My First Ever Banning

[Corsair 115]

At 35,000 feet, they are CRUISING at the best atainable speed while facing less air resistance than at 1,000 feet.

Relevant word bolded and capitalized.

Best crusing speed does NOT mean fastest speed possible. Best cruising speed means the fastest speed the aircraft can go while still being efficient in using its fuel. The aircraft can always go faster, but then it would become much less fuel efficient. Since fuel is one of the biggest costs for an airline, using fuel efficiently is of prime importance to both the airline and the aircraft manufacturer (look no further than the fuel-saving measures put into the design of the forthcoming Boeing 787 for evidence of how important fuel efficiency has become).

The B-17G, for example, had a maximum speed of 287 MPH at 25,000 feet, though it could reach a maximum of 302 MPH if war emergency power was used. The cruising speed, however, was 182 MPH at 10,000 feet.

The Lancaster B.Mk.I had a maximum speed of 281 MPH at 11,000 feet. The maximum weak mixture cruising speed was 227 MPH; the most economical cruising speed was 216 MPH at 20,000 feet.

500 mph[/B] agrees with 570 mph?

Is that 500 miles per hour or 500 knots? Though some assume the terms are essentially interchangeable, there is in fact a big difference between the two, since a nautical mile 15% longer than a statute mile (and knots and nautical miles are the traditional measurement system for distance and speed in the aviation world).

I understand that tail winds and head winds at 35,000 feet do effect arrival times which means they have a push or drag effect and since I'm sure airlines try to keep to schedule, if they had reserve speed that could overcome opposing winds, they would utilize this speed instead of stating the delay was unavoidable!

No, they wouldn't, because: A) delays can happen for a variety reasons, so it's not an unusual occurrence, and B) fuel is expensive. Going faster generally means burning more fuel, and airlines hate it when flights have to use more fuel than is necessary, since that means more fuel is needed to refuel the aircraft for the return trip, and that additional fuel costs money.

"As an aircraft moves through the air, the air molecules near the aircraft are disturbed and move around the aircraft. If the aircraft passes at a low speed, typically less than 250 mph, the density of the air remains constant. But for higher speeds, some of the energy of the aircraft goes into compressing the air and locally changing the density of the air. This compressibility effect alters the amount of resulting force on the aircraft. The effect becomes more important as speed increases."

But it doesn't become a major threat to the aircraft, depending on the design, until you're going really fast. Read up on the development of the P-38 fighter to learn how compressibility issues were discovered, and the threat it posed to fighter designs.

It was not in a power dive and 10,000 feet per minute is 113 mph.

10,000 feet per minute is a very substantial descent rate. Consider that a Boeing 757, for example, has a normal descent rate of 1,400-1,800 feet per minute depending on the altitude and speed.

 

[beachnut]

Combined with Dr.Kausel's belief in his accuracy of his calculations, something less than 500 mph would be a better interpretation.

It's only a lie if I knowingly misstate the truth. NIST believed in only one explanation for the collapses and the baseline speed of 546 mph wouldn't achieve collapse..570 mph did..hence 570 mph was "a good fit" in their opinion.

I have taken statistics. You like calling people liars apparently. Standard deviation combined with experimental error is a convenient way to have a big enough swing in possible parameter choice that inevitably it hits a number (570 mph) that achieves a predetermined result.

"The speed of the plane that crashed onto the South Tower can be determined with greater confidence than that of the North Tower. This is because there are several videos taken from different angles available which show the last few seconds prior to the collision.

500 mph agrees with 570 mph? What are you putting in your coffee?

Lying? Maybe the fact that the NIST baseline and less severe scenarios which were both higher than 503 mph, and failed to create a collapse initiation, explains why the severe case 570 mph parameter, which did lead to a collapse initiation, is so significant!

I understand that tail winds and head winds at 35,000 feet do effect arrival times which means they have a push or drag effect and since I'm sure airlines try to keep to schedule, if they had reserve speed that could overcome opposing winds, they would utilize this speed instead of stating the delay was unavoidable!

AS an interesting footnote, your friends at NASA had this to say:

Different jet, 3 of 4 engines. I checked. The 747 has a cruising speed rating of 640 mph. 650 mph hardly qualifies for what you like to call "well above its 'rated' speed", especially considering it was in an uncontrolled descent!

Whose the liar?

MM

No, the plane hit at 590, I checked it from the videos, you could do the same but you are stuck on some 500 number. BTW, 500 KIAS is 570 mph. So you guys stated ATC said 500, that would be knots, so 570 is good for mph. Are you not reading?

I assume your statisics class did not go well, since you are unable to figure out KIAS to mph very well or understand ATC works in knots. Who is...

Wrong about extra speed, an airliner crusies at .8 MACH, they could speed up to max speed only, .85 MACH for some jets, .9 MACH for others. That is not a lot of make up time if the wind is real bad. You would still be missing the ability to make up an hour on a cross country flight with real bad winds.

You got the 747 speed wrong, you need better sources. You are off a bunch. Top cruise of 565 mph or .85 MACH, how can you mess up numbers. Who is the liar? 640 and 650 are way over the top speed of a 747. Way over is just about anything over the do not exceed speed. Why are you messing this simple stuff up?

The impact of 175 was 590 mph, if you like I will give you 570. But lower is not right, and if ATC said 500, they mean 570 mph. Simple stuff if you try.

 

[Gravy]

 

[beachnut]

The bozo terrorist pushed up the throttles. I would like to know who coached them on increasing the impact speed. That person needs to be dropped from great altitude.

I can not believe MM thinks the speed matters after they passed 450 mph. It does not matter. Impact and fires at speeds over 450 were like a 1000 pound bomb, and the jet fuel, like 1000 guys setting fires in just one building.

Thank the fire department for getting all the people they could out. People saved over 5000 people on 9/11. Truthers need to develop the means to use their brain.

MM PMO.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry I'm not in awe of your self-proclaimed brilliance unlike most of the groupies here.

Brilliance is certainly more awe-inspiring than ignorance, Mirage.

Yes yes NASA I'm so impressed..golly gee.

Jealous!

I know from your posts that you have too much invested in a single belief to ever consider there might be another valid point of view.

Pot... Kettle...

NIST would propose anything that suited their purposes if they could present sufficient obfuscating data and calculations to mask the fact.

Circular reasoning.

End of story because your whole defence lies with an unwaivering belief that NIST would never do anything to satisfy a political agenda over a scientific one.

Strawman argument.

You've seen my responses. I suggest you clean up your act before you tell me what's wrong with mine.

That's easy: everything's wrong with yours.

 

[Belz...]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8790465fb6f7c9482.jpg[/qimg]

Dammit, Gravy! Damn you and your damned facts and evidence!!

 

[aggle-rithm]

Dammit, Gravy! Damn you and your damned facts and evidence!!

Yes, where is the innuendo? The hyperbole? The obscurely fallacious reasoning?

Bah! No style at all.

 

[R.Mackey]

Sorry I'm not in awe of your self-proclaimed brilliance unlike most of the groupies here.

It's only a lie if I knowingly misstate the truth.

I have taken statistics. You like calling people liars apparently. Standard deviation combined with experimental error is a convenient way to have a big enough swing in possible parameter choice that inevitably it hits a number (570 mph) that achieves a predetermined result. [etc., etc.]

You've seen my responses. I suggest you clean up your act before you tell me what's wrong with mine.

MM

Just go back and correct your statements, please. Your bickering has become increasingly unstable. Try to learn. Rationalization will not help.

 

[Miragememories]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8790465fb6f7c9482.jpg

Yeah awesome dive Mark! At that plummeting angle I'm surprised the wings didn't rip off...ya right!

Your subtlety is overwhelming!

MM

 

[Miragememories]

The bozo terrorist pushed up the throttles. I would like to know who coached them on increasing the impact speed. That person needs to be dropped from great altitude.

I can not believe MM thinks the speed matters after they passed 450 mph. It does not matter. Impact and fires at speeds over 450 were like a 1000 pound bomb, and the jet fuel, like 1000 guys setting fires in just one building.

Thank the fire department for getting all the people they could out. People saved over 5000 people on 9/11. Truthers need to develop the means to use their brain.

MM PMO.

Ahh apparently kinetic energy is only relevant when you refer to it.

Apparently speeds mattered to NIST.

I guess they should have consulted you first beachnut..might have been a cool $million in it for ya!

MM

 

[Corsair 115]

Miragememories,

Did my earlier post sufficiently explain what the term "cruising speed" actually means? I note also you haven't responded to a couple of my earlier comments and queries. It would be helpful if you did.

 

[Miragememories]

Brilliance is certainly more awe-inspiring than ignorance, Mirage.



Jealous!



Pot... Kettle...



Circular reasoning.



Strawman argument.



That's easy: everything's wrong with yours.

Do you use a macro for those 'canned responses' or do you wake up occasionally?

MM

 

[beachnut]

Ahh apparently kinetic energy is only relevant when you refer to it.

Apparently speeds mattered to NIST.

I guess they should have consulted you first beachnut..might have been a cool $million in it for ya!

MM

Not sure what spam you are up to this time, but it matches your grasp of the facts.

 

[Miragememories]

Just go back and correct your statements, please. Your bickering has become increasingly unstable. Try to learn. Rationalization will not help.

Wow Mr. Armpit of L.A., you certainly dumped the bulk of my response. I guess since you apparently feel a certain amount of ownership of this forum ignoring people calling out your pile of lies is felt to be your prerogative.

I can't do much amount your ownership of the peanut gallery but my respect for NASA lies with the old guard and not the new generation of pretenders such as yourself.

MM

 

[beachnut]

deleted

 

[Miragememories]

Not sure what spam you are up to this time, but it matches your grasp of the facts.

Just keeping toking on whatever it is you've copped beachnut.

It must be good stuff, the memory lapses are a sure sign.

MM

 

[Corsair 115]

I'm still here, Miragememories. I'll wait patiently while you dispense with your replies to the other posters in this thread whom you seem to have a distinct distaste.

 

[beachnut]

Just keeping toking on whatever it is you've copped beachnut.

It must be good stuff, the memory lapses are a sure sign.

MM

Found out you were wrong on so many topics? Why did you fall for the lies of 9/11 truth? When did you first find out you could not figure out 9/11 for yourself?

 

[Miragememories]

Miragememories,

Did my earlier post sufficiently explain what the term "cruising speed" actually means? I note also you haven't responded to a couple of my earlier comments and queries. It would be helpful if you did.

Drop over to the Loose Change Forum, identify yourself and I'll give you all the response you crave.

Here on JREF I'm the equivalent of the "visiting team". All the 'rank 'n file' see is the enemy and nothing else.

You'll get a fair hearing at LC as long as you don't respond like your in JREF.

MM

 

[beachnut]

Drop over to the Loose Change Forum, identify yourself and I'll give you all the response you crave.

Here on JREF I'm the equivalent of the "visiting team". All the 'rank 'n file' see is the enemy and nothing else.

You'll get a fair hearing at LC as long as you don't respond like your in JREF.

MM

Did you ever figure out if what ATC said about 175 speed?

You posted -

we
conclude that a best estimate for the speed of approach is 225 m/s (i.e. 810 km/hr, or 503 mph).
This speed is in excellent agreement with information from air traffic controllers, who reported
that “Flight 175 had screamed south over the Hudson Valley at about 500 miles per hour, more
than double the legal speed”6.​

6

M. L. Wald and K. Sack, “A Nation Challenged: The Tapes”, The New York Times, October 16, 2001,

Section A, Page 1

​

from http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter III Aircraft speed.pdf

But you do not understand, twice the legal limit is 500 KIAS, about 570 mph. The legal limit below 10,000 feet is 250 KIAS, not mph, but KIAS. They are in error thinking their speed match ATC due to the fact they did not convert the speed to mph from KIAS. ATC uses KIAS, and the guys did not check what units ATC was using. The proof comes from the slow motion entry of 175, you can get the speed very close to what it was.

Further, the paper talks about approach speed. The speed as it comes to the WTC. Since 175 was going about 300KIAS, and hit about 590 mph which is over 500 KIAS, the 500 mph average is a good approach speed and could be the speed seconds away from impact. Ideas?

But then you are too busy spamming the forum to stop and think. or are you? When did you first figure out LC was full of misinformation?

​