WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Not at 500 knots and that particular maneuver.

So you admit that a plane hit the Pentagon.
That's a step in the right direction.

originally posted by: samkent
So you admit that a plane hit the Pentagon.
That's a step in the right direction.

Funny how truthers can believe 2 conspiracy theories at the same time that are opposite each other and both cannot be true!!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
Not at 500 knots and that particular maneuver.

It was not a hard maneuver, nor a small building so not hard to crash into it, especially for a commercial pilot!

As described by the official narrative, it is such a difficult maneuver that a handful of pilots who fly the airplane for a living are on record over at Pilots For Truth as saying they could not perform the maneuver. Good grief, according to the story he was nearly 100 knots over Vmo. That's absurd and impossible.

originally posted by: Salander
he was nearly 100 knots over Vmo. That's absurd and impossible.

So you think aircraft fall apart if they exceed Vmo.... typical truther facts there!

a reply to: Salander

Good grief, according to the story he was nearly 100 knots over Vmo. That's absurd and impossible.

Please do some research on non conspiracy sites before swallowing the hook.

Flight 11 - 470 mph
Flight 175 - 590 mph
Flight 77 - 530 mph

VMO is a “maximum operating speed”. It is one of many “V-speeds” defined for an aircraft that limit operation at various flight phases

The VMOVMO is the maximum permitted speed for the aircraft. This includes a safety margin, so pilots can reasonably fly near that speed. Exceeding it is not immediately dangerous, but as it reduces safety margins

There is another speed, VNE, the “never exceed speed”, which is somewhat higher and which marks the point where things start to get dangerous.

VNE for a 757 is 0.86 mach which equals 659 mph.

Excuse me for asking but why can't you look these things up yourself ?

originally posted by: samkent
Excuse me for asking but why can't you look these things up yourself ?

Well, the conspiracy sites do not like posting facts,
also if they looked it up at a valid site there goes all their conspiracy crap!

a reply to: samkent

Aw Sam, you make it too easy. LOL

Mach numbers are not really used below about 20,000 feet. Are you claiming that Hanjour was flying above that altitude?

If you knew anything about aviation besides what you read in Wikipedia, you would know that Vmo is a redline limitation. You would know that transport category aircraft were designed to fly at altitude, in the flight levels, and their performance at lower altitudes is quite restricted.

Go to school mate.

originally posted by: Salander
and their performance at lower altitudes is quite restricted.

Something else you know not much about, they are restricted for safety and fatigue reasons, when you are going to crash the plane into the Pentagon you do not have to worry about things like that

a reply to: Salander

and their performance at lower altitudes is quite restricted.

Below 8000 feet their restrictions is due to bird strike potential.
Actually it is dropped to just above 300 knots because the windshields are bird resistant only to 314 knots.

a reply to: samkent

If you could back up your claims with a copy of some documentation showing that to be true, you might have a leg to stand on.

Yours is pure sophistry.

a reply to: Salander

If you could back up your claims with a copy of some documentation showing that to be true, you might have a leg to stand on.

At the bottom right.
Flying Magazine

Bride strike report UK on page 5.
Here

And here

If you would look up the real facts you could climb out of this conspiracy hole.
IMO people who believe in conspiracies are afraid to look up the real facts.

originally posted by: Salander
As described by the official narrative, it is such a difficult maneuver that a handful of pilots who fly the airplane for a living are on record over at Pilots For Truth as saying they could not perform the maneuver.

And others say a descending, 250 knot turn until lined up with the pentagon, and then fire walling the throttles while still descending would be child's play. And in fact, children have used sophisticated flight simulators and done just that.

a reply to: samkent

We were not discussing the difference between Vmo and Mmo. I already knew that, as I fly jets. You offer dishonest nonsense.

The maneuver overhead the Pentagon could not have been flown by anybody, and I doubt a drone could do it either BECAUSE IT'S A TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRCRAFT.

They cannot maneuver like that.

Yes, an F-4 could do it, no sweat. A Pitts Special could do it all day long. But a 757 cannot do that maneuver as described by the official story.

a reply to: MrBig2430

Funny, the video I saw of a 737 sim trying to hit the towers when they were still in the database, it took type-rated pilots about 6 or more attempts because of an induced Dutch roll tendency.

Are you a gamer?

a reply to: Salander

The maneuver overhead the Pentagon could not have been flown by anybody, and I doubt a drone could do it either BECAUSE IT'S A TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRCRAFT.

So they faked the Pentagon plane but not the NYC planes?
Doesn't that add complexity to an already complex plan?

All this by a government that can't even deliver water bottles to New Orleans.
The same government that was duped into WMD's in Iraq.
The same government that screwed up the Bay Of Pigs.
The same government that screwed up the Iran Contra affair.
The same government that screwed up the Iran Hostage crisis.
The same government that can't hide the break in of a Washington hotel.
The same government that can't hide blow jobs in the oval office.
The same government where the head of the CIA can't hide an affair.

You expect us to believe they pulled off 911 in secret?

originally posted by: Salander
The maneuver overhead the Pentagon could not have been flown by anybody, and I doubt a drone could do it either BECAUSE IT'S A TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRCRAFT.

They cannot maneuver like that.

So you think it was a holographic plane....

a reply to: hellobruce

No, not a holographic plane at all. Numerous people observed an airliner flying by. They did not see it hit the building, but they did see it fly by, on a course that did not align with the course required for the official story to be true.

a reply to: Salander

They did not see it hit the building, but they did see it fly by, on a course that did not align with the course required for the official story to be true.

Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

a reply to: samkent

Such a desperate post and tortured logic you present Sam, but that is to be expected when one is defending a desperate untruth.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: hellobruce

No, not a holographic plane at all.

You really are very confused, you claimed

The maneuver overhead the Pentagon could not have been flown by anybody,

So it was not a plane, it must have been a holographic plane? Or what was it aactually?
'
remember, it had to have the same wheels as a 757
the same engines as a 757,
the same undercarriage as a 757,
the same passengers and crew as Flight 77,
the same fuselage as a AA 757....