Ex-CIA Pilot - No Planes Hit The Twin Towers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn't that the job of the communications tower at the airport? I don't think the twin towers had comms marra

They were massive skyscrapers dominating the skyline. I imagine once the hijackers saw this huge target they pointed the nose down at target and the rest was history. They didn't need to consider passenger safety, whether the aircraft could take the strain of the descent/turns or anything like that, it was just a case of lining it up and flying straight. I refuse to believe any pilot couldn't do that.
 


Suppose so, admitting he'd struggle to hit a massively tall building he's been locked onto for 15 minutes? Did he admit to putting himself in the position of a hijacker who was committed to flying a plane at high speed into a building and kill himself and everyone else doing it? Or is he speaking just as a pilot of 19,000 flying hours, who was trained to fly safely and not towards buildings with malice?
He just said the skill needed to be able to do that is unheard of.

I was thinking the same thing. It must have been some fire to melt steel? The aviation fuel of the planes was attributed to the heat that softened and caused the collapse of the metal structure of the Twin Towers but what would have been highly flammable to have generated the temperatures required to melt or soften the metal structure of the office block next to the towers?
Wasn't it first reported that the fuel would burn out on impact causing an instant scorch but not a lasting intense heat?

They were massive skyscrapers dominating the skyline. I imagine once the hijackers saw this huge target they pointed the nose down at target and the rest was history. They didn't need to consider passenger safety, whether the aircraft could take the strain of the descent/turns or anything like that, it was just a case of lining it up and flying straight. I refuse to believe any pilot couldn't do that.
I'm pretty sure flying a 767 isn't as simple as that marra :lol:
 
Do you mean "normally after a terrorist attack where 2 fully fuelled jet airliners were crashed deliberately at high speed into skyscrapers"? Because I don't think there's that much data.
Try reading my question again. Fully fuelled jet airlines were not crashed into WTC7 so why did it collapse? Building fires happen all the time, collapses like that don't.
 
I'm pretty sure flying a 767 isn't as simple as that marra :lol:

Once it's it's in the air and you have an understanding of the rudimentary controls, it is. That, and having no intention of landing it.
They planned it for years remember, they didn't just do it on a whim one morning.
 
Once it's it's in the air and you have an understanding of the rudimentary controls, it is. That, and having no intention of landing it.
They planned it for years remember, they didn't just do it on a whim one morning.
In flight simulators :lol:

Anyway I'm nee pilot, so I'm not going to say its easy.
 
He just said the skill needed to be able to do that is unheard of.


I'm pretty sure flying a 767 isn't as simple as that marra :lol:
Every time you see one of those Flight Deck programmes on Discovery, however big the planes get the pilots say how easy they are to fly. Anyway, somebody did it, so obviously not that unheard of.

In flight simulators :lol:

Anyway I'm nee pilot, so I'm not going to say its easy.
If simulators didn't accurately, erm, simulate the flying experience, there wouldn't be much point in using them. They're not like championship manager.
 
Every time you see one of those Flight Deck programmes on Discovery, however big the planes get the pilots say how easy they are to fly. Anyway, somebody did it, so obviously not that unheard of.

If simulators didn't accurately, erm, simulate the flying experience, there wouldn't be much point in using them. They're not like championship manager.
Aliens?

If simulators didn't accurately, erm, simulate the flying experience, there wouldn't be much point in using them. They're not like championship manager.
Champ managers not real????
 
Wasn't it first reported that the fuel would burn out on impact causing an instant scorch but not a lasting intense heat?
I'm not sure but I do remember watching a program that said the fuel contributed to the heat that the fire generated and caused the steel structures to soften then buckle? The Twin Towers were designed to withstand a 'normal' fire but not a one fueled further by aviation fuel was the programme's conclusion.
 
I'm not sure but I do remember watching a program that said the fuel contributed to the heat that the fire generated and caused the steel structures to soften then buckle? The Twin Towers were designed to withstand a 'normal' fire but not a one fueled further by aviation fuel was the programme's conclusion.

And this is why so many people believe it is a conspiracy.

All buildings which were raised that day met the specifications for fire resistance. At that time, the design was to provide 30 minutes or 1 hour fire resistance. This means that the main structure is insulated from heat for a period of time to allow the inhabitants to escape. All three buildings did this. They met the spec.

Steel begins to become ductile at around 400 deg C, and is fully plastic at temperatures around 600 deg C. The implication of this is that the columns, under load from floors above, will buckle due to this heat, if they have been subjected to heat for a prolonged period of time.

Aviation fuel burns at a hotter temp than this (1200 deg C iirc), but so does 'normal' fires fuelled by the contents of a building.

After this event, building codes around the world were changed, mainly because prior to this, we never saw anything like this to realise how a building would collapse. It's a sad fact that major steps forward in design are usually as a result of a major catastrophe. And it is all due to cost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top