the buildings has no bearing on their ability to hit the buildings.

Doing some research online, I discovered that an experienced pilot setup the scenario on a flight simulator. He and fellow pilots were unable to hit the target.

Then he was an idiot. What you found was internet mythology. Think about it. We fly approaches to runways every day, arriving within feet of a target; it's what we do, and we do it right every single time...but you're suggesting that a professional pilot couldn't do it in a simulator? Ridiculous. Hitting a building is dirt simple, and a minimum of flight training was required to be able to pilot the aircraft in order to run into something.

A "homing beacon" would do no good, and would require more skill to use, than simply driving the aircraft into the biggest obstacle in the State of New York. The notion that some kind of consipiracy existed because of wildly flawed misconceptions about pilots and aircraft is foolishness. Even if your notions about pilots were correct (they're not), and even if advanced skills would have been required (they weren't), Atta and others on board were trained, and had more than enough preparation to do what they did.

Let's face it...landing isn't exactly rocket science, but takes more skill and attention that simply running an aircraft into an object. They didn't need to land; just hit something. So simple, as they say, that even a caveman could do it.

[Rainboe]

A very good explanation, but your are making the mistake of using rationality and educated logic to try and dissuade a conspiracy theorist from his chosen path of an adamant belief that 'they' conspired to do something! These people are convinced even a religious President like GB ordered the destruction of the buildings and the extermination of anything up to 50,000 of his own citizens! They are very sick the idiots who believe in this nonsense. You will never have success using logic to explain to these fools that it was a genuine misguided, utterly evil, terrorist act, by sexually frustrated young religious males of a certain order who truly believed that there were 70 virgins up there waiting to party the night away! It didn't occur to them having destroyed their own bodies along with thousands of others, they had nothing to bring to the party...including themselves. Let these theorists carry on working out their peculiar (and mental) theories and conspiracies- they make complete asses of themselves and it's actually mildly entertaining.

[Cessna_Only]

SN3Guppy thanks for taking the time to provide a thoughtful response. It is greatly appreciated.

Unlike what others suggested, I am just asking a question--my mind is not made up one way or another. In fact, if you read my initial question, I state at the end that I'm skeptical of people who question the government story because pilots would be among the first to know if the story was bogus.

For years I was unaware that there were even "conspiracies" about 9/11, I was going about my own business raising my kids. I only recently began to investigate myself in an effort to debunk them. One group, calling themselves "Architects And Engineers for 9/11 Truth" has a NASA flight researcher (name is Dwain Deets, very high rank at NASA for 37 years you can look up what he is saying).

When I flew with my dad, he would bring the speed way down in order to land. If 9/11 plane crashes occurred at slow (landing) speed, it would seem to be a basic job to hit the tall buildings. The question in my mind has to do with the speed at impact, and the difficulty at that speed.

Regarding what other poster called "myth" here is the video I referred to

YouTube - Pilots Discuss Difficulty of WTC Attacks

The pilots identified themselves (you can see their names in the description) and I looked up their credentials. The person is indeed an experienced commercial pilot, and trains others on a flight simulator. Quite a few commercial pilots are discussing this topic on another website, but they are all stating that the government story is bogus, that's why I came here for a different perspective.

I posted this question on another forum and it was immediately removed. This is a frightening topic. I appreciate that it at least can be discussed on this forum, among adults.

[Chesty Morgan]

Becoming a pilot is simply a matter of money. If one can afford flight training, learning to fly isn't much more difficult than learning to ride a bicycle.

Well not really. There was a guy on my course who had money, in fact his entire family were extremely well off, but he couldn't hit an 1800 meter runway in an AA5. Even out of control! And he certainly couldn't have hit the WTC at 300 odd knots.

It does require a certain amount of ability and other things which are then improved by training.

How many times did you fall off a bike when you were a kid?

Anyway, set yourself up for a long straight arrival into the side of the building and no it wouldn't be that hard. But, if you are maneuvering, which I seem to recall at least one of the aeroplanes was then harder it would be, think about the difference in momentum, inertia, speed and maneuverability of a 767 compared to a C150. And no flight sim wont really help! Impossible? No. Difficult? Depends who you are.

We don't hit runways, we land gently on 'em.

P.S. I can be an idiot when I chose to be but I am still a professional.

[Load Toad]

The hijackers that hit the buildings had taken training though. They weren't stupid, they weren't untrained, they were highly motivated.

is it possible that 9/11 occurred using some type of homing beacon/remote control rather than inexperienced pilots?

So not knowing if all the planes would be successfully hijacked by cruel terrorists who were happy to slit the throats of anyone that got in their way and the fact that it might require some application of piloting skills to hit a building with a plane you are suggesting it is easier to do the hijacking of the plane bit, with all the violence involved and then set the plane up to follow some kind of homing beacon which I guess you are suggesting was placed by some government dept in the buildings they wanted hitting by the planes/
Well - why bother hijacking the planes then - why not use the same govt dept to infiltrate the airlines and adjust the planes electronics so that it would home into these beacons anyway...? Surly as simple to do as hijacking four planes and then having the hijackers following some electrical shenanigans to get the planes to follow the homing signal? Remote control? Any pilot or crew or passenger ever make a call suggesting 'oh my god we are under remote control?'

Grow up and get a life.

And what about the plane that crashed in a field - what homing signal was that following? Where is the homing beacon that was following?

Conspiracy theorists in my humble opinion show disrespect to the poor innocents that died for no reason.

[Rainboe]

Cessna only, you dressed up yet another attempt to raise this nonsense with some complimentary comments about piloting, but I'm afraid it still raises the same old dross!

Unlike what others suggested, I am just asking a question--my mind is not made up one way or another. In fact, if you read my initial question, I state at the end that I'm skeptical of people who question the government story because pilots would be among the first to know if the story was bogus.

First post:

Based on my (limited) experience, it would be extremely difficult for an experienced pilot to fly directly into a 215' wide skyscraper in New York at 400-500 MPH.

You evidently have preformed opinions which allows you, with the barest of piloting experience, to come to the conclusion in the second quote! How do you know? I would say one 767 almost did miss the tower, he went in with a lot of bank. My (unlimited) piloting experience tells me it is not hard to hit a target direct with limited piloting experience. We don't exactly know how much time these evil murderers had and even who was flying. Yet people have these daft theories that they were 'guided' in! Hell, I can't even 'guide' a RC model aeroplane reliably, but somehow these things were supposed to be fitted with auto controls, and all it shows is that the people who go around peddling this nonsense are several lightbulbs short of a full house of lighting.

My advice is drop this nonsense. It happened. We have to pick up the pieces. Threads about this are removed from forums and people are attacked because it is simply a mental refusal to accept the facts. But don't go raising this garbage, especially where you are going to get bitten by logic, and then start the 'offended conspiracy theorist' act. It is a total and utter bore having to deal with repeated attempts to create a conspiracy where none existed.

[H.Finn]

This thread should have been closed after I gave the full and complete answer to the question presented...

[Rainboe]

Agreed! The conspiracy nutters take it as 'they' mysteriously closed off any discussion about the subject meaning that there IS a conspiracy of silence about the original conspiracy and all discussion must be cut off. They don't understand that it is themselves who are mentally ill, and rational people are totally and utterly bored about their various ravings about a 911 conspiracy! How can we remove these bores if the moderators won't?

It seems to me it does a terrible disservice to the memories of the many good people who were murdered that day when nutters KEEP raising their conspiracy theories like this. Did you notice the way the title did not reflect the content- the fact it was another attempt to get a discussion about 911 conspiracies going wasn't mentioned anywhere? The kick off with a few complimentary things to get a favorable frame of mind- and wham, you can foister your conspiracy prejudices on the world! Very clever. But insulting to the victims' memories, and I think this idiocy is unwelcome here.

[Planemike]

How can we remove these bores if the moderators won't?

Why do you want to? They are bores, that is you view? Rainboe, we live in democracy people do hold different views. Just accept that they do........

I do not subscribe to this conspiracy theory, if that is what it is, but certainly defend anyones right to hold another viewand express it. If you read the original post if just seemed like a question.

Planemike

[Groucho]

"Dear Sir,

I wish to complain most strongly about the appalling program you showed on television last night at 10. The pornographic content was quite disgusting and I could not believe the bad language I was hearing.

For the whole hour the program was on I heard so much swearing and saw so much gratuitous sex.

I have never been so outraged in my life.

Yours,

Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells"

[sharksandwich]

Good point, Groucho!
But Rainboe is taking the trouble to explain why the CTs are wrong to pursue their nutty,even harmful, theories.
Imagine how feverished the brains of the CTs would become if the thread was locked, or worse, disappeared as soon as the subject was raised!