It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You have to prove that it couldn't have dove down and reached that speed. Which you haven't, and can't. If a plane can dive down, and remain under perfect control and reach Mach 1, there is absolutely no reason why 175 couldn't have done it.
They climbed to 52,000 feet, where they put it (the DC-8) into a half G pushover (a dive no steeper than 175 performed, and possible not as steep), at 45,000 feet, while in perfect control, the aircraft reached Mach 1.01 for 16 seconds. They were able to recover at 35,000 feet, with no damage to the aircraft.
The dive speed (Vd) is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent), as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. At the dive speed, excessive aircraft vibrations develop which put the aircraft structural integrity at stake.
In that video, for the Airbus380 flutter test, they descended in a steady dive from 38,000 feet aiming for a Vd of Mach .96 (it's a big plane with lots of surface area) which to certify required some major modifications.
The south tower plane, according to you, would be able to exceed Mach 1.39 to Mach 1.4 when descending from the same height of 38,000 feet.. for an EAS of 510 knots, at sea level.
Vd is 420 knots for the Boeing 767 as set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing.
Here are those limitations, from Boeing...
At EAS (Sea Level), over test Vd - let's take a look at the range, beyond Vd for the Boeing 767, and we'll do it in full 5 knot increments, which is fair, since we're already at and beginning to exceed the threshold limit for structural failure, Vd limit, and even the smallest increments at that point can have grave effects, as the flight testers experienced with the Airbus A320 in the video contained in that link above i.
420 (Vd limit, by stress/flutter testing)
425 (which is .99 - Mach 1.0 equivalent airspeed and pressure at higher altitude of 22,000 feet - which is about the threshold from all those examples of near or just over Mach flight, while surviving, and this is very conservative, because such dives are mostly done from much higher altitudes as per your DC-8 ref cited above in which case an EAS of 425 represents an even higher Mach # up around 35,000 - 52,000 ft, well exceeding Mach 1.0 ++)
430, 435, 440, 445, 450, 455, 460, 465, 470, 475, 480, 485, 490, 495, 500, 505, 510 knots + (including windspeed, 515)
"During the descent from 12,000 feet to 6,000 feet, the aircraft groundspeed remained between 500 - 520 knots. As the aircraft made it's descent to 1000 feet, it accelerated (there goes Zaphod58's hypothesis about self propulsion at level flight on final approach) and impacted World Trade Center tower #2 at approximately 510 knots groundspeed.
Kevin Ryan, formerly of Underwriters Laboratories (UL) (Edit by NAM: who was fired for asking questions about the steel he was involved in testing and certifying as it related to the twin towers), made a post back in January of 2008 at 9/11 Blogger showing that the floors of the WTC that had the fire-proofing upgraded, matched almost exactly to the floors that were impacted and "failed" in both towers:
It now turns out the company that did those upgrades is Turner Construction company.
Turner Construction Company also helped plan and oversee the demolition of the Seattle Kingdome in 2000:
Turner Construction Company also occupied the 38th floor of WTC 1:
Turner Construction Company particpated in the collection and disposal of the steel wreckage of the WTC towers following September 11, 2001:
The buildings, the STEEL buildings..
Went down, from top to bottom, to within maybe three to six seconds of absolute free fall in nothing but air, alone.. (10+ seconds, with air resistence)
9/11 was an inside job.
Don't shoot the messenger.
It's only bad news if nothing is learned from the entire episode of historical insanity, much of which has continued even to this day in regards to the overall policy objectives, outlined by Philip Zelikow, not only after 9/11, in the form of the only official historical accounting of the event, including the "public myth" in regards to it in hindsight, but also before it, making of the imagined event, it's eventual realization, as a policy position, set out three years prior to the event itself as "the New Pearl Harbor" and the "catalyzing catastrophic terrorist event" enabling just about everything that we've seen go down, including the Afghan and Iraq wars, precisely as outlined in the PNAC Document "Rebuilding America`s Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century".
It's only REALLY bad, to the degree that nothing is learned from it, looking back on it as future history.
Elements of a National Policy
by Philip D. Zelikow, December 1998
You may note how his language found it's way into this policy report by Dick Cheney.
Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
A Report of the Project for the New American Century
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
On September 11, 2001, George W. Bush wrote in his journal: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." He was echoing the summary of a September, 2000 report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" published by a neoconservative think tank called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
Zelikow, in his own words, before 9/11.
The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to [the] notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.'
Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."
So Zelikow, the guy who wrote The 9/11 Commission Report, was an expert in how to misuse public trust and create PUBLIC MYTHS.
If 9/11 was nothing but a huge HOAX, you would naturally expect that the event itself would have to be perfectly scripted.
In 1998, Zelikow actually wrote Catastrophic Terrorism about imagining "the transformative event" three years before 9/11.
Here are Zelikow's 1998 words. Readers should imagine the possibilities for themselves, because the most serious constraint on current policy is lack of imagination.
An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history.
It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse.
Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible.
Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."
The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen "after."
Philip D. Zelikow
"... if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed even in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security..Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with.."
~ Philip Zelikow, pre-9/11
While at Harvard he worked with Ernest May and Richard Neustadt on the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words, that "contemporary" history is "defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to William McNeill's notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."
Zelikow's focus was on what he calls 'searing' or 'moulding' events [that] take on 'transcendental' importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experience generation passes from the scene."
In Rise of the Vulcans (Viking, 2004), James Mann reports that when Richard Haass, a senior aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell and the director of policy planning at the State Department, drafted for the administration an overview of America’s national security strategy following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Dr. Rice, the national security advisor, "ordered that the document be completely rewritten. She thought the Bush administration needed something bolder, something that would represent a more dramatic break with the ideas of the past. Rice turned the writing over to her old colleague, University of Virginia Professor Philip Zelikow." This document, issued on September 17, 2002, is generally recognized as a significant document in the War on Terrorism.
The Family Steering Committee for the 9-11 Commission repeatedly called for Philip Zelikow’s resignation. The families, citing Zelikow’s close connections to the Bush Administration, were concerned that Zelikow’s appointment made a mockery of the idea that the Commission was “independent.” But the Zionist controlled Bush Administration ignored their complaint.
Zelikow's Conflicts of Interest
1989-91: Zelikow works closely with Condoleezza Rice as part of the National Security Council during George Bush Sr’s Administration.
1995: Zelikow & Rice write a book together.
1996-98: Zelikow & Rice are together again when Zelikow is Director of the Aspen Strategy Group, a Zionist foreign-policy strategy “think tank.” Rice, along with Dick Cheney & Paul Wolfowitz, are also members.
2000: Zelikow & Rice are reunited when Bush names Zelikow - ran out of space, goes on.
These posts will keep coming until the end of time... happy almost 2014... 9/11 conspiracies will never die
Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace among those whom he favors (Luke 2:14)
Dear brothers and sisters in Rome and throughout the world, Happy Christmas!
I take up the song of the angels who appeared to the shepherds in Bethlehem on the night when Jesus was born. It is a song which unites heaven and earth, giving praise and glory to heaven, and the promise of peace to earth and all its people.
I ask everyone to share in this song: it is a song for every man or woman who keeps watch through the night, who hopes for a better world, who cares for others while humbly seeking to do his or her duty.
~ from Pope Francis' Christmas Message to the World.
These posts will keep coming until the end of time... happy almost 2014... 9/11 conspiracies will never die