Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Click here to learn more about this warning.[/url]
This whole "discussion" has turned around the claim by "Tiffany" that the aircraft in question were incapable of reaching the speeds that were
calculated and recorded on 9/11 and if they *were* at those speeds, they should have broken up into itsy bitsy pieces.
Which is nothing but blatant speculation at best and hogwash at worst.
Some information, easily obtained from the web and other sources:
From Twenty –First Century Jet – The Making and
Marketing of the Boeing 777, Karl Sabbagh
Page 320 (comments paraphrased)
A Pan AM 707 flying Paris – NY encountered CAT and began a dive to deck. Recovery occurred at 4.5 g’s (limit 3.75 g’s)
1965 outboard engine of a 707 exploded, destroying 25’ of wing. Plane circled around and landed (fuel load, etc)
767 static test aircraft subjected to test loads – the fuselage broke before the wings did.
777 wing test - wing failed at 154% beyond design specifications
In 1965, a 707 collided with a Constellation at 11,000, lost 35’ of wing. – a/c landed safely and the Connie, which lost a good portion of its
tail, made a crash landing - only 2 passengers and the pilot, who had returned to the burning aircraft to rescue a passenger, died.
Bunches of military aircraft have had parts of their aircraft ripped off from midairs and from high-speed runs and still flown back to a base.
Then there was the 737
in January 2009 on a customer demonstration flight
profile, entered into a 21,000 fmp dive at observed speed of above 440 indicated. A/C recovered (Vmo was exceeded by 100 knots). Oh yeah...that
aircraft is still flying, as of Dec 2009 (www.airframes.org...
Don't forget that the Concord had an MMO of 2.04, but the certification aircraft went up to M 2.23. It was one of the reasons the two certification
aircraft (201 and 202) never went into service in the end. It was extremely difficult to assess how much of the aircraft's "life" (in terms of
fatigue cycles) had been used up by the certification flights to the edges of the envelope.
The L1011 was flown well in excess of Vmo during flight test, and indeed, considering Mmo, which for the TriStar is M.90, flight test was
(links to the above available on request)
How about some wacky "Believe It or Not" aviation tidbits? How about the 71st Fighter Interceptor Squadron F-106 that got into a spin where the
pilot - the only pilot - ejected at 12,000 feet and the aircraft made a perfect wheels up landing in snow-covered field? They hoisted it up, loaded
it onto a railroad flat car, too it to a dept and repaired it - and it flew for a number more years. It now sits in the big AF museum at Wright Pat.
I love this line from the article
"Major Wolford got a call from the sheriff about an airplane sitting in a field with the engine running and wanted to know how to shut it
The point being is these aircraft can indeed exceed, sometimes to a large degree, the airspeed and structural integrity limitations set by
manufacturers guidelines, which for passenger airliners is set very low for safety sake.
Stick a hijacker bent on crashing a 767 into a skyscraper - he'll do it, at as fast a speed as those big turbofans can get him.
Good thing Mr. Deets or "Tiffany" weren't around on the Concorde flight test team - the planes would have broken up as soon as they exceeded M
I'm not claiming fraud here, but it sure doesn't look like Mr. Deets and "Tiffany" know what they is talking about. I smell an agenda. I also
bet any rebuttal from "Tiffany" will have a link back to the Pilots for 9/11 Truth page along with a line "The list grows", since that is the only
reason "Tiffany" is here.