You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

The improbability of piloting UA175 [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 05:26 PM
Original message
The improbability of piloting UA175
Advertisements [?]
Officially, UA175 was piloted into the south WTC tower by a complete novice Boeing 767 pilot, Marwan al-Shehhi.

It was flown for the last few seconds of its existence at approximately 540 mph, and right before impact, the plane made a sharp bank to hit the south tower nearly dead on. The south tower was 208 feet wide, and the jet had a wingspan of 156 feet. There was therefore only about 50 feet leeway for a complete dead-on hit.

There has been a lot of discussion about whether a speed of 540 mph is even achievable near sea level with the type of turbofan engines that UA175 had. The official story thus holds that the plane was coming out of a "power dive", in order to reach this extreme speed. Nonetheless, 540 mph appears to be over the maximal operating velocity of a Boeing 767 at 1000 foot altitude.

The other issue is how capable Marwan al-Shehhi was of piloting a 767 to its target in the first place. The official story holds that once a plane is in the air, the only tricky part is landing, and that guiding it up and down, left and right, is not particularly hard. There is probably some truth to this argument, although one could see that an inexperienced pilot could easily lose control of the aircraft if there was too much maneuvering involved. Further, relatively easy piloting would only be applicable to ideal flying conditions-- not a life-or-death situation, where the plane was at an almost unmanageable speed. We are expected to believe that this amateur pilot was able to precisely aim the jet AFTER coming out of a stomach-churning, heart-stopping power dive.

Thus, the critical point remains that it is ridiculously improbable -- essentially impossible-- for an inexperienced pilot, under extreme duress, to steer a large jet plane, flying at or over maximal possible speed, to hit a very narrow target, within a few hundred foot altitude window.

Yet, people still believe the official story.

Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
  -The improbability of piloting UA175 spooked911  Nov-27-11 05:26 PM   #0 
  - "Why"?  zappaman   Nov-27-11 06:04 PM   #1 
  - I don't know.  Larry L. Burks   Nov-27-11 06:33 PM   #2 
  - Thanks Larry!  zappaman   Nov-27-11 07:45 PM   #3 
  - Someone has GOT to look into the abject failure of the chemtrails program  jberryhill   Nov-28-11 12:17 AM   #6 
  - Larry, how is your energy machine coming along?  jberryhill   Nov-27-11 09:49 PM   #5 
  - I don't believe the OP was saying there were planes (nt)  T S Justly   Nov-29-11 01:39 PM   #20 
  - Ah, spooked, enjoying the holiday weekend?  jberryhill   Nov-27-11 09:44 PM   #4 
  - Texas sharpshooter fallacy coming through!  KDLarsen   Nov-28-11 02:01 AM   #7 
  - "correct for crosswind"  spooked911   Nov-28-11 06:56 AM   #8 
  - if it wasn't planned, then in what sense would it be "precise"?  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-28-11 07:37 AM   #9 
     - "precise" in the sense of the visible execution and end result  spooked911   Nov-28-11 12:01 PM   #10 
        - say whaa?  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-28-11 06:32 PM   #16 
           - you're hopeless  spooked911   Nov-28-11 07:51 PM   #17 
              - if you had better arguments, you'd get better results  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-29-11 11:57 AM   #19 
                 - I may not have taken account of every rebuttal, but certainly I pointed out the power-dive rebuttal  spooked911   Dec-02-11 09:47 AM   #28 
                    - wake up  OnTheOtherHand   Dec-02-11 11:27 AM   #31 
                       - are you a lawyer in real life?  spooked911   Dec-03-11 06:53 PM   #33 
                          - I think you should stop impugning me and spend more time on your posts  OnTheOtherHand   Dec-03-11 07:44 PM   #34 
                             - funny, coming from someone who endlessly impugns me  spooked911   Dec-04-11 08:53 AM   #36 
                                - I try very hard to be patient  OnTheOtherHand   Dec-04-11 09:31 AM   #38 
                                   - On your general points, I understand your sentiments, and thanks for the anecdote.  spooked911   Dec-05-11 01:25 PM   #43 
                                   - that is clear, but not at all convincing  OnTheOtherHand   Dec-06-11 08:01 AM   #44 
                                      - do you think the "regulatory limit" of Vmo is arbitrary or for a reason?  spooked911   Dec-06-11 12:28 PM   #45 
                                         - so a bullshit Socratic number is the best thing you've got?  OnTheOtherHand   Dec-06-11 01:14 PM   #47 
                                         - I've answered plenty of your questions... jeesh  spooked911   Dec-07-11 07:24 PM   #54 
                                            - spooked, I could not make it more clear  OnTheOtherHand   Dec-08-11 06:35 AM   #57 
                                         - Since Vne = "never exceed speed" why are you so concerned by Vmo?  hack89   Dec-07-11 04:06 PM   #49 
                                         - The Vne of a 767 is .86 mach = 560 knots at 1000 feet.  hack89   Dec-07-11 04:12 PM   #51 
                                            - I think your first link is as I've pasted below  OnTheOtherHand   Dec-07-11 05:32 PM   #52 
                                            - But you agree that Vne is the speed you need to concern yourself with? nt  hack89   Dec-07-11 06:21 PM   #53 
                                            - let me put it this way  OnTheOtherHand   Dec-08-11 06:51 AM   #58 
                                            - it's not at all clear that Vne = 0.86 mach at 1000 feet  spooked911   Dec-07-11 07:42 PM   #55 
                                               - Then find a different calculation that gives a different result.  hack89   Dec-07-11 09:29 PM   #56 
                                   - btw, it's funny-- you clearly are interested in conspiracies,  spooked911   Dec-06-11 12:32 PM   #46 
                                      - ?  OnTheOtherHand   Dec-06-11 01:22 PM   #48 
  - please explain how you think I used this fallacy  spooked911   Nov-28-11 12:06 PM   #11 
  - I'll be you $1000 dollars I can do it. in a simulator  ryan_cats   Nov-28-11 04:46 PM   #12 
  - "1) Throttles, 2) Yolk, 3) rudder"  jberryhill   Nov-28-11 05:45 PM   #14 
  - I like my yolks, sunny side up  ryan_cats   Nov-29-11 03:59 PM   #22 
  - I don't think you'd need 4 hours to do it.....  Old and In the Way   Nov-29-11 09:13 PM   #23 
  - doing it at 540 mph is impossible  spooked911   Dec-02-11 09:34 AM   #26 
  - Plane breaks up  ryan_cats   Dec-02-11 10:55 AM   #29 
  - did you hit it going 540 mph?  spooked911   Dec-04-11 08:56 AM   #37 
  - I have tried -- using Flight Sim  spooked911   Dec-02-11 09:34 AM   #25 
     - I know you have a high opinion of yourself...  ryan_cats   Dec-04-11 07:22 PM   #42 
  - A few points of discussion  sgsmith   Nov-28-11 05:27 PM   #13 
  - Thanks-- a few points in response  spooked911   Dec-02-11 09:42 AM   #27 
  - Response  sgsmith   Dec-04-11 01:58 PM   #39 
  - I don't get the planned maneuver part  deconstruct911   Dec-02-11 11:15 AM   #30 
     - But flight 11 did bank.  sgsmith   Dec-02-11 01:33 PM   #32 
  - Spooked, you are right on time  LARED   Nov-28-11 06:01 PM   #15 
  - good info, thnx (nt)  T S Justly   Nov-29-11 01:52 AM   #18 
  - cuz they saw it on teevee  mrarundale   Nov-29-11 02:18 PM   #21 
  - The idea that there was mass panicking following Well's WotW broadcast is a myth  salvorhardin   Dec-03-11 07:51 PM   #35 
     - How do you know?  mrarundale   Dec-04-11 04:40 PM   #40 
  - That is an excellent question...  terrafirma   Nov-29-11 10:21 PM   #24 
  - Many don't believe it  mrarundale   Dec-04-11 04:43 PM   #41 
  - The Vne of a 767 is .86 mach = 560 knots at 1000 feet.  hack89   Dec-07-11 04:11 PM   #50 
  - This has been posted before  deconstruct911   Dec-11-11 03:41 PM   #59 
     - It's ALL been posted before D911  mrarundale   Dec-12-11 06:23 PM   #60 
        - You got me  deconstruct911   Dec-12-11 07:31 PM   #61 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC