• 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 said:
Boeing is the company who manufactures the planes and the phone calls and responses are employees of Boeing. No one was twisting their arm and "got them" to do anything. It was their opinion. What you are offering is your opinion. Now here is the opinion of someone who actually flew the plane said to have crashed into the tower...
Click to expand...
I have flown Boeing aircraft, oops they can go faster than the speed limit! Oops, you have heard from a real pilot and other first hand not hearsay, yet you now post hearsay bs, get russ to show up. Fact is the Boeing Planes on 9/11, as the Boeing planes I have flown can go faster at low altitude than the 360 KCAS and the 420 KCAS (477 mph,)
ZENSMACK89 said:
RUSS WITTENBERG: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11... Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for... a so-called terrorist to train on a 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns,.. pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's... I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."
Click to expand...
Russ is wrong, gee, I have real experience with people, still alive who flew faster at low altitude than the limit of the aircraft. And I have put real people who never flew before in a simulator who were able to hit buildings with jets as on 9/11. No training needed, Russ is wrong again. Russ is wrong as seen on 9/11. A few pilots, fringe nut cases, make stupid statements as Russ has only to be proven wrong before they opened their mouths.
ZENSMACK89 said:
From your source....

Airspeed Limits: VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
VFC = 390 KCAS to 17,600 ft/382 KCAS at 23,000 ft/.87M above 26,000 ft, linear variation
between these points.
VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M
VLE = 270 KCAS/.82M
VLO = 270 KCAS/.82M

The most conservative estimate put up by any official version to date is 437 knots. And that is at below the 85th floor or 1045 feet not 23,000 feet. Fema estimated as high as 514 knots. Still even so the most conservative estimate is still above the top speed in your link.

You're still short of the official version speed.

Still below the official version speed and not tested by an amateur pilot.

And claimed to have all been done by an amateur pilot. How does this maneuver at this speed performed by an amateur pilot lend credibility to the official version?

Yes but it's hard to get that all in before they hang-up on you.

Now what you are claiming is the speeds said in the official versions are at least at the brink if not over and this was all done by an amatuer pilot.
Click to expand...
Listen carefully. The limits are like speed limits, they can be exceeded. As seen on 9/11 the planes went faster than the limits, and as I have seen when I flew, planes can go faster than the limits. These are facts not opinions, and you are short on facts.

Russ is not as good as a terrorist pilot, he can not exceed the limits? BTW, there were no 5 or 6 g turns or any fancy stuff, all the flying on 9/11 was easy no brainer stuff. Russ is making up junk like other truthers, he can be considered another liar. He says something can not happen, and then we have, before he said the stupid stuff, 9/11, real planes with terrorist exceeding the speed limits for 10 to 20 seconds.
10 or 20 seconds.
 
This is a joke right. I never understand why otherwise smart people waste their time taking silly topics seriously. It actually required over eight hundred responses and a 20 year aerospace engineer cutting in to explain why any modern commercial airliner would not overstress below supersonic speeds, would probably be controllable at transonic speeds, and certainly controllable at subsonic speeds (500kts). As for the Youtube caller, am I the only one who noticed he seemed new to the concept air is less dense at higher altitudes.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/25/attack/main501989.shtml

The second plane was flying so fast that it was in danger of breaking up in the air as it approached the south tower, Boeing spokeswoman Liz Verdier told the Times. “These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,” Verdier said. “It's off the chart.”
Click to expand...
Hello, is anyone home. Eight hundred responses and you still can't comprehend commercial aircraft aren't designed with fail tolerances tightrope close to their operating speeds. 600kts is trivial, Boeing 747's from the 1970's routinely did that continuously. It makes little difference if that occurs near the ground or in a dive, the airframes just aren't intended to operate properly above transonic speeds. The Concorde, which was however, traveled at Mach 2 (1,300+ kts) continuously, something military aircraft don't operate at, and the latest generation aircraft such as the F-22 Raptor are not even designed to exceed.
 
Beachnut wrote:

580 mph is about 0.86 MACH, I was wondering if truther understand where .86 MACH comes in to play? Or when 350 KCAS comes into play? There are no 9/11 truth movement experts. Zero. Only people who make up stories are in 9/11 truth. So not telling the truth, making up stories, is called telling lies. end quote


Hello Beachnut,

I am currently making a video debunking "September Clues" and no-planes, in general. My first video on 9/11 was called "WTC7 - This is an Orange" which can be seen on google video and U-Tube. If you have the time, I would appreciate it if you would contact me at the e-mail address shown at the end of that video, because I would like to confirm some of my own thoughts on the misleading material being posted, regarding the so-called impossible speed of Flight 175.

As you so rightly say: "making up stories, is called telling lies." and I want to get my facts straight, before I present them, because:

If truth be your goal it must be your method.

I hope to hear from you.
 
Last edited:
Anthony Lawson said:
Beachnut wrote:

My first video on 9/11 was called "WTC7 - This is an Orange" which can be seen on google video and U-Tube..
Click to expand...
Wait a second. You created the "WTC7 - This is an Orange (all other controlled demolitions are apples)" fallacy? Is that supposed to prove WTC 7 is a controlled demolition or not?
 
Anthony Lawson said:
Beachnut wrote:

580 mph is about 0.86 MACH, I was wondering if truther understand where .86 MACH comes in to play? Or when 350 KCAS comes into play? There are no 9/11 truth movement experts. Zero. Only people who make up stories are in 9/11 truth. So not telling the truth, making up stories, is called telling lies. end quote

Hello Beachnut,

I am currently making a video debunking "September Clues" and no-planes, in general. My first video on 9/11 was called "WTC7 - This is an Orange" which can be seen on google video and U-Tube. If you have the time, I would appreciate it if you would contact me at the e-mail address shown at the end of that video, because I would like to confirm some of my own thoughts on the misleading material being posted, regarding the so-called impossible speed of Flight 175.

As you so rightly say: "making up stories, is called telling lies." and I want to get my facts straight, before I present them, because:

If truth be your goal it must be your method.

I hope to hear from you.
Click to expand...
I watched your video; it is wrong; you do not believe in the truth; you believe in making up lies about 9/11.

Your video was wrong on so many levels. I doubt you need facts for your next video. You seem to make up stuff out of thin air. Fires were out; that is a good one.

Until you understand 9/11, you will never be able to know the truth. Your political bias must be clouding your ability to see reality.

You must of missed the goal of your post; you are a method liar.
 
Last edited:
SirPhilip said:
Hello, is anyone home. Eight hundred responses and you still can't comprehend commercial aircraft aren't designed with fail tolerances tightrope close to their operating speeds. 600kts is trivial, Boeing 747's from the 1970's routinely did that continuously. It makes little difference if that occurs near the ground or in a dive, the airframes just aren't intended to operate properly above transonic speeds. The Concorde, which was however, traveled at Mach 2 (1,300+ kts) continuously, something military aircraft don't operate at, and the latest generation aircraft such as the F-22 Raptor are not even designed to exceed.
Click to expand...


Just to be clear, are you figuring the Boeing spokeswoman was mistaken, or perhaps she was exaggerating for effect and the reporter misunderstood, or some such? Or am I misunderstanding you?
 
An apology

Beachnut:

Thank you for your response. How quickly you seem to have made up your mind about me and my position regarding 9/11. In the video I do not say the fires were out, I say "Most of the fires were out", which I genuinely believe to have been the case.

And: Yes, I believe if something looks like a controlled demolition then it most probably was a controlled demolition, because buildings do not usually collapse, in such a manner, without a unifyng influence. The "This is an Orange" video is asking people to use their own eyes and not to rely on the unsubstantiated claims of others, which you also seem to be suggesting, in some of your posts.

You clearly do not want to help me to get at the truth, regarding airspeed capabilities, so please accept my apologies for bothering you.
 
Welcome, Mr. Lawson. You and I disagree on the issue of controlled demolition, but you seem to be extremely civil, and (unless you are a sockpuppet :D) can stay on here and express your views without banning. As long as you keep your civility, I think you will find this forum a good place, in general. So again, welcome!
 
Anthony Lawson said:
Beachnut:
And: Yes, I believe if something looks like a controlled demolition then it most probably was a controlled demolition, because buildings do not usually collapse, in such a manner, without a unifyng influence. The "This is an Orange" video is asking people to use their own eyes and not to rely on the unsubstantiated claims of others, which you also seem to be suggesting, in some of your posts.
Click to expand...
Why does the penthouses and other roof structures stay at the top of the buildings in your comparison videos, but collapses first on WTC 7?

Are you forgetting about using your ears as well? Why is the sound of the explosive sequence in all of your comparison videos completely missing from 100% of the WTC 7 videos?
 
Anthony Lawson said:
Beachnut:

Thank you for your response. How quickly you seem to have made up your mind about me and my position regarding 9/11. In the video I do not say the fires were out, I say "Most of the fires were out", which I genuinely believe to have been the case.

And: Yes, I believe if something looks like a controlled demolition then it most probably was a controlled demolition, because buildings do not usually collapse, in such a manner, without a unifyng influence. The "This is an Orange" video is asking people to use their own eyes and not to rely on the unsubstantiated claims of others, which you also seem to be suggesting, in some of your posts.

You clearly do not want to help me to get at the truth, regarding airspeed capabilities, so please accept my apologies for bothering you.
Click to expand...
Your posts are veiled attempts at saying you are interested in the truth. Your silent explosives are cute, your lack of research is classic 9/11 truth movement standard hearsay and lacking facts. WTC7 is what happens to unique designs with steel only structure in fires that are not fought. They fail in fire. WTC7 had fuel, tons and tons of fuel; you can see the fuel burning, proof is in the smoke. The building burned all day; steel, even protected steel can not last in fires not being fought by firemen or fire control systems which failed.

Your lack of presenting the facts is disrespectful to those who died on 9/11. Why are you so shallow on this? Why are you spreading lies and trying to say it is the getting to the truth?

Your video failed to mention the fuel in WTC7
Your video failed to mention the damage to WTC7
Your video failed to mention the unique design WTC7
Your video failed to mention the lack of concrete reinforcement in WTC7
Your video failed to mention the failure of steel to support loads after short exposure to fire, even in WTC7

Your video failed to present the truth, it is so sad to see someone say they are after the truth and just lie. Sad people make up lies like you do about events for no reason. Instead of working and presenting the truth, you use shallow research and hearsay BS to make up lies.

The only thing you got right is the fact you agree people like you on this topic are liars. You posted it; I did not say it you did. If you need help understanding that you said it, you need to go back to school. I can see right though your thin polite facade down to the basic fact you are spreading lies with your video. Is this a sixth sense, or just my knowledge and experience?

You fooled me, I thought you were interested in the truth until I watched your fact less video pushing the standard lies of 9/11 truth. So completely ironic.

So what are your big questions about aircraft speed. Have I broken the speed limit on the jets I have flown. Yep, one day at 300 feet I went faster than I was suppose to for a few seconds (OMG, the terrorists went faster than they were suppose to, only for a few seconds [10 to 20, ok, more than a few] and they… hit buildings). But I slowed down immediately and we suffered no damage. Have I seen other planes go faster than they should, for more than 20 seconds? Yes, they actually had some skin come off; the aluminum skin peeled off under the wing. But they did not crash. What are the big questions so you can offer up your next set of lies as the truth? What can you twist that I will say into the "truth" that becomes a foul lie after you spin it? Why email, just ask right now. This is the aircraft speed thread.

If you think your video on WTC7 exposed truth, there is no need for you to worry about aircraft speed; Based on you Orange video, you can't find the truth when you see it.
 
Last edited:
Anthony Lawson said:
I am currently making a video debunking "September Clues" and no-planes, in general. My first video on 9/11 was called "WTC7 - This is an Orange"

As you so rightly say: "making up stories, is called telling lies." and I want to get my facts straight, before I present them, because:

If truth be your goal it must be your method.

I hope to hear from you.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1u6qZyQ4w
Who is going to debunk your video, which is a made up story? As you agree, your video is a lie. Why are you worried about debunking fellow 9/11 truth movement tripe when you can not even figure out 9/11 yourself?

Your video is as bad as "September Clues". What is your question on aircraft speeds?
 
Boeing builds their aircraft like tanks. Besides Joe Patroni said so.

A China airlines 747SP N4522V went into a hell of a ride falling from 410 to 9000 feet. Damage limited to stabilizers and the ol' bird held together quite well.

A similar incident in 1979 befell a TWA 727-31 N840TW but it too made it on one piece.

Of course such facts are trivial to a tinfoiler.
 
Wrong place!

I thought that this “forum” might be a source of some genuine information, but I seem to have wandered into a den of verbal thugs: “I disagree with what you say, and I will abuse you to Hell and back, for saying it.”

It’s been like wandering into a bar full of bikers and ordering the wrong drink, so you’ll just have to get on with your bigotry and find someone else to kick around, because: I’m out’a here!
 
Anthony Lawson said:
I thought that this “forum” might be a source of some genuine information, but I seem to have wandered into a den of verbal thugs: “I disagree with what you say, and I will abuse you to Hell and back, for saying it.”

It’s been like wandering into a bar full of bikers and ordering the wrong drink, so you’ll just have to get on with your bigotry and find someone else to kick around, because: I’m out’a here!
Click to expand...
Way to condemn a forum with thousands of members based on snarky posts by two members (me being one). Too bad you wouldn't stick around to defend your thesis. Your Doctor of Woomisprudence degree will have to wait.
 
Anthony Lawson said:
I thought that this “forum” might be a source of some genuine information, but I seem to have wandered into a den of verbal thugs: “I disagree with what you say, and I will abuse you to Hell and back, for saying it.”

It’s been like wandering into a bar full of bikers and ordering the wrong drink, so you’ll just have to get on with your bigotry and find someone else to kick around, because: I’m out’a here!
Click to expand...


You were looking for the "Everyone tells me what i want to hear" forum. That's down the hall with the letters LCF on the door.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom