• 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

ZENSMACK89

Banned
Z
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,068
Does anyone here have any ideas on how amateur pilots were able to maintain control of the planes at the speeds claimed let alone not have the planes fall apart in mid-flight?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY

Added: September 21, 2007
From: pumpitout
Here is a clip confirming what Joseph Keith had already established, that flight 175 could not have possibly traveled anywhere near 500 MPH at 700ft altitude. Verified by Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard and Boeing engineer Lori Bechtold.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC_total__rept.pdf

The hijacked plane that hit the north tower was American Airlines, Flight 11, a 767-223ER, estimated by government sources to be carrying about 34,000 L (9000 gallons) of fuel, and flying at about 211 m/s (470 miles per hour) [7]. The second hijacked plane was United Airlines, Flight 175, a Boeing 767-222, estimated by government sources to be carrying about 31,000 L (8200 gallons) of fuel and traveling at about 265 m/s (590 miles per hour) [7]. The 767-200 series planes had an overall length of 48.5 m (159 ft 2 in), a wing span of 47.6 m (156 ft), a fuselage diameter of 5.3 m (17.5 ft), and a tail height of 15.8 m (52 ft).
 
Last edited:
ZENSMACK89 said:
Does anyone here have any ideas on how amateur pilots were able to maintain control of the planes at the speeds claimed let alone not have the planes fall apart in mid-flight?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY

Added: September 21, 2007
From: pumpitout
Here is a clip confirming what Joseph Keith had already established, that flight 175 could not have possibly traveled anywhere near 500 MPH at 700ft altitude. Verified by Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard and Boeing engineer Lori Bechtold.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC_total__rept.pdf

The hijacked plane that hit the north tower was American Airlines, Flight 11, a 767-223ER, estimated by government sources to be carrying about 34,000 L (9000 gallons) of fuel, and flying at about 211 m/s (470 miles per hour) [7]. The second hijacked plane was United Airlines, Flight 175, a Boeing 767-222, estimated by government sources to be carrying about 31,000 L (8200 gallons) of fuel and traveling at about 265 m/s (590 miles per hour) [7]. The 767-200 series planes had an overall length of 48.5 m (159 ft 2 in), a wing span of 47.6 m (156 ft), a fuselage diameter of 5.3 m (17.5 ft), and a tail height of 15.8 m (52 ft).
Click to expand...

Looks like a good project for you. Maybe you should rent some flight simulator time and see if you can do it. Nothing like first hand experience to prove or disprove it.
 
This is stupid. The approach was a dive-in.

From Cheap Shot:
"One more thing I heard from the N90 Approach Controllers (New York TRACON), was that one had talked to a couple of the Newark Tower guys, and they saw the rolling turn that UAL175 made. He rolled out of about 20,000 ft estimated and put the aircraft in about a 90-degree bank. They said they thought the plane was going to “auger in”, and then he rolled out of the dive, and the aircraft was like shot out of a gun at the WTC, he was full bore, they said they have never seen an aircraft move that fast."

See this clip for description of the approach:


When approaching, they descended 10 000ft per minute.
 
Last edited:
ref said:
This is stupid. The approach was a dive-in.

From Cheap Shot:
"One more thing I heard from the N90 Approach Controllers (New York TRACON), was that one had talked to a couple of the Newark Tower guys, and they saw the rolling turn that UAL175 made. He rolled out of about 20,000 ft estimated and put the aircraft in about a 90-degree bank. They said they thought the plane was going to “auger in”, and then he rolled out of the dive, and the aircraft was like shot out of a gun at the WTC, he was full bore, they said they have never seen an aircraft move that fast."

See this clip for description of the approach:


When approaching, they descended 10 000ft per minute.
Click to expand...
Do you mean it's stupid to claim an amateur pilot could perform such maneuvers?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Do you mean it's stupid to claim an amateur pilot could perform such maneuvers?
Click to expand...

So you accept the speed?

flight 175 could not have possibly traveled anywhere near 500 MPH at 700ft altitude

This claim is stupid in my mind.
 
ref said:
So you accept the speed?

flight 175 could not have possibly traveled anywhere near 500 MPH at 700ft altitude

This claim is stupid in my mind.
Click to expand...
I don't know I'm asking on both counts. How did the plane go that fast and how were they able to maintain control? Do you think NIST has it wrong on the speed?

http://www.erau.edu/er/newsmedia/articles/wp7.html

*The problem with the conventional fan/fixed horsepower source combination, is that if the designer optimizes the fan for high altitude cruise, there may be nowhere near enough horsepower to drive the fan at sea level (because of higher air density) and takeoff performance may be severely impaired. If on the other hand the designer optimizes the fan for takeoff, then cruise performance sufferers as the fan can't ingest enough air to fully absorb the engines horsepower.


http://www.erau.edu/er/newsmedia/articles/wp7.html

*Due to the low atmospheric pressure at this altitude, the air density is less than one-third of that at sea level. This reduced density allows the aircraft to fly much faster than it could if the air was as thick as it is at sea level. Because the air at cruise altitude is so cold and dry, the water in the jet exhaust creates ice crystals, which leave behind the familiar streaks in the sky called condensation trails or contrails.

*http://www.democraticunderground.co...mesg&forum=125&topic_id=175931&mesg_id=176252
 
You know, airplanes have this peculiar characteristic that when one points the nose at something, the tail generally follows. :D

With that kind of vertical descent rate in a dive he could have completed the maneuver in a FLAMED OUT condition. In other words, he probably didn't need any engine power at all.

Boeing builds good airplanes, what's the problem?
 
Unsecured Coins said:
this isn't the first time I've heard the 700 foot claim. What's the importance of that?
Click to expand...

The importance of it is that it represents the tactic that truthers have of trying desperately to find ANY tiny anomaly real or imagined, question ANY tiny bit of the official story that may be even the tiniest bit inaccurate, and then claim the entire event was staged and everybody's lying.

They do this because they must; not only is there no actual evidence that it was an inside job, but they can't even come up with their own narrative of what happened that day.

It's called FUD...If you don't have evidence to support YOUR theory, then all you have to do is cast fear, uncertainty, and doubt at the competing theory in the hopes of discrediting it. Then you can attempt to cram whatever pile of garbage du jour you happen to believe in down our throats with no evidence to wash it down.

But, I would be interested in what's the deal with the 700 ft claim...
 
Last edited:
ZENSMACK89 said:
Do you mean it's stupid to claim an amateur pilot could perform such maneuvers?
Click to expand...
Boy are you wrong. An amateur with nothing to lose could easily do this. As a matter of fact, it's more likely an amateur would pull these maneuvers than an experienced pilot. The experienced pilot has years of training on what not to do that it prevents them from pulling such risky maneuvers. The over corrections that flight 175 performed are even more evidence of an inexperienced pilot.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Does anyone here have any ideas on how amateur pilots were able to maintain control of the planes at the speeds claimed let alone not have the planes fall apart in mid-flight?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY

Added: September 21, 2007
From: pumpitout
Here is a clip confirming what Joseph Keith had already established, that flight 175 could not have possibly traveled anywhere near 500 MPH at 700ft altitude. Verified by Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard and Boeing engineer Lori Bechtold.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC_total__rept.pdf

The hijacked plane that hit the north tower was American Airlines, Flight 11, a 767-223ER, estimated by government sources to be carrying about 34,000 L (9000 gallons) of fuel, and flying at about 211 m/s (470 miles per hour) [7]. The second hijacked plane was United Airlines, Flight 175, a Boeing 767-222, estimated by government sources to be carrying about 31,000 L (8200 gallons) of fuel and traveling at about 265 m/s (590 miles per hour) [7]. The 767-200 series planes had an overall length of 48.5 m (159 ft 2 in), a wing span of 47.6 m (156 ft), a fuselage diameter of 5.3 m (17.5 ft), and a tail height of 15.8 m (52 ft).
Click to expand...
Still no evidence to support your claims eh. Please read twinstead's post over and over until it sinks in. It describes your movement, and you, perfectly.
 
The beginning of this video shows the end-stage of that dive approach.



Unfortunately it's a truther video, but I couldn't find any other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom