Why Flight 93?

[Corsair 115]

Can a plane drop in altitude this fast and still stay in control.
8:58 AM 25,000 Feet
9:00 AM 18,500 Feet
9:02 AM 9,000 Feet

But then it hits the south tower at a height of around 1000 feet at 9:02:40 which means the flight descended over 8000 feet in 40 seconds. Would this not send the plane out of control...

Assuming the times and altitudes you posted are correct, let's do the math.

In the first two minutes, the aircraft descended 6,500 feet. That works out to a descent rate of 3,250 feet per minute. In the second two minutes, the aircraft descended 9,500 feet. That works out to a descent rate of 4,750 feet per minute. The last 40 seconds saw a descent of 8,000 feet, which works out to 12,000 feet per minute.

For comparison purposes, on a Boeing 757, the normal descent rate from cruising altitude with the engines at idle power is about 1,800 feet per minute. It would be very easy to descend faster by simply adding engine power. At full throttle and with a nose down attitude, I have no doubt a jetliner could achieve the descent rates mentioned. It wouldn't be recommended by the manufacturer, of course, but it could be achieved.

I'm sure if someone wanted to they could dig up the reports on commercial flights incidents or accidents which saw similar large, rapid losses of altitude.

This places speed between 668 Mph and 771 Mph Maximum cruising speed for Boeing 767 is 568 MPH and that is at cruising altitude.

Cruising speed is not maximum attainable speed. Cruising speed just means the speed, for a given altitude, at which the jet flies the farthest distance for a given amount of fuel.

The plane would go much lower speeds at lower altitudes.

What makes you think that?

these speeds are not attainable at the lower altitudes. And a plane going at these speeds would be out of control so badly hitting the tower would have been very hard to do.

Which sources?

 

[Gravy]

I do have one more thing to say before I leave and it is about flight 175s flght speed. I know this is flight 93 thread but just need to add this point here to clarify something...
Another finding off the net and i quoted on LC forum

This is my quote from there
"""This is Flight 175's descent. Can a plane drop in altitude this fast and still stay in control.
8:58 AM 25,000 Feet
9:00 AM 18,500 Feet
9:02 AM 9,000 Feet

When you quote specific information, please cite where it's from.

In its last few minutes flight 175 descended at a fairly steady rate of about 6,400 feet per minute, IIRC. You can check this PDF to see if my memory is serving me: [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Document 3: NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-United Airlines 175," Feb. 19, 2002 [Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Footnote 41]

Flight 175 was never out of radar contact. You'll find many eyewitness accounts of its approach and impact here.

Please read the 9/11 Commission report before continuing here. Is that a fair request, Ben? We have been over this stuff a hundred times with people.

Okay? Do we have a deal?
[/FONT]

 

[beachnut]

I actually did not say 707 could weigh as much as 767. what I said is what the 707 lacked for in weight it made up for in higher speed with reference to the amount of force the plane would have impacted the building. And the building was designed to take direct hit from fully loaded 707...well what I wonder why total building collapse as well. Anyways as much as I am enjoying my conversation tonight I really must go now as I will have trouble waking up in about 5 hours. But thanks to you all for the lively conversation tonight. I hope I have not offended anyone with my views or questions. And I do look forward to coming back again.

Ben

The 707 could weigh as much as a 757/767, but the 757/767 can go as fast as a 707 when you over speed them. In fact, on 9/11 it was the thrust which allowed the planes to accelerate fast and go faster than design speed. The true top speed of a plane is unknown; You will not find any smart pilots to test the MAX speed it can go; the max speed is for everyday use, like other limits, exceeding the limit has different effects.

WTC towers were not designed to survive a fully loaded 707 at 600 mph. It would survive a 180 mph impact of a 707, lost in the fog, low on fuel, trying to land. Why low on fuel and lost; because if you had fuel you would fly to somewhere so you are not lost in the FOG!

The design was for a SLOW speed 707, lost in the fog, low on fuel; that impact would be in energy like 187 pounds of TNT; The impacts on 9/11 were like 1300 to 2200 pounds of TNT.

 

[HL7442]

Wanna lose altitude fast? Raise a bit of spoiler, throttles at idle, and giver a bit of rudder.
If you were in a DC-8 then you could put #2 and #3 in reverse as well.

 

[PhantomWolf]

No, the planes were not out of control, the planes were only exceeding their maximum design speed for a short period, and they were going kind of straight for the buildings no fancy maneuvers. It is easy to go too fast, flight 175 may of had problems turning or doing anything as it was at it's top speed of 590 mph, but it seems the building was in the way. If 175 had lost control, it was bad that it hit the building, and the terrorist was close enough on his aim for any control problems messing up his intent.

Beachnut, I have heard a number of pilots say that they think that Flight 175 was not only likely to have had structural damage done to it due to the turn's forces, but that it was likely that had the pilot missed the building, the plane would have crashed anyways because the turn was likely tio have resulted in an unrecoverable stall. Would you consider these opinions correct?

 

[Reheat]

Beachnut, I have heard a number of pilots say that they think that Flight 175 was not only likely to have had structural damage done to it due to the turn's forces, but that it was likely that had the pilot missed the building, the plane would have crashed anyways because the turn was likely tio have resulted in an unrecoverable stall. Would you consider these opinions correct?

I'm not beachnut, he's gone to bed, but I'll give you an answer and then I'm going there too.

As you know, it's sheer speculation to predict what would have happened if he'd missed the building. I suspect there was structural damage to the aircraft of unknown severity. Whether or not the A/C would have stalled would have depended upon the pilots actions immediately after missing. He still had marginally enough altitude/speed to unload the G's and recover, provided structural damage was not severe. It's then likely he would have made another attack of an unknown outcome.

It's an amusing contradiction that the pilot of 175 did what troofers insist that 77 should have done, dive at the building from a marginal altitude/distance position. It is indicative of the pilots experience and better judgment that 77 did a descending turn rather than dive at the building, yet 175 did not do a descending turn and elected to dive at the building. Troofers then insist that 175 was not capable of that kind of maneuver while at the same time insisting that 77 should have done that in order to maximize damage to the Pentagon. They seem to want it both ways in order to impress others with their stupidity.

175 was in a flight regime where most likely no one had flown a 767 previously, so all is speculation regarding what structural damage it incurred or what might have happened if........ The Boeing test pilots press the limits, but I seriously doubt they took one that far. It's safe to say that Boeing builds good airplanes, 9/11 was a testament to that.

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut, I have heard a number of pilots say that they think that Flight 175 was not only likely to have had structural damage done to it due to the turn's forces, but that it was likely that had the pilot missed the building, the plane would have crashed anyways because the turn was likely tio have resulted in an unrecoverable stall. Would you consider these opinions correct?

I do not think the forces were that great, I need to watch the video a few time again. I never thought 175 was doing anything special, but high speed. I think if he did miss, the possibility of high speed stall and buffet would happen if he did not have a plan to slow down.

If the terrorist had missed, he may of had some trouble getting things under control, I think he was full throttle and accelerating. If it was like flight 77, the plane was accelerating rapidly. If he did not retard the throttles he would quickly reach some physical limit of something, like a high speed stall. It could take him over 4 minutes to get back to the same line up for the tower!

My encounters with high speed buffet/stall, were at high altitude and speeds above .9 MACH for the big jets. I have exceeded the speed of the jet I flew for a few seconds, nothing happen, and I lost no skin from the jet; another pilot was speeding and he tore of a few inches of skin under the wing leading edge. Once you exceed the normal top operating speed you get into the "warranty is up area". You could be in trouble, but you may be okay. Boeing makes a great plane, I expect things to go well right up to .95 MACH or 1.0. But at low altitude some things could get ripped off (like skin on honeycomb surfaces) due to the high Q (thick air).

It looked like 175 was doing fine at 570 to 590 mph at impact. Boeing builds great planes. Sad it was used on 9/11.

 

[Corsair 115]

I have exceeded the speed of the jet I flew for a few seconds, nothing happen, and I lost no skin from the jet; another pilot was speeding and he tore of a few inches of skin under the wing leading edge. Once you exceed the normal top operating speed you get into the "warranty is up area". You could be in trouble, but you may be okay.

FedEx Flight 705 is probably instructive in this area, as that DC-10 was put through some very rough manuevers during that incident but was still in good enough shape to land safely.

 

[HL7442]

TWA had a 727-31 go through a terrifying stall then diving spin from 39,000 to less than 9,000 in 1979 over Michigan. The pilots did a magnificent job saving the plane and of course Boeing showed it builds 'em like tanks.
China Airlines had a similar incident in 1985 involving a 747SP this time from 41,000 down to 6,000. The aircraft recovered and the only visible damage were to the stabilizers.

 

[Corsair 115]

...and of course Boeing showed it builds 'em like tanks.

The guys who flew B-17s sixty-plus years ago could have told you that.

 

[HL7442]

The guys who flew B-17s sixty-plus years ago could have told you that.

Yea that's right. Not to mention those B-29's that came back shot up.
Nobody builds 'em like Boeing.

 

[Corsair 115]

Nobody builds 'em like Boeing.

Well, Grumman also did a pretty good job building rugged aircraft during WWII.

 

[Reality Believer]

Yea that's right. Not to mention those B-29's that came back shot up.
Nobody builds 'em like Boeing.

Let me give an alternative argument. Having been a manufacturing engineer on MD-80 and MD-11 & C-17 assembly lines, I have heard the lore that the Douglas Aircraft were the top of the line when it comes to structural design. One example is the finger doublers where two panels come together. A finger doubler is an expensive design to manufacture, but structurally superior to a straight edge doubler that Boeing supposedly uses. I have never seen the inside of a Boeing, so perhaps someone familiar with the structure can comment.

Also, look at all the DC-3's and DC-9 series still out there punching holes in the sky. Douglas did it right.

 

[HL7442]

I mentioned Boeing only because it was part of the main topic. I like McDonnell Douglas/ Douglas aircraft such as the DC-8/-9/-10 as well as Lockheeds L1011 just as much as any Boeing aircraft. My apologies to those others.......Grumman, LTV, Northrop, GD.........

 

[wtcconspiracy]

well i think i am taking the topic of this thread away from flt 93 so i'll stop. Now back to that flight....exactly where is all the debris from it. And why do eye witnesses say they saw a small private jet. I mean i think we can rule out the explanation from the feds saying they had sent a private jet which was in the area to survey the site as all private flights had been grounded by FAA... So what happened in Shanksville....

Ben

 

[beachnut]

well i think i am taking the topic of this thread away from flt 93 so i'll stop. Now back to that flight....exactly where is all the debris from it. And why do eye witnesses say they saw a small private jet. I mean i think we can rule out the explanation from the feds saying they had sent a private jet which was in the area to survey the site as all private flights had been grounded by FAA... So what happened in Shanksville....

Ben

The plane was all there in PA. Sad you missed the facts on this case. The impact area is what a high speed impact looks like. A plane hitting the ground at 600 mph looks like the scene in PA when 93 smashed into the ground. The passengers and plane were all smashed into a few feet. It is sick to dig out pilots who have crashed at high speed, the metal and body are all smashed into a small area when a jet hits at 600 mph. You have not seen an impact like this, it is not pretty. Research and education would help you understand the impact of 93 looks like it should.

The small plane was asked by ATC (air traffic control) to see if they could see what happen! This is all public domain information how could you miss the information for the past 6 years.

Stop listening to the lies from the 9/11 truth movement and find some real sources to support your ideas. You could look up this information at the Library in serious publications.

And why do eye witnesses say they saw a small private jet. I mean i think we can rule out the explanation from the feds saying they had sent a private jet which was in the area to survey the site as all private flights had been grounded by FAA...

Not the most knowledgeable statement; the jet was asked to look; That is a fact. Your are wrong, when the FAA grounded all air traffic, it has to fly to a landing. Airplanes take time to go to airports. The FAA asked the jet, the little white jet to take a look! You could have looked this up a long time ago.

You are making up stuff, and calling people lairs now?

 

[HL7442]

The wreckage of that UA 757 is there but it's small and quite pulverized.
Here is a pic from a high speed impact involving a DC-8-54 from Trans Canada in 1963. Not much left either.

 

[wtcconspiracy]

The wreckage of that UA 757 is there but it's small and quite pulverized.
Here is a pic from a high speed impact involving a DC-8-54 from Trans Canada in 1963. Not much left either.

what was the size of plane in this crash compared to flight 93. What surface did it crash into as it did not look like solid ground

 

[wtcconspiracy]

The plane was all there in PA. Sad you missed the facts on this case. The impact area is what a high speed impact looks like. A plane hitting the ground at 600 mph looks like the scene in PA when 93 smashed into the ground. The passengers and plane were all smashed into a few feet. It is sick to dig out pilots who have crashed at high speed, the metal and body are all smashed into a small area when a jet hits at 600 mph. You have not seen an impact like this, it is not pretty. Research and education would help you understand the impact of 93 looks like it should.

The small plane was asked by ATC (air traffic control) to see if they could see what happen! This is all public domain information how could you miss the information for the past 6 years.

Stop listening to the lies from the 9/11 truth movement and find some real sources to support your ideas. You could look up this information at the Library in serious publications.

wow guess i never knew these planes could reach those speeds. When i researched the the boeing 757 the max speed was .80 Mach (530 mph, 458 knots, 850 km/h at 35,000 ft cruise altitude)....But so many laws of physics were broke this day i guess we can ignore the max speed a boeing can reach.....

 

[beachnut]

what was the size of plane in this crash compared to flight 93. What surface did it crash into as it did not look like solid ground

About the same size, like over 300,000 pounds max.

Plus it has 4 engines.