• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flight 175 plane speed challenged

twinstead said:
You have just jeopardized every single conviction based on DNA evidence that has ever happened. Even more, just about every conviction based on any evidence that required a chain of custody ever. In history. Congratulations!
Click to expand...


Also, he indirectly questions the exoneration of 207 Americans thanks to DNA evidence. Evidence for which he is unable to view the chain of custody. He must think these innocent Americans should remain in jail...

ETA: I'm thinking the only "evidence" that would satisfy ZEN would be if he was actually on Flight 175 when it hit the tower.
 
Last edited:
cmcaulif said:
I hope you realize when these planes reached the speeds they were tested at, they did not explode into a terrible fireball of screaming death.

This shows that these aircraft are certified to fly at 484 mph at these altitudes, meaning it is the upper limit for what is safe, which a terrorist clearly wouldn't care about.

I don't know how you jump to the conclusion that the aircraft cant possibly get to speeds of up to 100mph over this tested, recommended limit from this data.
Click to expand...
How do you jump to the conclusion that they can? What's another hundred mph? Why stop there why not 150 mph or 200 mph more? Where are your calculations now genius?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
How do you jump to the conclusion that they can? What's another hundred mph? Why stop there why not 150 mph or 200 mph more? Where are your calculations now genius?
Click to expand...

0.2 to 0.3 would seem a reasonable safety factor.

Wait a second how have you dragged me back into this discussion again? Describe what evidence you require or stop asking asinine questions we all know the answers to already.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
How do you jump to the conclusion that they can? What's another hundred mph? Why stop there why not 150 mph or 200 mph more? Where are your calculations now genius?
Click to expand...

You might want to notice that he did not come to that conclusion, but was rather questioning yours. More importantly, the calculations in his post were not his, but were quoted from a poster on another forum.

Please practice those reading skills - it makes this easier on all of us.
 
I've talked to the controllers at New York and Newark Tower, the aircraft almost rolled over into a sixty degree bank before it dove from apprx. 18,000 ft, The Newark controllers thought it was going to pancake into the ground, but the plane leveled off. If the plane was travelliing at 450 plus at 18,000 ft, and then dove 17,000 ft, in about 2 minutes how would it ever slow down and what would have made it slow down.
 
Cheap Shot said:
I've talked to the controllers at New York and Newark Tower, the aircraft almost rolled over into a sixty degree bank before it dove from apprx. 18,000 ft, The Newark controllers thought it was going to pancake into the ground, but the plane leveled off. If the plane was travelliing at 450 plus at 18,000 ft, and then dove 17,000 ft, in about 2 minutes how would it ever slow down and what would have made it slow down.
Click to expand...
(bolding mine)

Hitting something like, say, a large building.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
How do you jump to the conclusion that they can? What's another hundred mph? Why stop there why not 150 mph or 200 mph more? Where are your calculations now genius?
Click to expand...

The planes would not be given this certification without a cushion for a factor of safety.

I would really like to see your justification for why the planes can't reach those speeds though.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
How do you jump to the conclusion that they can? What's another hundred mph? Why stop there why not 150 mph or 200 mph more? Where are your calculations now genius?
Click to expand...

Where are yours? So far you are basing your assumption on people who have no experience in these areas at all. So let's see your calculations proving a plane 767 cannot reach 500mph at 700ft. That is despite the video footage proving it's possible. Even John Lear one of the biggest conspiracy theorists ever with 30 some years of flying experience even admits its possible. And also ignoring of course the video footage that shows a 767 hitting the building at 500mph.

I look forward to seeing your calculation Zen. Or will this be like your claim on flight 800 which you still can't back up?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Why don't you stop with your factless assertions? You have nothing.
Click to expand...


How can it satisfy you to argue with an avionics tech about a subject he knows inside and out? Your object is to promote your evil, insane cause. How does making a complete fool of yourself do the trick? You are a know-nothing with nonsensical, unfalsifiable beliefs. Enough already.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
How do you jump to the conclusion that they can? What's another hundred mph? Why stop there why not 150 mph or 200 mph more? Where are your calculations now genius?
Click to expand...
The top speed for the jets on 9/11 was 350 KCAS. I doubt you even care to figure out what KCAS is. The top speed is also .86 MACH, I am tired of looking up stuff the 9/11 truth movement never gets right in the first place. Do you understand .86 MACH? When you figure out what MACH means and what KCAS means, and then you figure out the MAX speed is not the Max speed, then you may be able to ask rational questions.

580 mph is about 0.86 MACH, I was wondering if truther understand where .86 MACH comes in to play? Or when 350 KCAS comes into play? There are no 9/11 truth movement experts. Zero. Only people who make up stories are in 9/11 truth. So not telling the truth, making up stories, is called telling lies.

As for the MAX speed, it is really a never exceed speed. The 767/757 will go faster than the 350 KCAS, and they will do it very easy, the engine in the 767/757 are very powerful and they can propel the aircraft well past the speed limit of the airframe. How fast can a 757/767, they can go as fast as the engines will continue to accelerate them! When the engines reach some critical MACH number where the smooth flow fails, then the aircraft will stop accerlerating and over the max speed at low or high altitude the plane could be damaged or bent.

I have to look it up, but the engine will go to a speed where a supersonic flow will start to cause major problems. You know the speed of sound, as the plane gets close to that speed bad things can happen. Planes as big as the 757/767 can go faster than sound; the planes I flew would loose engines and airframe damage will be happening, but it depends on a bunch of factors; many more factors than any truther will ever try to find out.

Still the fringe group know as 9/11 truth, is fact less and continues to ignore reality.

So can the jet go 100 or 200 mph faster than the low altitude speed of 397 mph? YES! We saw it on 9/11. Should you go 590 mph in a 767 at 700 feet? NO, you could end up crashing or loosing control, or damaging your aircraft.

Yes the plane can go MACH 1 in a dive as it fails; I had some friends who died in an accident, their aircraft exceed MACH 1 and broke apart in the air. Never point your plane (normal airliner type) at the ground in a steep dive for more than 6 seconds from cruise speed; bad news.
 
beachnut said:
Yes the plane can go MACH 1 in a dive as it fails; I had some friends who died in an accident, their aircraft exceed MACH 1 and broke apart in the air. Never point your plane (normal airliner type) at the ground in a steep dive for more than 6 seconds from cruise speed; bad news.
Click to expand...
The case of FedEx Flight 705 may be instructive here in terms of demonstrating that an aircraft can be flown beyond its rated maximums and still survive.

Quoting from the article on the aforementioned link (emphasis added):

The diving DC-10 accelerated past 500 miles per hour, then past the instruments’ capacity to register.
Click to expand...
The aircraft survived the maneuver and landed. It did however suffer damage as a result of the extreme manuevers the aircraft was put through.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Yeah sure. LOL

"CBS 2's Rafael Romo reports that a piece of metal about 12 inches in diameter landed just a couple feet away from Dorothy Gohn's bed as she was sleeping at her home at about 1 a.m."
Click to expand...

Which did not have a serial number on it and was matched to a plane with a damaged engine (found by the mechanic during post flight checks) which was registered to the company you mentioned after checks with the FAA

You dont even know what you think you are posting

Stupidity of the highest order again, a spelling mistake is easy to eaxplain for everyone unfortunatley your use of these quotes just show us one thing
 
Hey I know we're talking a Boeing 767 going 500MPH at 700ft, but if it's actually laughably absurd that such a feat is impossible, Zensmack89, do you think it'd be possible for a Boeing 757 to go 400 MPH at 100ft?

Seems to me, if 500MPH is laughably impossible for a 767 at 700ft, it should be a major struggle, if not impossible for a 757 to hit 400MPH at 100ft, yes? Near as I can tell the 767's power to weight ratio is comparable with the 757's.

-Gumboot
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
How do you jump to the conclusion that they can? What's another hundred mph? Why stop there why not 150 mph or 200 mph more? Where are your calculations now genius?
Click to expand...
ZenSmack:
You really should contact United with this (or the FAA). The pilot was clearly endangering the passengers and aircraft.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom