It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flight 175; The Impossible Speed

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
(Flight 175 the impossible speed) is one of the best professional arguments that closed mind skeptics can not argue against without circumventing the facts of the speed limitations of a commercial jet (767) under 1000 feet.

The only thing they (skeptics) try to leave as disinformation is by falsely saying that fight 175 was "diving" just before impact. Fact, videos of flight 175 proves it was flying straight and almost perfectly level, some video showing 175 coming in level from quiet distance, just before impact.

For those who say that fight 175 built up speed in a power dive from 20,000+ feet than pulled back and leveled-out to 700 feet while still maintaining controlled, targeted flight just prior to impact... a 767 (any variant) is not a fighter jet and this maneuver is impossible for a commercial 767 passenger jet. What does this leave us with, since there are videos showing, at the very least, some sort of aircraft striking the WTC? That is up to others. This is where the logic becomes clouded so we must go back to what we know as fact. Fact, a 767 can not reach speeds of 500+ mph (FAA states 586 mph!) at 1000 feet, never mind controlled flight (the air is too dense, 767 engines and plane are not designed for operational speeds of 500 mph at 1000 feet, some fighter jets would have problems doing this)

Flight 175 - Impossible speed:

www.youtube.com...


Some videos showing level fight prior to impact:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...
Textfighter jet




posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
*sigh* Yet another thread with unresearched statements and blatant disinfo. There are a number of threads already on this subject. Here we go again...



Originally posted by kneverr
The only thing they (skeptics) try to leave as disinformation is by falsely saying that fight 175 was "diving" just before impact. Fact, videos of flight 175 proves it was flying straight and almost perfectly level, some video showing 175 coming in level from quiet distance, just before impact.

Wrong.

FACT: The second plane was NOT flying level and only leveled out in the last 2 or 3 seconds before impact:



Just because you guys cherry-pick your clips only showing the last couple seconds before impact doesn't make your claim fact. And since I've just proven you a liar, it only shows your claims are blatant disinfo.



Originally posted by kneverr
For those who say that fight 175 built up speed in a power dive from 20,000+ feet than pulled back and leveled-out to 700 feet while still maintaining controlled, targeted flight just prior to impact... a 767 (any variant) is not a fighter jet and this maneuver is impossible for a commercial 767 passenger jet.

Oops! Wrong again.

FACT: Any plane can increase its speed when coming down from a higher altitude without the assistance of the engines. It's called GRAVITY. An aeronautical engineer even confirms this in one of YOUR very own videos at 9:00:

www.youtube.com...


And yes jetliners can control their speed at descent by extending flaps to slow the aircraft down. The less amount of flap extension equals less drag and more speed. A pilot only needs to control their pitch and flaps at descension to control the level of speed. Therefore, it's perfectly possible to do what the second plane did. It's in dozens of videos.

And therefore it's only your OPINION and lack of understanding of flight mechanics to make you come to the conclusions that you do.



Originally posted by kneverr
Fact, a 767 can not reach speeds of 500+ mph at 1000 feet, never mind controlled flight (the air is too dense, 767 engines and plane are not designed for operational speeds of 500 mph at 1000 feet

This is partly true and partly false.

A 767 cannot reach 500+mph flying level at 1000 feet. And you're correct that it's engines are not powerful enough to reach those speeds at that altitude. The video I posted above even confirms this from multiple engineers and they specifically say sustained level flight.

However, a 767 can come down from a higher altitude using gravity and even no engines at all and reach 500mph by the time it reaches 1000 feet. Once the 767 levels off, it will instantly start losing speed, even at full engine power, due to drag.

The image I posted above clearly shows the second plane coming in from a higher altitude and only leveling out in the last couple seconds before impact.

You can make whatever claims you like on what you think hit the towers, but real facts speak for themselves. Planes did hit the towers and planes can do what you say they cannot and your very own video I posted above proves you wrong.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
*sigh* Yet another thread with unresearched statements and blatant disinfo. There are a number of threads already on this subject. Here we go again...


Here we go again? Who made you the all knowing 9/11 master. Your video proves zero, only that the aircraft may have descended slightly, as proven by your own video.
FACT.




Originally posted by _BoneZ_Just because you guys cherry-pick your clips only showing the last couple seconds before impact doesn't make your claim fact. And since I've just proven you a liar, it only shows your claims are blatant disinfo.


The only thing you have proven is your immaturity by name calling, what are you 14 or 15?

You speak of cherry picking clips, when all we see by YOUR one and only clip is a dot that may have descended slightly.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_FACT: Any plane can increase its speed when coming down from a higher altitude without the assistance of the engines. It's called GRAVITY. An aeronautical engineer even confirms this in one of YOUR very own videos at 9:00:


I knever said nothing of the kind, YOU did, as proven by YOUR statement above, as well as my own. I said "maintaining controlled, targeted flight. But yet again you circumvent what I said and replace it with your own words to better your cause.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_And yes jetliners can control their speed at descent by extending flaps to slow the aircraft down. The less amount of flap extension equals less drag and more speed. A pilot only needs to control their pitch and flaps at descension to control the level of speed. Therefore, it's perfectly possible to do what the second plane did. It's in dozens of videos.

And therefore it's only your OPINION and lack of understanding of flight mechanics to make you come to the conclusions that you do.


And why do you bring this up, of course an aircraft can control speed at NORMAL decent... I don't need to post the obvious as YOU did. Where were YOU going with this... ahh yes to simply cloud the original facts.





Originally posted by _BoneZ_However, a 767 can come down from a higher altitude using gravity and even no engines at all and reach 500mph by the time it reaches 1000 feet. Once the 767 levels off, it will instantly start losing speed, even at full engine power, due to drag.

You can make whatever claims you like on what you think hit the towers, but real facts speak for themselves. Planes did hit the towers and planes can do what you say they cannot and your very own video I posted above proves you wrong.


Again YOU spin what best fits your own goal by replacing my words with your own or leaving YOUR disinformation.
Grow up



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Your video, which you claim shows a plane diving down before hitting the South Tower, is creating an illusion. Firstly, other videos providing a more reliable perspective because they were taken on the ground show the plane flying more or less horizontally at the same point in time before hitting the tower. Secondly, even if a video DID indicate a descent of a few hundred feet, gravity would NOT be enough in that short drop to raise the speed to over 500 mph. Anyway, gravity would only affect the vertical component of the plane's velocity, not its horizontal component, which, if 500mph, could not be sustained by its engines in the much denser air around 1000ft. Also there is what is called the terminal velocity, reached when the force of gravity becomes balanced by the viscous drag of the air. For a skydiver, it is about 120mph.
en.wikipedia.org...
Contrary to what you claim, your video is therefore NOT evidence that a plane could have reached such a speed by diving. Indeed, NONE of the available videos showing the plane a few seconds before impact give any suggestion that the plane was levelling off.

You accuse the OP of cherry-picking his evidence to suit his argument. Methinks you do the same.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


posted by micpsi

Your video, which you claim shows a plane diving down before hitting the South Tower, is creating an illusion. Firstly, other videos providing a more reliable perspective because they were taken on the ground show the plane flying more or less horizontally at the same point in time before hitting the tower.

Contrary to what you claim, your video is therefore NOT evidence that a plane could have reached such a speed by diving. Indeed, NONE of the available videos showing the plane a few seconds before impact give any suggestion that the plane was levelling off.

You accuse the OP of cherry-picking his evidence to suit his argument. Methinks you do the same.







Looks reasonably level to me. Definitely not a steep dive with gravity adding a great amount of speed to the velocity.




posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
Also there is what is called the terminal velocity, reached when the force of gravity becomes balanced by the viscous drag of the air. For a skydiver, it is about 120mph.


EgyptAir 990, a 767-300 hit Mach 0.99 in a dive, before attempting to pull out and breaking up from an over-G situation. A Boeing 747 in 1969 reached almost Mach 1 in a shallow dive. And it was a MUCH larger airframe.

An aircraft, even that size can easily go over 600 mph in a dive, even a shallow one. That's going to be my only input on this, I'll let you guys fight it out if it was diving or whatever, but the aircraft was physically capable of reaching the speeds that it was said to be at.

[edit on 3/27/2009 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 3/27/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Here's yet another great shot of the plane descending from a higher altitude. Notice at the very far right above the smoke, the plane descends rapidly to the towers:





Originally posted by micpsi
even if a video DID indicate a descent of a few hundred feet, gravity would NOT be enough in that short drop to raise the speed to over 500 mph

You obviously know nothing about flight dynamics. The last known altitude for FL.175 before FAA tracking lost the signal was at 31,000 feet within about 50-75 miles of New York City and it's speed was 430mph. It would only take a few hundred feet, or even a few thousand to easily reach and exceed 500mph. And it had 30,000 feet to do so.

So please stop saying there was a "short drop" or that there was a "descent of a few hundred feet". The plane came down from a 31,000 foot altitude before hitting the south tower (if the FAA data is correct). Plenty of time to reach 500+mph.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I do not believe in NPT at the WTC in the slightest _BoneZ_. Personally I believe they used modified military cargo planes with extra filled fuel bladders inside for a greater shock & awe effect, strengthened wings and control surfaces, and souped up engines for greater speed. I also believe they were remotely flown with no passengers nor pilots nor bodies inside.

Nevertheless there is no need to deliberately mislead and alter what the many videos show of Flight 175. We are supposed to be 9-11 Truthers and let us act so. It was a decent OP and should be open for discussion and not immediate ridicule.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


I've shown two animated gifs that show the second plane coming down from altitude seconds before impact. FAA data shows the plane being at 31,000 feet within 50-75 miles of NYC as it was turning towards NYC. The OP says the second plane was flying straight and level and I proved him wrong. Who's deceiving whom? Thanks.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



OP

The only thing they (skeptics) try to leave as disinformation is by falsely saying that fight 175 was "diving" just before impact. Fact, videos of flight 175 proves it was flying straight and almost perfectly level, some video showing 175 coming in level from quiet distance, just before impact.


You need to learn to read more comprehensively _BoneZ_.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


You must've missed or overlooked the part that says "some videos showing 175 coming in level from QUITE A DISTANCE". I've already shown with 2 animated gifs that the above is false.

Really, there's no other way around it other than to say that the second plane did not level out until the last approx. 3 seconds before impact. Before that it was coming down from a higher altitude as shown in 2 animated gifs.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by SPreston
 


I've shown two animated gifs that show the second plane coming down from altitude seconds before impact. FAA data shows the plane being at 31,000 feet within 50-75 miles of NYC as it was turning towards NYC. The OP says the second plane was flying straight and level and I proved him wrong. Who's deceiving whom? Thanks.


Haha, the only thing you have shown is fake video.

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Here's yet another great shot of the plane descending from a higher altitude. Notice at the very far right above the smoke, the plane descends rapidly to the towers:





I do not know what you are trying to "prove" by YOUR truly poor quality "gif" video BUT it appears to be from the first few seconds of this actual real video:

www.youtube.com...

If anything, it proves that the aircraft was almost perfectly straight and level from a distance that appears to be 3x the length of the WTC buildings (at least?) To get a better idea of just how level the aircraft is, one only needs to use the buildings roof lines as a marker.

Once again YOU have proved that you have no proof of your claim friend; trying to spin what others set as example is far from proof... which is a shame because I truly welcome open minded debate with people who bring forth well founded counter-claims; people that don't regress to childish name calling immediately & simply due to others having a difference of opinions... you know what I mean _BoneZ_?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_; And since I've just proven you a liar


Please let me try it this way friend, I apologize if my view is not of the same opinion as your own but it was not left to insult you since you have taken it as such, which was not my intent.

I know I'm the new guy here, which also upsets some people; it's the way of things on forums at times. That being said, I'm not new to this debate and my absolute bottom line in this entire 9/11 debate is to place all the facts and to investigate well founded opinions in order to prove what really happened. If anyone else knows a better method PLEASE say it.

Sadly it also seems that people trying to find the truth or feel the government is hiding something about 9/11 are arguing too much amongst themselves to actually find it now.... a fact that must truly please others not wanting the same or the truth.
Peace (?)



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by kneverr
 


Firstly, I must apologize for calling you a liar. Sometimes our passion gets the best of us and I came across the wrong way. So for that, I'm sorry.

Second, you claimed the second plane was flying straight and "almost perfectly level" before impact and you even said it was flying level from "quite a distance". With two animated gifs, I proved that claim false.

It was never flying straight and even banked hard left in the last 1 or 2 seconds before impact. And it absolutely wasn't flying level until the last about 3 seconds before impact as it was coming down from it's 31,000 foot altitude.

767's absolutely can go from 500mph at 31,000 feet and keep that same 500mph all the way down to 1000 feet, but once the 767 reaches 1000 feet and levels off, drag instantly sets in and the speed will bleed off. And any seasoned pilot will say the same exact thing. I don't know if you're a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth forums, but that would be another place to discuss this and the pilots there will also say the same thing I've said.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
FACT: The second plane was NOT flying level and only leveled out in the last 2 or 3 seconds before impact:


Really... hmmm... so, UA175 must have had to be pulling some really significant G loading there to "level out" in such a short period of time.. huh?

BoneZ, keep in mind, if UA175, a 767-200, cannot obtain such a speed, it doesnt automatically mean that "no plane" hit the WTC. It only means that once again what we've been told by our govt has been proven to be a lie...


[edit on 28-3-2009 by RockHound757]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
767's absolutely can go from 500mph at 31,000 feet and keep that same 500mph all the way down to 1000 feet, but once the 767 reaches 1000 feet and levels off, drag instantly sets in and the speed will bleed off. And any seasoned pilot will say the same exact thing. I don't know if you're a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth forums, but that would be another place to discuss this and the pilots there will also say the same thing I've said.


You're wrong BoneZ.

Matter of fact, many 767 pilots at Pilots For 9/11 Truth say exactly the opposite.

And considering many have claimed im "Rob Balsamo" or write just like him....?, i'd take the above to the bank...


Also, drag doesnt "set in" on an aircraft. It is always acting on an aircraft.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by RockHound757]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I wasn't able to view the live impact of the south tower on 9/11 but I did see a replay on CNN a few minutes after the plane hit and what I remember seeing was a plane coming from the left side of my screen about 3 seconds away from impact. The plane looked huge and level with the building. to me.

A few months ago a youtube video of CBS? showed the plane coming from the right side of my screen.

Or is this normal to anyone here?



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by RockHound757
 


Actually, you appear to be the one that's wrong. Aeronautical engineers in videos that NPT'ers show even said as much.

And by the way, you ARE Rob. You've already proven that in your posts on this forum.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Actually, you appear to be the one that's wrong. Aeronautical engineers in videos that NPT'ers show even said as much.


Claim unsourced and noted.

I dont watch many NPT videos. Perhaps you can name names? I recall Aero Engineer Joe Keith claiming in a NPT video that a 767 couldnt travel more than 300 i believe it was... at less than 1,000 feet...

P4T has proven him wrong.


And by the way, you ARE Rob. You've already proven that in your posts on this forum.


Claim unsourced and noted once again..

So if i am Rob, Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Dont you think i would know more about the organization and what people/pilots have said within our forums/organization... better than you? Do you know more about Pilots For 9/11 Truth and what their members have said.. .than Rob?

BoneZ, keep it up. You'll only bury yourself deeper into the discredited hole.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockHound757
Claim unsourced and noted.

The claim was sourced earlier in this thread and the information is from Capt. Gordon Wilson, Aeronautical Engineer and Aviation Consultant.



Originally posted by RockHound757
BoneZ, keep it up. You'll only bury yourself deeper into the discredited hole.

I don't think I have to worry about that.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join