Flight 175 plane speed challenged

[A W Smith]

I'm questioning both sides. Now the video provides a phone call to Boeing who seem to agree the plane can't go that fast at that altitude then they hang up when it get's a little too sticky for them.

Correction. they hang up when they realize theres a moronic idiot troofer on the other end.

 

[DGM]

I'm questioning both sides. Now the video provides a phone call to Boeing who seem to agree the plane can't go that fast at that altitude then they hang up when it get's a little too sticky for them. I haven't decided for a fact that flight 175 didn't hit the WTC I'm just looking for the proof. I don't see it. Now you can claim that a plane can do these maneuvers or even a 767 specifically can and that amateur hijacker’s can pull it off multiple times in one morning but no one is showing any proof that it can be done or that it was flight 175.

Why don't you contact the FBI/NTSB/United Airlines (FOIA) and ask for proof. You know really seek the truth. If I needed to know this that's what i'd do.

I'm surprised the "truth" movement hasn't done this already.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

So if V_ne is 593 mph at 30,000 feet, what would be the speed that produced the same aerodynamic forces at sea level? The forces scale with the dynamic pressure,

. So the speed for the same forces goes like the square root of the density ratio. According to my standard atmosphere table, the density ratio between 30,000 ft and sea level is about 0.333, so the speed for the same force at sea level is about 0.577 times that at 30,000 ft. So the airframe would experience the same forces at 342 mph at sea level as it does at V_ne at altitude. This seems to contradict the control engineer's claim that the plane would shake apart at 220 mph.

i just performed the same calculations and got 301mph, lower than yours but still higher than 220

i used this atmostphere table: http://www.pdas.com/e2.htm

also to be noted is that the airframe doesnt instantly fail at V_ne

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Zen obviously thinks a 767 plane hit the tower but not the 767 that has been reported as hitting the tower. It could be even worse in that he thinks that it was not a 767 but one of malcolms imaginary military strengthened bad boys but I will give him the benefit of the doubt here. I sincerely hope he is not a full blown no planer

If this is indeed the case, where is the plane that was reported as hitting the tower plus all the people who got on that flight?

Also who would have supplied another 767 to be flown into the tower?

The planes could have gone anywhere in the middle of everything going on. In fact there were distress calls over the Atlantic reported by the Coast Guard and there were reports of the actual claimed hijacked planes to have been landed. The ones that hit the towers could have been supplied by a number of different possibilities one being the drills that were being run that day.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

I'm not a Boeing engineer, but I do have a B. Sc. in Aeronautical Engineering. How about you?

I'm not but the person in the phone call is.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Why don't you contact the FBI/NTSB/United Airlines (FOIA) and ask for proof. You know really seek the truth. If I needed to know this that's what i'd do.

I'm surprised the "truth" movement hasn't done this already.

Yeah that has worked real well in the past.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2004/03/31/911-cover-up-confirmed/

And a Freedom of Information case against the F.B.I. for release of documents pertaining to her work for the Bureau, to confirm her allegations. The F.B.I. refused her FOIA request.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20050318/index.htm
FOIA Requests to Air Force Lost, Delayed and Ignored

Air Force Sued for a Pattern and Practice of Unresponsiveness to Freedom of Information Requests

Over 150 FOIA Requests, Some as Old as 17 Years Languishing at Air Force Without a Response

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I'm not but the person in the phone call is.

does the person have a name?

 

[Corsair 115]

This is speculation not proof of anything and to claim 3 amateurs hit their targets at the speeds and maneuvers claimed out of 4 successful hijackings all in one morning without one being intercepted is far fetched speculation.

As Bart Simpson once observed, the ironing is delicious. Zen engages full-on in speculation, disregards established facts, then chastises me for speculation!

The challenge is before you, Zen. Will you take it? Get a computer flight sim and spend some hours flying in it. Then, take a few ground courses of real flight training. Lastly, buy or beg some sim time in a real simulator. You'll be able to discover for yourself first-hand how easy or difficult it is, no speculation required. Will you do it? Or will you continue to rely on your lack of experience and knowledge as the foundation of your certainty?

I'm not a Boeing engineer, but I do have a B. Sc. in Aeronautical Engineering.

Excellent! Does that mean I could ask you some questions about accelerated stalls and parasitic drag?

 

[funk de fino]

The planes could have gone anywhere in the middle of everything going on. In fact there were distress calls over the Atlantic reported by the Coast Guard and there were reports of the actual claimed hijacked planes to have been landed. The ones that hit the towers could have been supplied by a number of different possibilities one being the drills that were being run that day.

The drills that were not running you mean?

Who owns 767 and who would have supplied one so that someone could crash it into the towers and where is the one that took off and where are the passengers? It was a 767 or do you disagree with this?

The reports of the landed planes were false. Believe me if any of those planes landed anywhere in the world the aircraft spottters would have seen them and recorded it. They really are dedicated, in fact more dedicated than you because you cannot even do the bare minimum of investigation into claims before you spout them here.

You really need to try harder and check your claims before embarrassing yourself on here with them.

Is this your thought, that the planes that hit were supplied by someone else and the real planes were made to dissappear with the passengers?

if so why? this overly complicates the plot do you not think? Much simpler just to crash the hijacked ones?

 

[BenBurch]

does the person have a name?

I doubt it.

 

[Mancman]

Why is that no surprise? Did they ship it overseas with much of the other steel or did it melt?

It is no surprise because the black boxes entered a steel skyscraper at 450-550mph inside a jet which then exploded, were resident inside buildings which burned for 55/102 minutes and collapsed into a million tonnes of debris spread over 16 acres, hitting the ground at over 100mph, the debris then burned for 100 days.

I notice you failed to mention the fact that plane seats and mail were found at the WTC, both of which are as flammable as a passport.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The problem is not the Boeings; the problem is that this very high rate of speed makes it even more unlikely the plane was being piloted by an amateur, and is more evidence the planes were actually being piloted by autopilot or some kind of remote navigation system like Global Hawk. All of us agree the high speed increases the difficulty of hitting a target.

Uhh... how does autopilot or remote control decrease the difficulty of hitting a target at high speed?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm saying it hasn't been proven to be flight 175.

Are you suggesting that it was a different Boeing 767, or are you suggesting that it was an entirely different type of plane altogether?

Edit: I see this has already been asked and answered. Whoops.

 

[BenBurch]

Forgive I didn’t know you were a Boeing engineer. Because if there wasn't one in the phone call I know for certain some people here would be asking me to provide one that claims the plane can't go that fast at that altitude.

I question whether you were talking to an engineer who knew what he was talking about, and if he worked for boeing, that worries me. What is his name? What sort of engineer was he? Where and when did he graduate? What does he do at Boeing? What Boeing plant is he attacked to?

 

[maxpower1227]

Are you suggesting that it was a different Boeing 767, or are you suggesting that it was an entirely different type of plane altogether?

"It's an entirely different type of plane...."

 

[Hokulele]

The challenge is before you, Zen. Will you take it? Get a computer flight sim and spend some hours flying in it. Then, take a few ground courses of real flight training. Lastly, buy or beg some sim time in a real simulator. You'll be able to discover for yourself first-hand how easy or difficult it is, no speculation required. Will you do it? Or will you continue to rely on your lack of experience and knowledge as the foundation of your certainty?

I haven't had any time in a 767 sim, but years ago, I got to try one of the real simulators for a 727 at Purdue (I was there as part of a conference). Taking off and flying are a piece of cake with even minimal training. I could land the thing in one piece on the first try, but any passengers would have had a miserable time. All I can say is that people who keep bringing up this particular argument from incredulity have no idea what they are talking about.

This was back before 2001, and I remember the airport simulated was SFO, and my co-pilot and I were joking about playing lawn-darts with the plane and various landmarks around San Francisco. This was back when it was funny.

 

[Terry]

Excellent! Does that mean I could ask you some questions about accelerated stalls and parasitic drag?

Sure, go for it. I know there are a number of other aero eng types on the forum too, so we ought to be able to come up with the answer.

 

[R.Mackey]

I've had enough of this

Mr. Smack, this has gone far enough. Think about what you're saying.

You claim that Flight 175 couldn't have hit at the speed NIST claimed due to engineering limits of the plane, and the laws of aerodynamics. That's your claim. Apparently this "truth" is so obvious that even you, with no background whatsoever in the subject, can see this by inspection.

Unlike you, I do have background in the subject. I have a Master's and Engineer's degree in Aeronautics from GALCIT. Furthermore, on the morning of the attacks, I was at the Boeing Commercial Aircraft facility in Everett, Washington, talking with real Boeing engineers. You want names? Sure. Our team lead for the day was Dr. Kirby Keller of Boeing Phantom Works, based in St. Loius. (Aside: I can hardly wait to see what the nutters think of "Phantom Works.")

So here's another fact for you. I'm planting my feet and telling you that the impact speed and trajectory of Flight 175 violates no physical laws, and was well within the performance envelope of the aircraft. Your "obvious" truth is wrong.

Now, it's possible that I've made a mistake. But I've given my unequivocal opinion. That's the fact. To reconcile this fact with your worldview, there are a few possible consequences:

1. You're simply wrong, as usual;

2. I'm a complete fraud, having bought my way somehow through grad school; or

3. I'm an Agent working under the direction of teh Conspiracy.​

I know you desperately want either 2. or 3. to be true, but unfortunately, this just isn't so. How can we tell?

What about all the other Boeing engineers? Let's start with Case 2. If the "truth" is really so obvious as you claim, and I can't see it just because I'm a moron, then any competent engineer should agree with you. Where are they? Boeing aircraft do fly, so clearly they have at least some capable engineers on staff. Why has not every single one of these people stood up and pointed out that this is impossible? What makes you think you're more versed in this subject than they are?

For that matter, why would NIST even put forth such a proposal if they knew it was physically impossible? Don't they know they'd be laughed out of their jobs? Don't they know Boeing would sue them from stem to stern for lying about their aircraft?

Which brings us to Case 3. Maybe I'm taking my orders, right now, over a little earbud speaker. Maybe I know you're right but I have orders to confuse you, because you're such a danger to our plans.

Again, what about all those other Boeing engineers? If I'm lying, and NIST is lying, why are they going along with it? Are they in on it too?

Do you know how many people work for Boeing?

Even if they are all in on it, what about Airbus? What about Canadair, Beechcraft, Pratt&Whitney, Burt Rutan, etc.?

If you're right about the physics of the situation, then it should be trivial to prove it once and for all. And you and your little friends would be the absolute last people to prove this. You bring no expertise to the table. The alternative is that basically the entire industrialized world is conspiring against you, and made up something clumsy and easily falsified anyway out of sheer laziness, when a more reasonable explanation would have sufficed.

This is, to put it mildly, mad.

Your insistence that Flight 175 couldn't have hit that fast is no less insane than Christopher Brown's insistence that the WTC Towers had a concrete core. You have no evidence. At best, someone made a mistake. Mistakes can be corrected, and in this case are easily corrected.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Mr. Smack, this has gone far enough. Think about what you're saying.

You claim that Flight 175 couldn't have hit at the speed NIST claimed due to engineering limits of the plane, and the laws of aerodynamics. That's your claim. Apparently this "truth" is so obvious that even you, with no background whatsoever in the subject, can see this by inspection.

Unlike you, I do have background in the subject. I have a Master's and Engineer's degree in Aeronautics from GALCIT. Furthermore, on the morning of the attacks, I was at the Boeing Commercial Aircraft facility in Everett, Washington, talking with real Boeing engineers. You want names? Sure. Our team lead for the day was Dr. Kirby Keller of Boeing Phantom Works, based in St. Loius. (Aside: I can hardly wait to see what the nutters think of "Phantom Works.")

So here's another fact for you. I'm planting my feet and telling you that the impact speed and trajectory of Flight 175 violates no physical laws, and was well within the performance envelope of the aircraft. Your "obvious" truth is wrong.

Now, it's possible that I've made a mistake. But I've given my unequivocal opinion. That's the fact. To reconcile this fact with your worldview, there are a few possible consequences:

1. You're simply wrong, as usual;

2. I'm a complete fraud, having bought my way somehow through grad school; or

3. I'm an Agent working under the direction of teh Conspiracy.​

I know you desperately want either 2. or 3. to be true, but unfortunately, this just isn't so. How can we tell?

What about all the other Boeing engineers? Let's start with Case 2. If the "truth" is really so obvious as you claim, and I can't see it just because I'm a moron, then any competent engineer should agree with you. Where are they? Boeing aircraft do fly, so clearly they have at least some capable engineers on staff. Why has not every single one of these people stood up and pointed out that this is impossible? What makes you think you're more versed in this subject than they are?

For that matter, why would NIST even put forth such a proposal if they knew it was physically impossible? Don't they know they'd be laughed out of their jobs? Don't they know Boeing would sue them from stem to stern for lying about their aircraft?

Which brings us to Case 3. Maybe I'm taking my orders, right now, over a little earbud speaker. Maybe I know you're right but I have orders to confuse you, because you're such a danger to our plans.

Again, what about all those other Boeing engineers? If I'm lying, and NIST is lying, why are they going along with it? Are they in on it too?

Do you know how many people work for Boeing?

Even if they are all in on it, what about Airbus? What about Canadair, Beechcraft, Pratt&Whitney, Burt Rutan, etc.?

If you're right about the physics of the situation, then it should be trivial to prove it once and for all. And you and your little friends would be the absolute last people to prove this. You bring no expertise to the table. The alternative is that basically the entire industrialized world is conspiring against you, and made up something clumsy and easily falsified anyway out of sheer laziness, when a more reasonable explanation would have sufficed.

This is, to put it mildly, mad.

Your insistence that Flight 175 couldn't have hit that fast is no less insane than Christopher Brown's insistence that the WTC Towers had a concrete core. You have no evidence. At best, someone made a mistake. Mistakes can be corrected, and in this case are easily corrected.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Nominated.

 

[T.A.M.]

lol...nice.

TAM