In article <0CDmg.2106$IU2.1974@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, manic_mandy@hotmail.com says...

In news:AXzmg.79264$IK3.51439@pd7tw1no,
Robert Weldon <rweldon.spamblock@jrpspamblock.ca> typed:

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:27fmg.11822$OT.11198@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...

In news:Cg2mg.69845$4L1.1240@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com,
Bryan Olson <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> typed:

Nonsense. Small and surprising operations are the ones most
likely to escape the defense systems.

True but they still need to be undertaken with professionalism,
require preplanning, intelligence and coordination so require a
large and well organised infrastructure.

What is remarkable about 911 is the considerable amount of response
time available between the first and second plane hit should have
been sufficient
to scramble the fighters. Especially when you consider there were
helicopters on the scene and flying around within minutes and
helicopters fly much slower than fighters.

Admittedly one would not want to down a US civilian passenger
aircraft, under any circumstances. but the second plane could have
been buzzed sufficiently to send it on a different course,
particularly if the pilot was
inexperienced as we are lead to believe.

Flying into a skyscraper requires as much preparation and precision
as landing on an airport runway.

No it doesn't

Admitedly they didn't have to worry about slowing down too much.

You have to set a very precise course, you
have to descend in a controlled way, you can't just drop the nose
and drop 5000 feet since the plane could go into a stall and start
breaking up.

Going into a dive isn't going to stall the plane, learn something
about flight.

Wrong. Wings have structural limits IOW there is a limit to the air pressure
a wing can deal with. If you exceed a certain air speed in descent a plane
can go into an irrecoverable verticle dive or death spin and in some cases
the wings will simply snap off.

 >Any

one who has flown even a flight simulator on a computer would be
aware of how difficult it is to manually land a large aircraft, the
amount of pre-planning and control necessary. Most civilian
commercial aircraft pilots
rely on very sophisticated technology of one sort of another,
guidance systems, navigation aids, computers and air traffic control
in order to land
safely on a runway.

But they weren't trying to land, they were trying to ram the biggest
building in the area. And actually, no, it is quite easy to do that,
they just aim the plane at the tower, and pin the throttle, a monkey
could do it. And if you review the films, one of the planes very
nearly missed.

Do you know the kind of distance required to turn a large passenger jet
travelling at 500 mph?

Yet we are expected to believe two highly inexperienced amateur
pilots managed to fly two large passenger jets into these towers
with deadly accuracy with no proper navigation aids and extremely
limited flying experience, under conditions that were far from
ideal. i.e a hijacking situation and of course knowing they were
flying to their deaths.

As I said, it is easy to do exactly that.  Don't forget that they had
recieved flight training in commercial jets, not Cessnas.

Well yes that's obvious

The problem is even highly experienced commercial pilots would have
difficulty flying a passenger jet into a particular building
hundreds of miles away with practically no navigational aids. It
might be easy in a Cessna, or in a flight simulator, but of course
flight simulators do have navigational aids and would allow you to
make a second attempt in any case.

The fact that both missions were accomplished with such deadly
military accuracy does suggest whoever was flying those planes was
far from inexperienced. and/or had help from external sources, such
as some form of ground based pathfinder system using geographically
separated radio signals
as was used by bomber pilots in WWII to find whole cities, and
possibly some
form of ground based radar tracking system clandestine air traffic
control housed in a van or truck. Because without some form of
external aids it would be quite a feat for even a highly experienced
military pilot to undertake such a mission with such deadly clinical
accuracy. Whilst one might accept luck could play a part in a single
sucessful mission not only do you have it happening twice but 3
times if you count the Pentagon.

--
Amanda

Or maybe they recieved enough training to set the autopilot to find
New York, or used a map, you know, those pieces of paper that show
where things are, then looked out the window until they saw the
biggest fucking buildings in the area.  They were not particularly
hard to see.  And of course the smoke from the first hit would have
been easy to see by the second plane. The same goes for the Pentagon,
it is pretty easy to spot from the air.

We are talking Dick Dastardly and Mutely in Catch the Pigeon...right?

Have you ever been up in an

airplane?

Yes I have flown as a passenger on a number of occasions. But to be honest
apart from actually taking flying lessons, one can probably get a better
rough idea of how different planes handle on a flight simulator. I have
Warbirds III on my computer, mind the biggest plane in that is the B17
Flying Fortress LOL That's not easy to manoeuvre. However  I think I did
once successfully fly the spitfire in a Victory Roll between some factory
chimneys, but managed to hit them quite a few time before getting it right
good job one has endless lives and and unlimited supply of virtual aircraft
to trash :)

-- 
Amanda

One of the cruel unfunny moments of fate, is that in the mid-80s with the
Flight Simulator II you could fly over and buzz New York, and try flying
between the Twin Towers, running it on an Atari 8-bit computer...

A person training for the 9-11 missions, would have had flight simulator
training on the actual simulators used for Commercial Pilots to achieve
the precision that was achieved on that day...
Even John Lear said, he would be hard pressed to have done it, who is
an experienced commercial pilot.

Harvey