911 'planes' - impossible speed

a flight simulation shows that it is impossible to fly a plane like the United Airlines Flight 175 on 9.11. above 300 knots, because you cant descend and it simply isn´t controlable any more.

Quite the opposite what N.I.S.T and FEMA claimed with 400 or nearly 500 knots.

www.youtube.com...
youtube.com/watch?v=1-9EMrna-WU

reply to post by anti72


Like that saying 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', the planes were witnessed and recorded doing those speeds which is a pretty reliable indication of them being capable of doing that when pushed to the limits of performance. Whoever was flying them definitely wasn't concerned about voiding the warranty, shortening the lifespan of the airframe or losing their license.

The AA77 flight recorder indicated a speed of 460 knots (527mph) was achieved close to sea level in a shallow dive. AA11 was in essentially level flight and hit at about 470mph, UA175 achieved a bit more (~540mph) in a steep dive before impacting (gravity assistance).

reply to post by Pilgrum


I may be being picky, but you just contradicted yourself.

the planes were witnessed and recorded doing those speeds which is a pretty reliable indication of them being capable of doing that when pushed to the limits of performance.

UA175 achieved a bit more (~540mph) in a steep dive before impacting (gravity assistance).

Why then, in a few videos of "Flight 175", do we see it coming straight in, NOT taking a steep dive before impact?

Oh, the inconsistencies of 9/11 plane videos.

I agree with the OP. Especially when looking into Flight 77. It would have dropped like a rock when making its descending turn. A 757 doing 527mph only a few feet above the ground? ...come on! They could've made up a more believable story than that.

reply to post by Niobis


Seeing the actual dive of UA175 depends more on the camera angle and field of vision/length of the video. Naturally a few of the videos show it better than others and it all comes down to how long the video runs, where the camera was, and how early it started recording.

Here's a fairly good video of the approach and dive. It's a little exaggerated by the depth of field caused by the zoom lens.

As for AA77, the whole point of the descending turn was to lose altitude and line up with the building.



[edit on 8/8/2008 by Pilgrum]

M.I.T. :503 mph - 437 knots?
F.A.A. :586 mph - 509 knots?
N.I.S.T :546 mph - 474 knots?
F.E.M.A :590 mph - 512 knots??!!

THIS SIMULATION IS BASED ON REAL FLIGHT DATA.
Verified by Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard and Boeing engineer Lori Bechtold. THIS TEST - above 360 mph - 320 knots level flight is impossible.
There are many professional pilots who also say this.

another engineer says its impossible, because its would desintegrate, at 700 feet.
www.youtube.com...

"I have flown the sims of the 767 and other airliners in MS Flt Sim, so I have an idea how complex flying and navigating these airliners is! And yea, I find it VERY difficult to believe that these supposed hijackers, when they had never, ever piloted a 767 or 757, were able to navigate these complex airliners hundreds of miles, to successfully strike those buildings. I would say it is absolutely impossible....especially if there were any IFR conditions along the way."

Can a 767 dive like this:
edit.81x.com...


Second 911 ST Airliner Remote Control Antenna Verified:
www.rense.com...


911 LIES ARE SO THICK YOU COULD WALK ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER ON THEM.





[edit on 8-8-2008 by anti72]

Reply button needs some fixing.

reply to Pilgrum

Yes, but it conflicts others-here and here (Moussaoui shot). The dive also contradicts a replay shown by NBC, however, this topic isn't about the fake videos. So I'll get back on discussion of speeds.

I'm not an aviation expert, so I don't know how accurate these numbers are.

Speed limits B767:

turbulent airspeed: 290kt/.78M
Vmo/Mmo: 360kt/.86M
gear extend: 270kt/.82M
gear retract: 270kt
alternate gear extension: 250kt/.75M
max tyre speed: 225mph (= 196 kt)
min speed above FL250: Vref30+100 kt
min speed for clean LDG: Vref30+50 kt

pilotsfor911truth.org...
pilotsfor911truth.org...


I know the descending turn of Flight 77 was to lose altitude, but if a 757 really did that, it would stall and fall like a rock.

Quote from documentary Loose Change:

"[Flight 77] could not possibly have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into a high speed stall."
...
"The airplane won't go that fast when you start pulling those high G maneuvers. That plane would have fallen out of the sky..."
-Russ Wittenburg, commercial and Air Force Pilot who flew two of the planes used on 9/11, WingTV

reply to post by anti72


The fact that the planes all achieved those speeds and were witnessed plus recorded on video doing it speaks volumes against those who claim it impossible. They exceed those speeds regularly at cruising altitude and it doesn't even take full throttle at that altitude so they have a bit of power to spare. I estimated the speed of the planes from the videos (the same way the other estimates were done) by counting how many frames at a known frame rate it took for the known length of the aircraft to pass a fixed point and I concur with the approx 500mph figure - I didn't simply take anyone's word for it.

The pilots were not concerned about pushing the speed above the 'barber pole' or passenger comfort.

The graph you posted lacks a lot of important info. The increased 'G' force produced in pulling out of a dive depends on the speed and the radius of the arc flown when levelling out (IE centrifugal force).

I've never seen the claim of the UA logo on the tail being a 'planar uwave antenna' before but I guess rense is the place to get such 'informed' analysis They seemed to miss the point that antennae are normally designed to match 1/4 wavelength of the resonant frequency and that uwave is considerably shorter wavelength than VHF by an order of magnitude or more so it's very flawed info to be taking it seriously.

9/11 was a perfectly clear sunny day and the pilot of UA175 wouldn't have needed much navigational skill because he'd be able to see the smoking WTC1 from 30 miles or more away from it.

reply to post by Niobis


Boeing has proven to be somewhat guarded about giving actual figures for the absolute maximum capabilities of their aircraft and those 'speed limits' appear to be the manufacturers recommended upper and lower limits, not the capability of the aircraft. They allow a huge safety factor to be sure that their planes at the end of their service life won't fall apart if flown within those limits.

Using a little trigonometry, a plane banked at 45 degrees loses 50% of its vertical lift and this can be compensated for with some extra throttle and the elevators (at the cost of extra drag). AA77's bank in that final turn varied between 15 and 42 degrees.

Here's a graph of the pitch, roll, and elevator position during that turn which reveals some erratic flying to maintain control and rate of descent:



[edit on 8/8/2008 by Pilgrum]

The speedometer on my car goes to 140 mph - I don't drive it that fast.
It is not safe to do it.

The maker (Boeing) and FAA set speed limits at low altitudes for
purpose of not overstreesing the airframe. Repeated stress causes
metal fatigue and shortens the life of the airframe . If you are paying
$50 million or more for each it is better to extend the life . If you
fly agressively at low altitude can shed pieces from aircraft from the drag.
Also passenger comfort - flying too fast at low altitude makes people
sick from turbulence encountered. Think hitting a speed bump too fast
in your car.

Of course if your purpose is to slam the aircraft into a building in next
few minutes flying fast at low levels it does matter if airframe is
overstressed or passengers are happy.....

right. I would trust the words of experienced pilots.


dont believe the lies.

Originally posted by Niobis
reply to post by Pilgrum

 

I may be being picky, but you just contradicted yourself.

the planes were witnessed and recorded doing those speeds which is a pretty reliable indication of them being capable of doing that when pushed to the limits of performance.

UA175 achieved a bit more (~540mph) in a steep dive before impacting (gravity assistance).

Why then, in a few videos of "Flight 175", do we see it coming straight in, NOT taking a steep dive before impact?

Oh, the inconsistencies of 9/11 plane videos.

I agree with the OP. Especially when looking into Flight 77. It would have dropped like a rock when making its descending turn. A 757 doing 527mph only a few feet above the ground? ...come on! They could've made up a more believable story than that.

If a 777 can do 360+ at 30 feet then pull up without a problem, why is hard to believe a 757 can with stand these speeds, espeacially if they didn't care if the plane was damaged while doing it?

You can find a video on YouTube of the 777 doing this I'm sure. Also it had Boeing executives on the plane when it did this. It was a type of celebration because it was the planes maiden flight.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by jd140]

Originally posted by anti72
a flight simulation shows that it is impossible to fly a plane like the United Airlines Flight 175 on 9.11. above 300 knots, because you cant descend and it simply isn´t controlable any more.

Quite the opposite what N.I.S.T and FEMA claimed with 400 or nearly 500 knots.

www.youtube.com...
youtube.com/watch?v=1-9EMrna-WU

What a load of rubbish!!!!

1) The aircraft has a TRIMMABLE HORIZONTAL STABILIZER.

2) HE/SHE DID NOT TRIM THE AIRCRAFT (FS limitations aside)

3) MSFS is hardly suitable for such a demonstration anyway, as the flight model is fundamentally broken and can not simulate the effects of high speed flight at unusual attitudes, never mind the effects of Mach buffet etc..

It is possible to fly a jet at 500 kts, but Mach is what is important. Jets like the Boeing 757 and 767 are designed to fly in the trans-sonic range. The trans-sonic range is approximately Mach 0.75 to Mach 1.2. This is the point where the airflow in certain places over the aircraft actually go supersonic.

An aircraft is actually deemed to be supersonic once the whole aircraft is subjected to supersonic airflows.

At sea-level, Mach 1.0 occurs at 760 MPH (assuming standard temperature). If you argued the aircraft was flying at 550 MPH, then 550/760 = Mach 0.72 at ISA.

At altitude, the aircraft is flying in rare air, so the indicated airspeed for that Mach at say FL350 would be something like 260 kts.

The only effect of doing this speed lower down is that the air is denser, so the relative airspeed is higher. It would be possible to fly at this speed, but ill-advised (and of course assumes the aircraft even has the power to accelerate to these speeds this low down in the first place). If you're hell bent on crashing anyway, you're not going to care.

This video proves nothing. It is quite feasible to fly at this speeds.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 8-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

I can not tell what is fake and what is real but I was watching the TV on 9/11/01 as the events were unfolding.
The news announcer said, We are going to a live feed from lower Manhattan." It showed a plane coming straight up the river going perfectly level and somewhat slowly, and crash into the building by making a slight adjustment to the right.
I saw that live and I never saw that same thing, or anything similar, since.
I had to go to work, so I did not have my head full of fake videos that were played, over and over, that day.
I had that one image burned into my mind and only in the last 9 months have been studying all the different versions.
I think a real plane hit the building but not how it is currently portrayed.
And what I saw was not just the final approach, it was from a distance from where you could barely see it and it looked like a normal flight, until the last second.
Watch the video of the people on the foot bridge on youtube and you can figure out where it really came from.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by jmdewey60]

Google Video Link

Check that Airbus in the vid above...it is flat-out Bookin'

Much faster than take-off or landing speed. I would "estimate" 450 MPH

If nothing else, just listen to an awsome Freddy King tune... and just keep denying the undeniable.


Planes can, have, and DO fly fast and low... Just not with paying customers in them, and around other regulated air traffic.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The fact that the planes all achieved those speeds and were witnessed plus recorded on video doing it speaks volumes against those who claim it impossible.

Show me one eyewitness who could accurately guess the speed of either the alleged AA11 or UA175?

The videos of those planes are hardly conclusive and are full of holes, as has been shown on many threads. I don't trust those videos to show real planes, as there is some clear interfering with the 'live' broadcasts on that day.

Besides, the videos do not positively identify the alleged planes that were allegedly used. Furthermore, the data recorders were not recovered to determine any alleged speeds of the alleged planes that impacted the towers.

There is no way to determine the alleged speeds of the alleged planes, it's all a fairy tale.

reply to post by Taxi-Driver


That is actually a French Air Force KC-135 bought from the US. Here's another one for you of an actual 757 doing 300+ knots, and pulling up into an almost vertical climb.

www.youtube.com...

I don't trust those videos to show real planes

Just ask any one of the "live" witnesses at the WTC that day then. They couldn't have possibly have been seeing faked TV images.

Great videos!

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Just ask any one of the "live" witnesses at the WTC that day then. They couldn't have possibly have been seeing faked TV images.

What about the 'live' witnesses who saw anything but a 767?

How many of those 'live' witnesses who allegedly saw a 767 were able to make a positive ID of the plane?

Without a positive ID on either of those planes, the eyewitness statements are useless. No 'live' eyewitness could accurately estimate the speed of the alleged planes.

reply to JD140

360 isn't even close to 527mph. You're lacking over 150mph...

I'm not saying the plane couldn't fly that fast at all. I'm saying the plane couldn't fly that fast only a few feet above the ground. It would literally shake apart. Especially after hitting the light poles it allegedly knocked out of the ground. The wing/s would be ripped off immediately at those speeds. Like I say, they could have came up with a better and more believable story.

I'm not saying the plane couldn't fly that fast at all. I'm saying the plane couldn't fly that fast only a few feet above the ground. It would literally shake apart. Especially after hitting the light poles it allegedly knocked out of the ground. The wing/s would be ripped off immediately at those speeds. Like I say, they could have came up with a better and more believable story.

Doesn't matter - 2 seconds latter it slammed into the Pentagon. Light
poles are designed to break off when hit. The bolts holding the pole
to the base shear off when struck.

Breakaway light poles rely on frangible transformer bases to provide the breakaway feature. The 1985 AASHTO specification provides for a maximum change in momentum of a 1800 pound car to break the pole away. The 1975 AASHTO specification provided for a similar change in momentum except that the test vehicle weighed 2,250 pounds.