Evan Burton

Maggie,

With due respect, to my knowledge you are not a pilot. I am. You don't need enormous skill, and these guys were licenced commercial pilots. They had practiced in simulators. The big turn around the Pentagon was to lose altitude.

With due respect, if it is so easy then why do they pay pilots so much? Can't have it both ways.

Because airline pilots have to deal with regular check rides, systems knowledge, be able to bring people through bad weather with minimal discomfort, handle emergencies, etc. That is when they earn that money (have a think about the recent Qantas incidents).

Also, there are levels of licences: private, commercial, and air transport pilot (ATPL). Commercial means you can earn money flying, including carrying a certain number of passengers. ATPL means you can carry the number of passengers like you find on airlines. That where the big bucks come in. Regular commercial pilots often don't earn a great deal of money; many are trying to build their flying hours in order to go across to the airlines.

Landing/crashing a plane into a 'particular' building is precision flying in my book. The side of a building is not so big in the whole citiscape. More like a needle in a haystack. If they wanted they could have just flown into any old building and just as much damage could have been done. But they flew into apparently specially chosen land mark buildings. Also why the big turn around for the Pentagon? Hanjour could have just flown at it from the direction he was coming but there was this big turn around.

Maggie,

With due respect, to my knowledge you are not a pilot. I am. You don't need enormous skill, and these guys were licenced commercial pilots. They had practiced in simulators. The big turn around the Pentagon was to lose altitude.

He could have dropped altitude any time on the flight from when they took over the plane. Why can't he point the plane down? Its going to crash anyway.

It's harder to hit a target coming straight down, rather than coming at it from an oblique angle.

Jack,

Please don't act like a petulant child. We cannot put the bio link in your details, you have to do that. Every other member has to do the same.

I have made your posts invisible until you comply with the requirement.

And... it is NOT a threat of banning. You have been told time and time again that neither myself or the other Moderators have that power. Only John or Andy can do this. Please do NOT make false accusations.

Thank you.

Landing/crashing a plane into a 'particular' building is precision flying in my book. The side of a building is not so big in the whole citiscape. More like a needle in a haystack. If they wanted they could have just flown into any old building and just as much damage could have been done. But they flew into apparently specially chosen land mark buildings. Also why the big turn around for the Pentagon? Hanjour could have just flown at it from the direction he was coming but there was this big turn around.

Maggie,

With due respect, to my knowledge you are not a pilot. I am. You don't need enormous skill, and these guys were licenced commercial pilots. They had practiced in simulators. The big turn around the Pentagon was to lose altitude.

Maggie,

Some of the quotes have been distorted by some people. See what was really said about the hijacker's flying abilities:

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

A very important point to note is that they were not being asked to fly precision approaches in bad weather, or deal with inflight emergencies; they simply had to guide the aircraft to a target.

Note in those three images the common position and operation of the control yoke, primary flight instruments, FMS (Flight Management System), power levers, flap controls, autopilot system, and VHF communications.

Yes Jack, they did spend time in a 737 simulator which is not unlike the 757 and 767. They also had cockpit diagrammes for the 757 and 767, flight manuals or handling notes for the aircraft, plus PC-based flight simulator programmes for those aircraft.

737 Cockpit

757 Cockpit

767 Cockpit

Jack,

You have been asked several times to correct the link to your biography. Please do so within 24 hours or your posts will be made invisible until you have corrected the oversight.

To in put a link to your biography:

1. Near the top of the page, on the right hand side, there is a link labeled MY CONTROLS. Click on that.

2. A new page will appear. Go to the left hand side, and look for the heading PERSONAL PROFILE. Under that heading will be a selection labeled EDIT SIGNATURE. Click on it.

3. A text box will appear. Simply paste the URL for your biography into that box, then click on UPDATE MY SIGNATURE at the bottom of the box.

We CANNOT do this for you; you have to do it yourself.

Thank you.

How Hard Is It to Fly a 757 or 767?

The AirSafe Journal™

17 September 2001

Vol. 1 No. 16

In the wake of the attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it is clear that one of the key factors in the success of those attacks is that at least one member of each of the four teams of hijackers was a trained pilot. While there is some question as to the amount of flying expertise possessed these hijackers, there is no indication that any of them had the level of experience or qualifications of an airline pilot. Whatever their level of expertise, it was sufficient to guide three of the four hijacked planes to their targets, causing the deaths of thousands.

Dr. Todd Curtis at the controls of a full motion 757/767 simulator

Many people have wondered how it could be possible for relatively unskilled pilots to do this. This writer is in a unique position to answer that question. I am a licensed pilot of very limited experience, with just under 100 hours in small, single-engine training aircraft such as the Cessna 172. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to take a short course on the 757 that included classroom training, individual computer based training, and about five hours in a full-motion simulator. This high fidelity simulator was the same kind of that airline pilots use in their initial training or to simulate a wide range of emergency procedures.

After about a week of training, I was familiar with the layout of the flight deck and with the operation of the flight controls, autopilot, and navigation systems. As a result, flying the simulator was much less difficult than I had imagined at the beginning of the course. The most difficult part of the simulator training was takeoffs and landings. On the other hand, flying the aircraft in other phases of flight was relatively easy, even compared to flying a Cessna 172. Changing the aircraft's course, speed, or altitude was not very difficult when using either the autopilot system or when flying the aircraft manually. The flight control system made the aircraft rather responsive and made it easy to perform normal flying manuvers.

Given my experiences in the simulator, I feel that if I were to be put into a 757's cockpit in the middle of a flight on a relatively clear and sunny day, I would be able to change direction and altitude without any trouble. Given a basic knowledge of a region's geography and of available navigational aids, I would also be able to navigate well enough that I could find a major city and fly the aircraft to any major landmark in that city. Because the basic cockpit layout and many of the procedures used in the 757 are almost identical to those of the 767, I feel that the same would be true for a 767.

In short, I believe that any person who has earned a private pilot's license and who has access to the same kind of ground school and simulator training that I received could fly a 757 or 767 well enough to hit a large building. Given the wide availability of this kind of training, it would appear that the kind of terrorist actions that took place in New York and Washington could easily be repeated in the future.

http://www.airsafe.com/journal/v1num16.htm

Len,

I dislike trying to download YouTube clips on my home network. If you already have it, could you give me a verbatim transcript of the high speed claim that Keith makes?

Thank you,

Jack,

I'm trying to go through the various posts in the thread to find original sources.

You said:

He (Keith - EB) also says that the planes would have shaken themselves apart at that altitude at over about 220 mph, and also something to the effect that the thicker air would also have stalled the engines. The government claims that the videos show the North Tower "plane" ("Flight 11") travelling at about 450 mph, and the South Tower "plane" ("Flight 175") travelling at over 500 mph. (...and in a dive of 10,000 feet descent per minute)

I didn't see that in a transcript you posted. Could you point me to where Keith makes the claims of:

1. Breaking up at low altitude over 220 mph; and

2. Breaking up at the higher speeds?

I want to make sure I address the original claims, and ensure I address what the claim said - not what someone else said it said.

Thank you.

Ron,

The "JREFers" are amongst the most hated by the "Truther" community. Although I don't always agree with the conclusions or methods or comments by some, I think that overall they do a credible job.

Take this exchange about WTC7; have a read and draw your conclusions. If you have the time and / or inclination, have a read through some of the other 9/11 threads.

Prepared to admit that Keith was wrong, Jack?

Just a guess without checking, but it might be a window washer cradle; the types that are lowered up and down the outside of tall buildings.

Keith Olbermann recently interviewed Gerald Posner, author of Why America Slept; The Failure to Prevent 9/11. I've excerpted a couple of comments by Posner.

POSNER:

I have absolutely no doubt about that. (The government simply took advantage of the Anthrax letters to use it as a tool to build up a case to go to war in Iraq) From everything that I've done on my own investigation and following up from 2001, I'm now more convinced than ever that there were individuals inside the Bush administration and in the government that wanted the war in Iraq so badly, that they decided that if there was something that they could use to push it forward, they would. Anthrax fell into their lap, even if he is the deranged solo killer, they used it in order to scare this country and say Iraq is somebody we have to go after, and we did

.

I don't know enough about the anthrax circumstances to say who did what or where or when, but that quote from Posner is very plausible IMO. They took advantage of 9/11. They took advantage of possible WMDs. They'd probably do the same with the anthrax.

That is point worth repeating, Len: the aircraft was being flown beyond it's normal operating limits. They are the limitations for regular safe flight. These people did not care if the airframe was going to be over-stressed or flown in an unsafe manner; they simply had to fly them into the targets.

Normal limits always have a safety margin built into them. For instance, from our AS350 Aircraft Flight Manual:

Torque (Nr) Limitation: 88%

-------

CAUTION: In event of torque in excess of 94%, the helicopter shall be landed as soon as possible. The sortie shall be terminated immediately. Maintenance personnel are to be contacted with details of the overtorque before further flight is considered.

As far as lowering the gear had high speeds, yes it would create a significant amount of drag but there would also be risks of overstressing the gear or ripping off any associated gear bay panels. It certainly would have to be an emergency situation.

James Randi Educational Foundation Press Release August 4, 2008

For immediate release

The JREF Welcomes New Foundation President Dr. Philip Plait

The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) is pleased to announce that Dr. Philip Plait – renowned astronomer, author, and skeptic – will be taking on the role of President of the JREF effective immediately.

The goals of the JREF are to bring critical thinking to the public, expose pseudoscientific frauds, and promote real science and rationality.

“Phil is a skeptic, a scientist, and a colleague, and his ideas and vigor will take the JREF very far indeed. We’re pleased and proud to have him take the reins,” said James Randi, internationally known magician and critical thinker, who is the founder and outgoing president of the JREF. “I will now be dedicating much of my time to completing my next two books, Wrong!, and A Magician in the Laboratory.”

Dr. Plait has a long affiliation with the JREF. He has been a speaker at all of The Amaz!ng Meetings – a JREF-sponsored annual conference series and the largest

gathering of critical thinkers in the world – and over the years has provided valuable advice and support for the JREF in scientific and other matters. During that time he has grown to be a strong part of the Foundation.

Before joining the JREF, Dr. Plait spent ten years performing scientific research using the Hubble Space Telescope, much of it as a contractor at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. It was at this time that he created the Bad Astronomy website, where he critically (and humorously) analyzes various astronomical myths and misconceptions. His debunking of the Moon Hoax (people who think NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings) became an Internet favorite, bringing in tens of millions of views.

His award-winning Bad Astronomy Blog is one of the largest and most popular scientific blogs in the world. In July 2008 it was acquired by Discover Magazine, where his audience continues to grow. Plait is an internationally sought-after lecturer and has given numerous interviews on national TV, radio, and podcasts. He has written two popular level science books: Bad Astronomy (Wiley and Sons, 2002), and the upcoming Death from the Skies! (Viking 2008), which deals with cosmic catastrophes. It was his first book that brought him to the attention of Mr. Randi, who asked him to speak at the JREF’s 2003 conference.

In fact, Plait attributes his current stature in the skeptical community to James Randi.

“When I was young, I believed in all sorts of antiscientific silliness like the Bermuda Triangle, astral projection, and the like. But then I saw Mr. Randi on television masterfully and literally dissecting psychic surgery [con artists who fake using psychic powers to do phony surgery on desperately ill victims], and he opened my eyes – and my brain – to the idea that reality is a better place to live in than fantasy. I owe it all to Mr. Randi, so I am very excited and deeply honored to continue his vision with the JREF.”

Outgoing President James Randi has pursued “psychic” spoonbenders, exposed the dirty tricks of faith healers, investigated homeopathic water “with a memory,” and generally been a thorn in the sides of those who try to pull the wool over the public's eyes in the name of the supernatural. He is the author of numerous books, including The Truth About Uri Geller, The Faith Healers, Flim-Flam!, and An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural. Mr. Randi's long-standing challenge for proof of claims of the paranormal now stands as a $1,000,000 prize administered by the Foundation. It remains unclaimed. Mr. Randi will become the Chairman of the JREF Board of Directors, where he will continue to guide the JREF and be a driving force for

its endeavors.

With Dr. Plait at the helm, the JREF will be expanding its efforts, including educating children. “I want to teach kids about the wonders of the real Universe. We can do this by partnering with the educational community and developing fun, hands-on materials that schoolchildren can use in the classroom to teach them about critical thinking and the scientific method. Science is sometimes taught as being cold and dull, but nothing could be more wrong! It’s exciting, it’s fun, and it’s cool. Kids are natural scientists, and we need to encourage that, foster it, and let it grow.”

The JREF was established in 1996 as a registered 501©3 organization under the IRS code, and as such, all donations to the Foundation are tax-exempt to the full extent under the law.

For further information and media inquiries, contact the JREF:

Via phone: +1-954-467-1112

Via email: jref@randi.org

More information on the James Randi Educational Foundation can be found online at http://www.randi.org/joom/about-the-foundation.html

Print-quality photographs of Dr. Plait are available on his website at http://www.badastronomy.com/pr/images.html.

Pictures of James Randi are available at http://www.randi.org/joom/press-center.html

Congratulations Phil!

Yet another example for Jack, from the B767 Limitations notes for instructors:

MAX AIRSPEED LIMITS & FLIGHT CONTROLS

VMO / MMO ………………………..….....…360 kt / .86M

Maximal Flap extension altitude……….……… 20 000 ft

Flaps 1…...…………………………………………. 250 kt

Flaps 5.......………………...………………………. 230 kt

Flaps 15.....…………………………………………. 210 kt

Flaps 20…...…………………………………………210 kt

Flaps 25…...…………………………………………180 kt

Flaps 30…...…………………………………………170 kt

(From the B767 Aircraft Flight Manual, Section 1, pages 7 and 13)

or

LANDING GEAR : Normal extension and retraction……………….………….270 kt / M.82 (AFM SEC.1 page 7).

Extension with alternate system…………………………..250 kt / M.75 (AFM SEC.1 page 7).

Flight with gear extended……………………..………….. 270 kt / M.82 (AFM SEC.1 page 7).

Max Tyres Speed ………………….………………..225 MPH or 195 kt

Tyres Spec…....H46 x 18-20 (Main LDG) & H37 x 14-15 (Nose Gear)

http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/plane/boei...nstructor/0014/

Why on earth would they have limits for gear and flaps that are beyond when the aircraft is meant to be breaking up, or the engines stalling?

Admit it Jack - Keith is wrong about the B767 breaking up at low altitudes at speeds above 220 mph. If you can't accept that, then anything you tell us to believe must be suspect.

So much for his low speed aerodynamic skills. Now we can look at the high speed claims.

As I have said a couple of times now Jack: I want to get the claim by Keith of "breaking apart at speeds over 220 mph / stalling engine" out of the way first, then we can concentrate on the high speed claim.

Will you now accept that Keith's claim about a B767 breaking at speeds over 220 mph at low altitudes to be wrong?

A simple yes or no will suffice. If no, what evidence do you need to admit he is wrong?

Thank you.

Since Mr. Burton is our self-proclaimed liaison with the "aviation fraternity"

I request that he ask all the frat boys HOW MANY OF THEM HAVE FLOWN

A 767 AT 700 FEET ALTITUDE AT 550+ MPH. That would certainly be a significant

contribution to our discussion, rather than posting non sequiturs, personal

insults, and other drivel. If he will post details of someone who has done

this, I will certainly take notice.

Jack

How about this, from:

http://www.757.org.uk/limits/lim1.html

From Sea Level to 8,000ft restrict airspeed to 313 kts for Bird Impact Protection. Above 8,000ft, observe Vmo / Mmo pointer and overspeed warning.

313 knots = 360 mph

This is for the 757, but the speeds are not dissimilar.

So you do not believe the pilots who fly the aircraft?

You do not believe Qantas documentation specifying limits?

What evidence will convince you that Keith is wrong?

Jack,

Are you satisfied that Keith is incorrect regarding his assertion that a 767 would break apart at speeds greater than 220 mph at low altitudes, and that the engines would stall?

I believe Mr. Keith, who was an ENGINEER for Boeing.

I do not believe UNTRUTHERS.

I am not an engineer.

Jack

Jack,

Are you satisfied that Keith is incorrect regarding his assertion that a 767 would break apart at speeds greater than 220 mph at low altitudes, and that the engines would stall?

Quick note - distances in kilometres (km) are actually appearing in the US! If you drive out of Tucson (south, IIRC), there is a section which has distances in km. A test programme, trial, or introduction... I don't know.

Gentlemen, I don't see problems with either of your posts.

Len,

Australia uses metric in almost everything. We do not use metres for altitude in aviation (though we do use it for aviation visibility).

Jack,

Are you satisfied with what I have posted with respect to Keith's claim about the 767 breaking up at low altitude above speeds of 220 mph, and stalling of the engines? Once we have that sorted, I will address the high speed claim.

So, do you agree his low speed breakup claim was inaccurate?

Jack,

You'll need to go into your personal profile and put the link to your bio in there. Moderators cannot go into your profile, and I don't think the Admins can do this either.

Also, you should read your PMs; it will avoid any confusion if you have been told about something or if a request has been made.

Quit posting such non sequiturs to fool the unwary.

250 knots = 287 mph.

The alleged speed of the two 767s exceeded 500 mph.

Your examples are irrelevant.

Jack

No Jack, they are not. Your Mr Keith said, and I quote from your post:

He also says that the planes would have shaken themselves apart at that altitude at over about 220 mph, and also something to the effect that the thicker air would also have stalled the engines.

This Keith person is wrong about the most basic of matters; for him to make such a statement demonstrates his lack of credibility in aeronautical matters. That is why it is very relevant.