• 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.

Why Flight 93?

wtcconspiracy said:
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
Click to expand...
United airlines has the remains of the plane. I believe (And I can find the link if necessary) that 98% of the plane was recovered. The plane impacted the ground at over 600 MPH what do you think would be left?
 
wtcconspiracy said:
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.....
Click to expand...
Where does it say that that's the max speed it can reach. The plane was in an inverted dive at full power. I don't think Boeing specs that, do you?
 
wtcconspiracy said:
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.....
Click to expand...

Cruise speed does not equal top speed. Think about what cruising speed means. Top speed of a Boeing 757 would be 609 mph as shown at this link. http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/757.html

The plane hits the ground at 609mph there wouldn't be much left.
 
wtcconspiracy said:
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.....
Click to expand...
When you point a plane at the ground at angles greater than 10 or 20 degree, and in the case of 93 over 30 degree; the plane will exceed MACH 1 and could fall apart in the air with the parts coming down at speeds ranging from slow to over MACH 1. My friend was in plane which was in a dive and fell apart killing him after the plane exceeded speeds well past MACH1. So your ideas are flawed.

Sorry, this is why pilots do not point the plane at the ground at steep angles you crash and die. The top speed of an airliner going at big angles down is not based on it normal top operating speed.

There is no magic top speed, all things are free to fall to earth at rates dictated by physics. The top speed of some parts of the plane falling to the ground exceed MACH 1 and greater. The planes themselves are so clean and aerodynamic, they can go faster than MACH 1. You are not safe in planes by some invisible top speed thing! But exceeding the top speed limits at the different attitudes and limits can damage the plane, and the engines are limited to some top speed.
 
Last edited:
A standard DC-8 is a very large aircraft. The Super Sixty series are even larger.
The photo shows what happens to an aircraft upon striking the ground at a high speed and high angle of impact.
Aircraft do not come apart like some model airplane as the CT people claim.
 
wtcconspiracy said:
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.....
Click to expand...

The max speed for a DC-8 was around 520 knots at altitude. However in 1961 a DC-8 broke the sound barrier. But I guess that's impossible.
 
wtcconspiracy said:
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.....
Click to expand...


Please tell me that you are not serious.:boggled:
 
beachnut said:
When you point a plane at the ground at angles greater than 10 or 20 degree, and in the case of 93 over 30 degree; the plane will exceed MACH 1 and could fall apart in the air with the parts coming down at speeds ranging from slow to over MACH 1.
Click to expand...
There were claims during WWII that piston-engined fighter aircraft exceeded Mach 1 in steep dives. So it goes to show that with an aerodynamically clean airframe, high engine power setting, and a steep dive angle, any aircraft can hit speeds which are very, very fast.

It is, after all, one of the reasons WWII dive bombers had dive flaps or similar devices to help slow them down when in their attack dives.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, wtc, you've been given links to find all this out. I'm beginning to think that you're not serious about learning.

Do not waste our time with questions that have been discussed here 100 times. Use those links and use the forum search function. Clear enough?

Did you read the 9/11 Commission report? If not, why?
 
Corsair 115 said:
There were claims during WWII that piston-engined fighter aircraft exceeded Mach 1 in steep dives. So it goes to show that with an aerodynamically clean airframe, high engine power setting, and a steep dive angle, any aircraft can hit speeds which are very, very fast.

It is, after all, one of the reasons WWWII dive bombers had dive flaps or similar devices to help slow them down when in their attack dives.
Click to expand...
When you exceed the limit, like a Mustang going close to MACH 1, you are in serious risking test pilot zones, and if you are lucky to make it through, you will most likely avoid what ever you did to get close to killing yourself the rest of your flying career.

I could feel the KC-135 in a fine burble, like an approach to high speed buffet/stall, when I was pushing the jet at 0.9 MACH (602 mph) for 2 hours. I was very careful to stay ahead of the jet and not let the autopilot do something stupid, so I guarded the controls so there would be no large excursion if something went wrong. I think the airframe, the KC-135 (like a 707), was tested as high as .95 MACH (636mph), but I think .9 MACH was fine, and the plane did very well at it max range .7 mach, and I liked flying it at .81 MACH indicated to reach 99 percent max range and stay ahead of the power curve.

I took the top speed of .9 MACH as a serious limit, but I was happy to know when NEW, the plane did do .95 MACH and they did not crash and BURN. So with a top speed of 602 mph to 636 flight test point achieved, I was happy to know the plane was good for extra credit. BUT at low altitude the plane would loose skin from below the wing at speed as low as 400 mph. The envelope of a plane is not just a single speed, but it depends on design, altitude, and many other parameters. So going 600 mph low, you could suffer great damage over time, and if your plane is not perfect, as it gets older, the limits may become more meaningful. What you could do in a perfect new plane, is not true in the older bent up model.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
One of the things that always amazes me is that most CTs seem to claim that every part of what happens in their theory was meant to happen that way. With Flight 93 this would mean it was meant to crash at Shanksville. My question is why? What did having a plane crash in the middle of a field in the middle of nowhere actually achieve? Why was it necessary? What was gained from it?
Click to expand...
Who said it crashed there?
 
tomm said:
Who said it crashed there?
Click to expand...

Interesting first post there Tomm. Welcome to the forum.

I think you'll find that everybody says it crashed there. Everybody that is except for a few delusional crazy people. You're not one of them, are you Tomm?
 
Brainache said:
Interesting first post there Tomm. Welcome to the forum.

I think you'll find that everybody says it crashed there. Everybody that is except for a few delusional crazy people. You're not one of them, are you Tomm?
Click to expand...
Only delusional crazy people think a 757 crashed there. You're not one of them, are you Brainache?

And thanks for the "welcome."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom