It has been confirmed in this post on page 27 of the thread, that a
critical data point used for the premise in the opening post has been falsified by whomever created the material (not necessarily the fault of the
thread author). As a result, due to what clearly appears to be intentional deception, the thread is now in the hoax forum.
The South Tower Plane
Flight 175, a Boeing 767-222, registration number N612UA.
The following is physical evidence, that the south tower plane was not and could not possibly have been the originating flight 175, an
unmodified United Airlines Boeing 767-222, simply because it was seen and recorded as flying, and maneuvering deftly, at a speed of 510 knots
at 700 ft. altitude (sea level), which represents an over-Mach EAS (equivalent airspeed) at high altitude where the air is thinner and less dense by
about 2/3rds at 30,000 ft. - let alone under the control of a pilot no better by comparison than the likes of Hani Hanjour who allegedly piloted the
Pentagon airplane whom the 9/11 Commission considered the most trained and "skilled" of the would-be Boeing pilots, in this case without any actual
flight time in the real macoy.
It's an impossible airspeed for an unmodified commercial Boeing passenger jet.
It too, like the building's destruction, would violate the laws of physics if the offifical story is to be believed and accepted, which cannot be
believed in light of the simple truth that it was and must have been based on all observable phnomenon, an elaborate, highly sophistacated and complex
HOAX, which cannot be believed in the face of a rational and objective, scientific scrutiny, of the events themselves as they actually occurred in
reality. Physical evidence. Irrefutable, and incontrovertible facts in evidence, which cannot be denied nor overlooked.
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.
I've already proven it. And we'll do a comparison yet between your DC-8,16 second Mach dive at high altitude example, both in relation to it's Vd
limit, and as it compares to the STP (south tower plane), as well as numerous other precedents of near Mach flight by 767's and similar aircraft, but
they're all at high altitude, often much higher than 22,000 feet, which is a relatively low and conservative point comparison considering that most if
not all the examples are at altitude - and what they PROVE is that such aircraft are not made to exceed the sound barrier, which carries with it it's
own transonic effects still further placing any such airplane when it reaches or exceedes the Mach 1.0 threshold in grave jeapardy. Again, all those
examples of near Mach 1 filght are at altitude, often exceeding 22,000 feet.
Therefore any equivalent airspeed, where the air it 2/3rd's thicker than at 30,000 feet, which represents a corresponding airspeed exceeding Mach 1.0,
at altititude reveals that within the margin by which the plane exceeded this threshold, I've proven the case, because it's too great, the margin, too
far beyond the established Vd or max structural speed, beyond which, by only five knots, and we're at an equivalent airspeed at the Mach .99 - 1.0
threshold, already, at 425 knots EAS at sea level.
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.
To put this into perspective in regards to the airspeed magnitude by which the south tower plane is/was observed exceeding the Vd limit as set by
first wind tunnel then flight testing, just like with the Airbus380..
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
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 ++)
EAS is sea level airspeed. As a factoral expression of the equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe at low vs. high altitude, because the air is so
much thicker at sea level, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS.
The air is thinner at higher altitudes so the aircraft will need to go faster to match the amount of air hitting the airframe at low altitudes, in
EAS is defined as:
EAS is the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as a True Airspeed at higher altitudes. It is used
for determining aircraft performance, structural integrity.. .etc. The Vd limit is expressed in an EAS. In other words, to be more specific, 510 knots
at sea level (EAS) would produce the same dynamic pressure as 722 knots True Airspeed (TAS) at 22,000 feet.
edit on 10-1-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: modified opening post when moving to the hoax forum
edit on 10-1-2014 by
SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)
Thus an EAS of 510 knots = 722 knots or Mach 1.19, at 22,000 feet, and at still higher altitude, 915 knots or 1.38 Mach, at 35,000 feet, and reaching
Mach 1.39 and 1.4 at about 38,000 ft. It's an absurd speed, 90 knots, NINETY, above Vd of 420 (EAS) which again represents Mach 1.9, at altitude. An
unmodified 767-222 cannot do it, it's impossible unless modified, and impossible to control and maneuver at such speed, particularly for an untrained
pilot with limited training, and skill level, and zero airtime in the the genuine article. It's not possible and it cannot be believed, not in light
of the facts before us.
"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.
510 knots is the airspeed claimed for "UA175", by radar.. (as an airspeed, because the wind was light heading N/W, it would be about 515 knots)
So, dearest reader, consider that those who believe a standard 767 can fly at 510 knots near sea level and remain stable/controllable, MUST also
accept that the same airplane can fly in a controlled fashion, even in a dive,
- at 722 knots at 22,000 feet... or Mach 1.19, and 915 knots at 35,000 feet...or Mach 1.38 heading for 1.39 or 1.4 at 38,000 ft. It's
And again, as an expression of EAS at altitude, 22,000 feet is a fairly reasonable altitude, considering that no one will able to produce any example
of a commercial plane exceeding Mach 1.0, by anything beyond 1.01 or 1.02 etc. let alone an equivalent airspeed at that altitude, exceeding Mach 1 by
.19 or 1.38 going on 1.4 at 38,000 feet. Unmodified, they just can't do it it's physically impossible. This is a statement of fact, and of reason,
based solely on observation.
510 knots is NINETY knots over Vd of 420, and 85 knots over 425 which is an equivalent airspeed at 22,000 feet of .99 Mach.
85 knots past the equivalent EAS for Mach 1.0. at altitude..
There is no precident in the history of aviation which can make this seem normal or natural as if it's like "nothing to see here, nothing unusual
please move along", not one.
At altitude (and they all are or or they'd plow into the ground) often exceeding 22,000 feet, they break apart at over Mach speed, by margins
exceeding Mach 1.05, every time. None can go to an equivalent airspeed of Mach 1.19 at 22,000ft, ever. It's not possible, unless the plane were
seriously modified both in terms of structure as well as engine performance, since it accellerated at the end of it's dive to retain a sea level
airspeed of 510 knots, while maneuvering on final approach to impact.
Twin Tower Destruction, things to consider as to the apparent causal mechanism
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'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.
"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
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
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."
"... 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.
Can you explain in your own words the point the OP is attempting to make? Or are you just accepting what he said because he said "It's impossible!"
Can you explain the difference between TAS, IAS, groundspeed, and EAS? Do you know how VNE for a particular aircraft is determined?
edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
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.
Brilliant just BRILLIANT....thanks for the work involved in putting so much evidence in the same place. And you didn't even have to mention the two
elephants in the room....Building 7 take down, and the missile hitting the Pentagon!!!
These posts will keep coming until the end of time... happy almost 2014... 9/11 conspiracies will never die
Why should they die? All open questions can be answered, but instead of any acknowledgement of the holes in the official story, questioning is
ridiculed and pushed aside as lunacy. Not questioning, and not digging further is lunacy. Accepting the word of authority is lunacy. The digging and
seeking for answers on our own is what allows us (as a species) to overcome so much control.
If you tell me the way it was, and "don't ask any questions!" I'll search for what you're trying to hide. If you'd just let me search in peace,
we may come to the same conclusion. So where's the harm in questioning? And where's the harm in showing others what you've figured out? Even if
it's just to hear from an expert where you've got it wrong?
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.
All content copyright 2014, The Above Network, LLC.