Posted on 06/22/2006 8:24:21 AM PDT by genefromjersey
NOTE: If you have security concerns,please respond with private message.
Hijacking 4 airliners on 9/11 required a helluva lot of planning - especially as to "flight plans".
It might have been "relatively simple" to hijack the planes ,and, since some of the hijackers had taken lessons,they could operate aircraft controls to some degree ; but how about the navigation?
Think about it for a minute.You take over an aircraft,but cannot reliably predict how long the takeover efforts will require,and what your location will be when this occurs.
You now have to change course and altitude precisely so you hit your intended target-instead of just any old building-at a certain optimum portion of the target.
What sort of outside assistance (if any) would have been needed ? What form do you think it would have taken ?
Your help would be greatly appreciated,as I am researching possible foreign government assistance in the events of 9/11.
I call BS.
It was a conspiracy, a vast right wing-neocon conspiracy.
How about navigation? Just buy a Garmin or Lowrance aviation GPS and you can fly a course to anywhere. Once you have a visual on your target you hand fly to the POI. No rocket science here.
I'm no pilot,but I suspect that with the WTC planes,they could have followed the Hudson south,found Manhattan (you can't miss it,I'm told) and from there the towers would be a piece of cake.
It's easy if you know how to program the navigation system. There are books online that show you how to do that.
VFR navigation is called "pilotage" - it is the art of looking out the friggin' window. Something weather forcasters have never mastered.
IBTZ
I seem to remember something stating that from above a certain altitude, the WTC were visible from a hundred miles away or more.
Those of us who happened to be in the Northeast on 9/11 clearly remember that it was a crystal clear day with a bit of a nip in the air.
One might think that a pilot flying at 10,000 feet in the region could have seen clearly for 100 miles or more.
My opinion here:
The planes being relatively modern, most likely just punch in the destination's coordinates in the the autopilot/navigation system.
That could be the case.The morning of 9/11 was a crystal clear one in the Northeast..one of those mornings without a hint of haze/smog.
I don't want to write about 9/11 - not ready yet. But yes, it was a clear, crisp day. Until the smoke started. Then it got foggy.
IB4TZ first time!
Disclaimer: I'm a flight simulator geek, not a real pilot. But, some of the addon stuff available for Microsoft Flight Simulator these days is so detailed and accurate, I think the information may hold true.
The four planes that were hijacked--two 757s and two 767s--all have basically the same cockpit layout. (I personally think this is one reason these flights were picked...the 757 and 767 were specifically designed to share a type rating, so if you know one, you can fly the other with minimum fuss.) One of the displays in the cockpit is a navigation display that shows where the plane is along the track programmed into the Flight Management Computer. It also can show nearby radio navigation beacons (VORs and NDBs) and airports.
So, the hijackers get into the cockpit, and sit down. They can look at the navigation display and tell where they are; if they have charts, they can really pinpoint their position and easily figure out a course to fly back to their target, either a straight course or maybe even navigating via radio beacons. It doesn't take a whole lot of advanced planning to figure out "OK, that's KCLE, so we're about 50 miles east of Cleveland, so that means we should steer about 090 to head toward Washington, that's close enough and we'll fine-tune it later," especially if they actually brought some enroute charts along. They can even dial a course and altitude into the autopilot and let the plane fly itself while they plan more. Then once they get close, they start descending and pick up the target visually.
They didn't need a grand conspiracy. All they needed was some reading material, a little flying practice, and the willingness to do it.
}:-)4
I can tell you that from a Cessna 152 on up through a '67, navigating the aircraft from wherever they gained control to visually acquiring their targets was essentially a "no-brainer".
Whether they used the Mark-1 eyeball, hand-held Garmin GPS, LORAN, on-board instrumentation, whatever, getting to visual range was nothing.
Sadly, actaully hitting the targets after sighting them was some decent stick and rudder flying.
Morbidly, on MS Flight Simulator, with the good scenery data, you could practice hitting major landmarks over and over.
Any student pilot, ready for his first cross-country flight would have the navigational skills to find the WTC. Ain't rocket science, especially with today's navigational aids, which they probably didn't need or use, as the trip was only about 150 miles. Shorter than my first cross-country flight.
Yep. The old morbid joke back on older versions of FS (when the default startup flight put you on runway 36 at Chicago's dearly-departed Meigs Field) was "so how many times have you hit the Sears Tower, and how many of them were intentional?"
}:-)4
all the planes that struck the WTC came from the northeast
you need no navigational aids you fly west till you see the hudson river and turn south or you head south till you see the coast and head west
on a clear day you could see the WTC from miles away
not to mention the WTC was one of the tallest buildings in the world and the pentagon is one of the largest building in the world
neither are too difficult to spot from the air
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.