• 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

DavidJames said:
The facts regarding the reason for the collapse are in the NIST reports.
The facts regarding who attacked are in the 9/11 report.

Where are you facts that support an inside job?
Click to expand...
God. You can't even get this correct. NIST is a report on building standards that doesn't even include the collapse itself. Just a speculative theory on collapse initiation that is even disputed by a NIST insider.

As far as the 9/11 commission report goes not all of the facts are there. That's why it's now called the 9/11 omission report.

Now do you have any facts on flight 175?
 
fitzgibbon said:
And none from you. You're original assertion that the plane couldn't have been flying as fast as it was has been demonstrated as being the whole cloth argument it is. And yet you soldier on.
Click to expand...
Learn to read and understand the facts before you soldier on.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
God. You can't even get this correct. NIST is a report on building standards that doesn't even include the collapse itself. Just a speculative theory on collapse initiation that is even disputed by a NIST insider.
Click to expand...
You claimed to have read the report, it's clear now that you lied. You are also lying about what the insider actually said.
ZENSMACK89 said:
As far as the 9/11 commission report goes not all of the facts are there. That's why it's now called the 9/11 omission report.
Click to expand...
The report was created for intelligent adults, not delusional 9/11 CTists, therefore it did not include irrelevant issues.

Once again, you present no facts to support an inside job.

Over 1270 posts and not one fact. Well done CT boy. I'll check back with you when you reach 1500.
 
DavidJames said:
You claimed to have read the report, it's clear now that you lied. You are also lying about what the insider actually said.The report was created for intelligent adults, not delusional 9/11 CTists, therefore it did not include irrelevant issues.

Once again, you present no facts to support an inside job.

Over 1270 posts and not one fact. Well done CT boy. I'll check back with you when you reach 1500.
Click to expand...
It doesn't sound like you read either one.

Still nothing but personal attacks from you.

Oh yeah... flight 175 remember? Anything at all?
 
Bell said:
A simple yes or no would do, Zen. The black boxes and the transcripts from77 and 93, real or not?
Click to expand...
A simple response to the OP instead of a derail will do. If you want to talk about 93 and 77 start another thread. There I can school you and then maybe you can try to derail again or call in the moderators to try and rescue you.
 
So Zen:
You do not believe then that a plane (175) hit the (south) tower. This is correct right? I don't want to missread you.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
I'm saying it hasn't been proven to be flight 175.
Click to expand...
Your video says the plane can't go that fast. What part of that do you not understand? Witnesses and impact video show a 767 hitting the building. You are claiming this is impossible. Right? Then what is it?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
I'm saying it hasn't been proven to be flight 175.
Click to expand...

Then the obvious question is:
What evidence would prove to your satisfaction that it was, in fact, flight 175?
You will note that I did not use the common phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt", since that threshold has long since been passed.
 
So if Vne 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, [latex]$$\rho v^2$$[/latex]. 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 Vne at altitude. This seems to contradict the control engineer's claim that the plane would shake apart at 220 mph.
 
Terry said:
So if Vne 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, [latex]$$\rho v^2$$[/latex]. 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 Vne at altitude. This seems to contradict the control engineer's claim that the plane would shake apart at 220 mph.
Click to expand...
Oh there you go Terry getting all "mathie" on him.
 
Terry said:
So if Vne 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, [latex]$$\rho v^2$$[/latex]. 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 Vne at altitude. This seems to contradict the control engineer's claim that the plane would shake apart at 220 mph.
Click to expand...

Contradict by who? You?
 
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?
 
DGM said:
Your video says the plane can't go that fast. What part of that do you not understand? Witnesses and impact video show a 767 hitting the building. You are claiming this is impossible. Right? Then what is it?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Terry said:
yes. Is that a problem? What's wrong with my physics?
Click to expand...
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'm not a Boeing engineer, but I do have a B. Sc. in Aeronautical Engineering. How about you?
 
Zen you are losing altitude faster than flight 175

ZENSMACK89 said:
I'm saying it hasn't been proven to be flight 175.
Click to expand...

TjW said:
why is the DNA identification of twelve of the passengers not sufficient to uniquely identify flight 175?
DNA is a lot harder to forge than serial numbers on mechanical parts.
Click to expand...

Prove it was not flight 175. so far Zen you have no FACTS to prove otherwise. it is you that is doing the hand waving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom