United Airways 175

[mike321]

I got started on this because my (former) sister-in-law introduced me it. She is a career airline pilot for SAS, and flew a prop plane for years making deliveries for the UN in Kenya. She's a foreign national who received her commercial pilot license from a private school in the American south, before training to become an airline pilot. She flies the same plane (767) and is considered VERY good at what she does. She regards the maneuver executed as next to impossible. I know how good she is at flying prop planes, and I know how experienced she is at flying the 767. If she thinks it's beyond her ability, I am inclined to look at the actual numbers closely.

I reviewed the account of this. The hijacker did not make the maneuver happen like a skilled pilot. It looks like he generally flubbed it, made a last minute correction, and hit the building. He could have missed he building.

[W. Rabbit]

That's a strong statement. Why do you think this?

Remember, you're using the maximum SAFETY rating for airspeed and claiming that number means planes should blow up at that speed...but that's not what that number means at all.

That's like saying the red on my car's tachometer means the engine will explode past a certain # of rpms. Not quite....but yes there is an increased risk of "redlining".

I did the calculations for 700 feet and they didn't affect the result.

The difference is about 5% atmospheric pressure difference per 300m above sea level. It's not a lot, but definitely the kind of difference that would move the where the redline for structural integrity of an airplane chassis sits. It definitely means the air pressure at 1000 feet is less than at sea level...about 5% less.

the maximum cruising speed for said plane,

No, it's not the maximum speed. It's the maximum SAFE speed, right?

the measured speed at disintegration for another plane of the same type

A completely different, unrelated situation with an entirely different set of variables, right? Like pilots fighting over the controls and possibly even hitting the reverse thrusters before impact?

a complete inventory of the pilots training detailing every instance he received instruction

Yes, it turns out there is actual (criminal) evidence that AlQaeda terrorists paid for and were training to do exactly what they ended up succeeding at?

and the reported failure of career 737 pilots to duplicate what was observed. Where is the hearsay?

The hearsay is accepting the anecdotes and personal opinions from pilots who are not connected in any way with 9/11, the terrorists involved, or the people who trained the terrorists.

On September 10th, 2001, I'll bet the same pilots would have told you it was IMPOSSIBLE to fly a jumbo jet into a skyscraper. COULD NEVER HAPPEN!

[Devil]

Another thing - all the opinions pilots have offered about these guys' skill level....you have to take it with a grain of salt.

First of all, everybody hates them and nobody is going to say "You know, old Mo was a pretty damn good student." Oh no. They're going to say they can't believe he could pilot a tricycle through a series of road cones.

Guess who disagreed? The instructors who signed off in their logbooks so they could go take their private pilot tests and their instrument tests and their commercial tests. And the FAA inspectors who took them on their check rides for those ratings. They didn't just **** their credentials. There were people experienced with pilot evaluations flying in the seat next to them making sure they could do the **** they were supposed to be able to do. And they saw that they could do it.

And nobody really knows how much simulator time they had. They could've had a simulator in their fucking living room. They're readily available and not that expensive. Some software, a couple big monitors and a few pieces of hardware and you're ready to go. It's not that big of a stretch to think a guy who already understands aerodynamics and flight principles could spend some time on a simulator and get enough of a grip to get an already airborne jet from point A to point B.

[Rivington]

I'm not basing my argument on her testimony, or on any other pilot's feeling that they could have made the hit; I'm looking at the fact that none of the veteran pilots who tried could duplicate the the feat in simulator.

Here's one:
http://911blogger.com/node/20232

[W. Rabbit]

I am not a conspiracy theorist, and I do not endorse any alternative view of what happened that day. Which conspiracy do you imagine I am theorizing about?

The conspiracy you keep hedging, and are now attempting to backpedal on?

I don't have to imagine; here are your quotes:

You'd have to conclude that the hypothesis that Marwan al-Shehhi piloted a 767 into WTC1 on 9/11/2001 is falsified.

As it stands, the idea that Marwan al-Shehhi flew UA175 at 447 knots into WTC1 is essentially discredited.

It's one thing to be generally skeptical, but another to claim that because you did some math and your pilot buddies said so, yadda yadda..."the official 9/11 report must be fake".

That's not "Evidence based reasoning" because you have no evidence. It's called "conspiracy theorizing".

The difference between sea level and 1000 ft amounts to 0.0025 Mach, which doesn't affect the argument being made at all.

IT does when you, Matt, keep using the term "at sea level" when 1,000 feet makes a 5% difference in the pressure of air above the plane, which certainly moves the redline for structural integrity at a given speed.

I'm not using max cruising speed, I'm using the measured speed that EA990 broke up at, at 22,000 feet, and looking for the equivalent speed at lower altitudes.

You can't compare these two situations. They are totally different. On EA990 for instance, there are indications you had multiple pilots fighting over control of the plane. So many different variables.

No. No it can't. Logic is logic. You can argue that I've set up the problem wrong, or that I misused a form of deduction, but you can't argue that the deductive form I used is invalid.

"Logic is logic"????

Your logic was FALSE, that is my point, because several of your "logical" statements, such as "a 767 going faster than X will disintegrate" have already been contradicted, and you've resorted to the logical fallacy of proof by assertion, that if enough 767 pilots say it can't ever be, then it can't ever be.

Ludicrously illogical.

[Devil]

In a recent scientific experiment using a 767 simulator, Rob Tucker was able to hit one of the towers 2 out of 10 times. The other 8 times he hit them both.

[Matt Phillips]

I reviewed the account of this. The hijacker did not make the maneuver happen like a skilled pilot. It looks like he generally flubbed it, made a last minute correction, and hit the building. He could have missed he building.

Reference please.

There is no "professional pilot" way of making that maneuver at high speed. The professional pilots who tried this in simulator all attempted to make these kind of corrections and failed.

[submessenger]

In a recent scientific experiment using a 767 simulator, Rob Tucker was able to hit one of the towers 2 out of 10 times. The other 8 times he hit them both.

I thought he hit the Pentagon, too.

[submessenger]

Reference please.

There is no "professional pilot" way of making that maneuver at high speed. The professional pilots who tried this in simulator all attempted to make these kind of corrections and failed.

Did any of these attempts make use of autopilot?

[Matt Phillips]

Remember, you're using the maximum SAFETY rating for airspeed and claiming that number means planes should blow up at that speed...but that's not what that number means at all.

I'm not claiming this at all. I used the speed that caused EA990 to fail.

That's like saying the red on my car's tachometer means the engine will explode past a certain # of rpms. Not quite....but yes there is an increased risk of "redlining".

What I actually said is more akin to pointing out that since your engine failed at a certain point past redline, that other cars of the same make are likely to do the same, given that yours is the only known instance of such an engine reaching that rpm.

The difference is about 5% atmospheric pressure difference per 300m above sea level. It's not a lot, but definitely the kind of difference that would move the where the redline for structural integrity of an airplane chassis sits. It definitely means the air pressure at 1000 feet is less than at sea level...about 5% less.

Yes, it moves it 0.0025 Mach. Not significant.

No, it's not the maximum speed. It's the maximum SAFE speed, right?

Again with this? I am not using the max cruising speed to make an argument about structural failure; I used it to make an argument about the handling of the aircraft.

A completely different, unrelated situation with an entirely different set of variables, right? Like pilots fighting over the controls and possibly even hitting the reverse thrusters before impact?

Reference for reverse thrusters please.

The hearsay is accepting the anecdotes and personal opinions from pilots who are not connected in any way with 9/11, the terrorists involved, or the people who trained the terrorists.

The only personal opinion mentioned in my entire argument is the veteran former captain of UA175 saying he felt it was impossible to make the observed maneuver.

Other people on this thread are making statements like "these pilots say it is possible" without references, quotes or context showing expert knowledge of the airplane in question. Not me.

On September 10th, 2001, I'll bet the same pilots would have told you it was IMPOSSIBLE to fly a jumbo jet into a skyscraper. COULD NEVER HAPPEN!

The towers were built with 727 impacts in mind, so... I doubt they would have said that. I think they WOULD have said that it would be next to impossible to do it on purpose and at 474 knots. Especially for a novice. And certainly for 2 novices to succeed twice on 2 attempts.