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.
It was traveling at its high speed recorded for only a few moments.
I posted an article from Aviation Weekly. I suggest you read it on what it says about going past a plane's Vmo. Going over the speed limit is not going to cause the plane to explode in midair or noseover and crash.
Flight 175 was beyond the envelope for only a few moments.
The critical limit can be crossed, if only for a few moments.
But as you can see, the dive into the WTC and the high speeds lasted for a few moments.
"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 no self-propulsion, post-dive, during level flight on final approach) and impacted World Trade Center tower #2 at approximately 510 knots groundspeed.
The folks at Boeing know what they are doing. How about you go and ask them how it is possible? I'm sure someone there would be happy to give you the inside scoop on their aircraft's capability.
Boeing - Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard in this recording saying 500+ mph at 700 feet is impossible.
(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"
Boeing Spokesperson - (Laughs) "Not a chance..."
Why is it left to armchair generals in their parent's basement and snakeoil salesmen to uncover the "truth"?
Facts are facts, and data is data. The facts don't lie, and the data, is in.
That's been done. They've been asked, for a conservative speed estimate of 500mph (434 knots), at 700 feet altitude - their response? "Not a chance.."
reply to post by choos
Re: China Air in V-G Diagram - the dashed --- box, lower left, is one G.
The marker is a depiction of the onset of structural failure, which although due primarily to G forces, involved a combination of aerodynamic pressures and G forces, as per the NTSB Report, so it's in the right location.
As i indicated in my comprehensive "general" rebuttal the flight envelope encompasses both G force as well as aerodynamic pressures due to airspeed, whereby the Vd (right side of the graph) of 420 knots/.91M, is the outer limit of the flight envelope (in terms of aerodynamic pressures) beyond which structural failure becomes imminent, proven, via flutter testing, and by the precedents of structural failure, including EA990 and TWA Flight 841 (TWA727 on the diagram).
Hope that helps clarify.
reply to post by soulwaxer
No, I don't see the problem here. I'm not relying on Government as those photographs and accident scene weren't somehow locked down by shadowy Government agents. Regular people, like you and me, working in the area which had the misfortune to be where that plane with all it's people came down..were working that scene.
If you noticed or bothered to look at the physical evidence photos, you'd see many of the people were in white containment suits. That wasn't for chemicals or some other foreign substance and I first saw those being used in a catastrophic plane crash many many years prior to 9/11. That's protection from the biological hazard present in the air itself for awhile and across everything. There is only one source of bio-hazard at a plane crash, so it doesn't take much to figure what the issue is here. Disintegration isn't a figurative term. It's a statement of physics to what happens when soft things meet hard things at 500-600 miles an hour.
There was nothing at all different about the PA crash site from other catastrophic nose-in crash sites before it.
Facts are facts, and data is data. The facts don't lie, and the data, is in. [end quote]
So let's divert the nature of the conversation here a bit.
If that is the case, as you say, why is this material not gaining traction beyond fringe websites?
Given how the media (especially foreign media) pounced on the deep and broad conspiracy angles surrounding Edward Snowden's NSA leaks, why has it not pounced similarly on this material if the facts are so compelling and don't lie?
Faulty Towers of Belief: Part I. Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11 Truth
Laurie A. Manwell, M.Sc., June 2007
John Lear, celebrated pilot who has been documented to have flown more types of aircraft than any other pilot, and apparent member (or contributor for) "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" seems to think it's not a problem.
reply to post by soulwaxer
Well, yes, I do have some faith in the people at the National Transportation and Safety Board. Are you suggesting the staffers and investigators of the NTSB were in on it now too?
I think we all agree that things don't add up from that day. I really cannot remember the last person, especially here, who argued that general point. The devil is in the details though...always is..and that's where the conspiracy lay here, I believe. In the myriad of details...and little things..and subtle ways this happened which it may not otherwise have, if those things hadn't gone 'just so'.
However, on another 9/11 thread a couple hours ago you questioned if the Hijackers could even be proven to ever have been at the airports ...when this was full color, front page film for the world to see in the days and weeks following the attacks. Sometimes it feels like this debate has to start and restart at the point of proving ANYTHING even happened that day, for how everything is tossed out willy nilly to fit preconceived notions.
Just my personal opinions, naturally..and I'm as likely to be wrong as any other person in the discussion.
Like I said, I don't care much about the details. What I care about is who did it and why. I saw with my own eyes what happened to WTC 1, 2, and 7. That right there was enough for me to know there was at least inside help. AFTER that, I was very curious about the details, and the more I saw the clearer the whole picture became.