An UNMODIFIED Boeing 767 cannot fly @ 510 knots @ Sea Level. (hoax)

reply to post by neformore


You apparently prefer to believe that the US government was complicit in the murder of over 3,000 people on the day, flew three airliners into buildings and one into the ground/shot one down, destroyed a whole building complex in the heart of NYC and then went on to cause the subsequent casualties and devastation in Afghanistan and Iraq (casualties conservatively estimated around 150,000 people) and pissed a whole load of people globally off in the process on purpose for....what benefit exactly? To further its own demise by pissing its own people off?





It's not about "preferring to believe" that's what the government did, it's about realizing they did and accepting that's what they did, and now what???!!!!

And they still are.

NewAgeMan

Just out of curiosity, what does Vesey Street (the location as per all the news reports) look like as a pinpoint location relative to the North Tower, as a comparison?

Try google earth or google maps.

Your V G diagram is most amusing. You have AA77 way over to the right and pulling 3.25 Gs



The maximum Gs AA77 pulled was 2.25 for about 1/4 of a second, 1 second before impact.

Can you explain this to us. AA77 overspeed warning came on twice. Once for a few seconds at about 26000 ft. at a TAS 500 kts and once for a few seconds at near sea level engaging at about 420 kts.



Why would boeing set their overspeed warning to go off at the same speed you are telling us the plane should disintegrate and not before ?

www.ntsb.gov...

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Very impressive work there, but once again, it is all sadly for naught.

do you not think that it is odd the NTSB didn't believe that the plane should not have been able to approach such speeds as you claim? Or the people at Boeing? How is it that the very people that are in charge of keeping people safe in the skies didn't bat an eye when they read that the plane was well past its "danger zone" speed? Why is that NewAgeMan?

Where are Boeing 767 designers, builders, fliers, testers, etc, screaming and howling that the speeds were impossible unless it was some special super enforced top secret plane?

Do you now find any of that odd? Why is it left to armchair generals in their parent's basements and snakeoil salesmen to uncover the "truth"? How is it that those evil bastards that managed to fake a plane crash with somehow magically switching planes with fake dead bodies, and some hocus pocus method of swapping in mid-air, without a soul noticing, couldn't FAKE the radar data plots or even change them for the report? Surely those evil bastards that managed to put their people in everywhere to make sure this would all go off without a hitch, would have had at least one second to think: "Hey, we should really fake the speeds of the plane crash since it is obviously way too fast, and it will be so obvious it couldn't be able to do what it did without blowing up in midair. Do we have someone at NTSB that can lower those speeds, or fake the data? Nawww who is going to notice?"

Once again, Rube-Goldberg.

But pray tell, what is you explanation of just how they would modify the plane to do what it did? Not just saying it was some secret military special modified aircraft. Hell that is like me saying it was a pixy-dust infused airframe with a flux capacitor.

reply to post by waypastvne


Hi waypastvne,

You may want to take a good hard look at the csv file from the NTSB, as the overspeed triggered at 352 knots at 25,000 feet at 09:20:11 until 09:20:23... and then at 355.. knots, at 09:37:24 at an altitude of roughly 2000 feet MSL till the end of the recording.

i guess it's fair to assume then that you are not a "heavy" commercial jet aircraft pilot, as are the folks who's research i've been accessing.

Overspeed triggers at Vmo + on any jet. Vmo for a 757 is 350 knots.

reply to post by GenRadek


I'm rather surprised, General, that you didn't have a little more to say for yourself in regards to all the information, and even, in many cases, misinformation, and the basic presumptuousness, that you've brought to this thread for the consumption of the readership and the public, which i addressed in my comprehensive "general" rebuttal..

As to your question, while it doesn't even begin to attempt to seriously refute or rebut the data and the facts in evidence, in any way, shape, or form - i suppose the answer has something to do with the magnitude and implication of the event in regards to its fundamental horror, along with the overall domination of the official story as it was fed into and picked up by the MSM in the wake of the event.

For example, why didn't NIST investigate, thoroughly, the actual occurrence of the phenomenon of destruction of the twin towers, offering only a collapse initiation hypothesis, which assumed, perhaps understandably, that the plane impacts and fire were the direct and sole result of the buildings' subsequent destruction or "collapse", simply because, in both cases, it was initiated at around the areas of impact?

NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century.

Having already touched on this idea earlier, as to the nature of something in intelligence and psy-ops jargon calls "the honey pot", whereby no one wants to be labelled a "conspiracy theorist", i'll be discussing this aspect (why didn't the authorities speak out?) a little further in a subsequent post.

It's not a rebuttal of the facts however, and neither is incredulity or the objection that such an operation would be impossible ie: too many people involved, no one spilling the beans, etc etc.

That's more in the realm of speculation, not facts and data, but since this is a discussion thread, we can discuss it, but let's not call it an actual rebuttal, because it's not.

People can obviously say the very same things in regards to the OS, particularly as it relates to all known and observed events and phenomenon.

What i've offered in this thread is cold hard data, and facts, which cannot be denied.

What you've offered so far, as shown in my comprehensive "general" rebuttal, has proven to be nothing but presumption, misinformation, and idle "armchair general" conjecture and speculation in an argument based on nothing but incredulity, which isn't really an argument or rebuttal of the facts and data, at all.

Regards,

NAM

Piloting
To "fly" the UA simulator at reported speeds, it was necessary to override or disable the warning indicators as well as the crash logic of the simulator. Otherwise the screen just goes red once Vd is exceeded.


Captain Dan Govatos, Credentials:

-- FAA Designated Examiner/Airline Check Airman

With over 25 years working in the Aviation Industry, I have had the honor of working with some of the most influential and gifted management in the world.

Specialties:Charter Broker, Charter Sales, Business Jet Management, Aviation Management, Aircraft Sales, Airline Operations Consultant, Airline Start up Consultant, Flight Crew Training, Check Pilot, Aviation Expert Witness, B737 Simulator Instructor, B737 Check Airman (All Checks), Union negotiation, Six Sigma

Education

Spartan College of Aeronautics and Technology
Bachelor of Applied Science (BASc), Aviation/Airway Management and Operations

Honors & Awards

NBAA 10,000 Pilot Safety Award
NBAA
July 2013
Over 10,000 hours of safe flying

*****
Next up, Capt. Russ Wittenberg.

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot, over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Had previously flown the actual two United airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11.

Article: "'The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S." Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall."

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737s through 767s, it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.

Audio Interview, Capt.Russ Wittenberg, 9/16/04
M3U (download)
RAM (download)
MP3 (plays)

911underground.com...

Russel L. Wittenberg Credentials

Russ Wittenberg has numerous FAA certificates ranging from Airline Pilot and Flight Engineer to Ground Instructor and Aircraft Dispatcher. He is certified to fly an incredible range of aircraft including Boeing 707s, 727s, 747s, 757s, 767s and 777s. The supposed aircraft used on 9/11 were Boeing 757s and 767s.

Certificate: AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT
Rating(s):
• AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
COMMERCIAL PRIVILEGES
• AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
• AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE SEA
• GLIDER

Type Ratings (Note: these are aircraft types)

A/B-707 A/B-720 A/B-727 A/B-737 A/B-747 A/B-757 A/B-767 A/B-777 A/DC-8 A/L-1049 A/LR-JET
DOI : 07/25/1995

Certificate: FLIGHT ENGINEER
Rating: FLIGHT ENGINEER TURBOJET POWERED
DOI : 11/02/1978

Certificate: GROUND INSTRUCTOR
Rating(s):
• GROUND INSTRUCTOR ADVANCED
• INSTRUMENT
DOI : 11/02/1978

Certificate: AIRCRAFT DISPATCHER
DOI : 11/02/1978

Mr. Wittenberg's flying credentials may be confirmed by contacting:

United States Federal Aviation Administration Registry
Civil Aviation Registry
AFS-700
PO BOX 25082
Oklahoma City, OK 73125

9/11-The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan, Aeronautics Engineer, and Pilot.
Veterens Today

www.veteranstoday.com...

Audio Interview
chemp3.com...

Speed

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..."

NewAgeMan
To "fly" the UA simulator at reported speeds, it was necessary to override or disable the warning indicators as well as the crash logic of the simulator. Otherwise the screen just goes red once Vd is exceeded.

Thats because its a simulator.

Its not real.

It does not reproduce what the airframe could potentially withstand. It simply reproduces what is pre-determined to be safe.

reply to post by neformore

neformore

It does not reproduce what the airframe could potentially withstand. It simply reproduces what is pre-determined to be safe.

That's right. And the safety margin, is Vmo and at most between Vmo, and at the outer edge of the flight envelope, which is Vd whereby the flight envelope itself it determined by first wind tunnel and then in flight "flutter testing", as seen here in the Airbus380 flutter test, example.

theflyingengineer.com...

from the thread OP

Flight Envelope

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...
(pfd) rgl.faa.gov...$FILE/A1NM%20Rev%2026.pdf

Vd explained
theflyingengineer.com...

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.

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, and this is very conservative, because such dives are mostly done from much higher altitudes as per the DC-8 ref cited above in which case an EAS of 425 represents an even higher Mach # up around 35,000 - 52,000 ft, 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 knots)

Boeing 767-200 (300..)

Vmo/Mmo: 360kts/.86M
that's 360 knots EAS (equivalent airspeed) near sea level

Vd/Md: 420kts/.91M

Boeing 767 A1NM Type Certificate Data Sheet

V-G Diagram Explained

GenRadek

Anyways, I recall a few instances where airliners broke the sound barrier in dives, and survived. Like these:
Airlners breaking sound barrier

V-G Diagram Explained

Flutter Testing ~ Airbus380
theflyingengineer.com...

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Posting up the same diagrams over and over is both spamming and a fruitless waste of time.

All the diagrams and pointless repetiton the world cannot swap the difference between a simulator and what might happen in real life.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

For example, why didn't NIST investigate, thoroughly, the actual occurrence of the phenomenon of destruction of the twin towers, offering only a collapse initiation hypothesis, which assumed, perhaps understandably, that the plane impacts and fire were the direct and sole result of the buildings' subsequent destruction or "collapse", simply because, in both cases, it was initiated at around the areas of impact?

They did. What many of the truthers use as the bible of the OS are the preliminary reports released by NIST, FEMA and others and not the final report.

They addressed whether explosives were used. They created static models and computer models. They did everything that an investigation should have and then used those suggestions in the building of the new WTC7 as well as the new WTC1.

NIST however has nothing to do with airspeed so let's get back to the OP.

GenRadek
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

Soulwaxer, have you ever heard of something called a "Rube-Goldberg Machine"? It is a machine that is overly complicated and precisely timed to complete some mundane job. Every "Truth" Movement version of events is precisely that. Such overly complicated scenarios that require the precise timing and calibration that allows for no screw ups, chance, or unforeseen events that could derail or expose the whole grand show. It is kinda like this :

with the exact same hilarious result in the end

Ad in the end of the machine fun that is pretty much what happens to the "Truth" Movement. They end up shooting themselves in the foot.

I'm sure many people find your video entertaining. I don't. This is a serious issue.

As for no screw ups, there were plenty. One of them was flight 93. That's why the story of the heroes storming the cockpit was concocted. This seemed to work wonders on people like you, as they knew it would.

soulwaxer

reply to post by soulwaxer

As for no screw ups, there were plenty. One of them was flight 93. That's why the story of the heroes storming the cockpit was concocted. This seemed to work wonders on people like you, as they knew it would.

I can't help but note that overlooks a very serious and important conspiracy theory, itself. Many believe very strongly that Flight 93 had been engaged and downed by U.S. aircraft in the crisis response to ongoing events.

I'm not sure either way myself..but I tend to lean toward it being a possibility and a distinct one, given time passed from when we know jets took off to respond (late...VERY late...but then, so was Flight 93).

I guess I just don't take anything as a given for 9/11. Too much isn't known or has been removed from the record. Some for good reasons and most for highly questionable ones, at best.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

As for no screw ups, there were plenty. One of them was flight 93. That's why the story of the heroes storming the cockpit was concocted. This seemed to work wonders on people like you, as they knew it would.

I can't help but note that overlooks a very serious and important conspiracy theory, itself. Many believe very strongly that Flight 93 had been engaged and downed by U.S. aircraft in the crisis response to ongoing events.

I'm not sure either way myself..but I tend to lean toward it being a possibility and a distinct one, given time passed from when we know jets took off to respond (late...VERY late...but then, so was Flight 93).

I guess I just don't take anything as a given for 9/11. Too much isn't known or has been removed from the record. Some for good reasons and most for highly questionable ones, at best.

I am not overlooking that at all. I am quite convinced that 93 was shot down. All the evidence (which I'm sure you have seen) points towards that. For example: Just a black hole in the ground with some scraps around it. No bodies, nothing bigger than a phone book (according to eyewitnesses on the scene). Scraps found miles away from the hole in the ground. Now, what does that all add up to?...

Hmmmm.

Of course that plane was shot down. That's not the issue though. The issue is whether or not there were passengers on that plane. And that's exactly what was hidden by shooting it down. Something went wrong with that part of the attack, so they blew it to bits to hide the evidence. If they had just let it crash in a "normal fashion", then there would be way too much evidence recovered, as in all airliner crashes that occur on land.

Also, the 3 flights (of which one was probably a missile) that did hit their targets were conveniently hidden inside the buildings they hit, which were then conveniently demolished, covering everything up nicely. In the Pentagon, they only had to drop a small part of the building onto the destruction because they only had to hide a missile impact, which is a lot less wreckage than an airliner. Not that that was so successful...

soulwaxer

NewAgeMan

curious again.. not sure how relevent this would be..

but that china air 006, whats the load factor for structural failure?? is it 3.8g?

it experienced 5g, and well outside the structural failure zone right? or to be more precise 31% over 3.8g..

whereas UA175, although is 90knots over Vd, its 21.4% over Vd..

i know its not exactly the same but seems mathematically china air experienced exceeding the flight envelope to a greater degree.. is this wrong thinking?

reply to post by soulwaxer


No the video is an exact representation of what the "Truth" Movement does. It concocts these absurdly complex ideas, so intricate, with such required precision and timing that would make a Swiss watch maker proud, that it is practically impossible to accomplish in the real world. An entire narrative has to be created with not 10s of people or hundreds, but thousands if not tens of thousands of people all working together across every single aspect to cover the entire "conspiracy" so nothing goes wrong that can blow the operation. Now, it is my experience that people are not robots and they are prone to failure, weakness, etc. Do not tell me that they managed to keep silent thousands of people for all of these years and no one has cracked. I mean seriously, this is impossible.

Also, all this nonsense about specially modified military plane clones, drones, people being killed elsewhere and then planted at the crash sites, explosives planted and timed just right, explosive rigged buildings with not a soul noticing, specially securing explosives so they do not detonate on impact or set afire or lose their detonation cords, etc etc etc, my God, it is exactly like the video I posted. The "Truth" Movement concocts such elaborate schemes that upon close inspection, in the end, all they end up doing is getting themselves humiliated.

As for Flight 93, no evidence of a shootdown. [U]None. That I have covered again, years ago with others and effectively proven it was not shot down. All aspects have been explained, including the debris fields, the impact crater, everything. There is nothing new the "Truth" Movement can or has brought forward to counter.

As for this whole nonsense about the plane not being able to do what it was, the OP still cannot get over the fact that yes, a plane can go past its "safe" operating envelope without exploding in midair. All the diagrams in the world that he has posted cannot make up for the fact that he too does not understand how aircraft are designed, how aerodynamics work in a dive, and what it means to have set limits. As it was shown, the 747SP experienced 5Gs of stresses on its wings, from its uncontrolled dive. Some damage was done but it did not explode and break up in mid air. Wouldnt you agree that 5Gs is seriously well past an aircraft's safety envelope? Flight 175 did not even approach that many Gs.

But I challenge you or the OP to show me in a document that states a plane cannot at all in a gentle dive and with engines at maximum, approach these speeds without breaking up immediately.

soulwaxer

Something went wrong with that part of the attack, so they blew it to bits to hide the evidence.

And then planted evidence there. Like DNA. And of course they could plant this evidence at zero notice in a random field in Pennsylvania but not at the plane's planned destruction site.

Hmmmmm.

reply to post by soulwaxer


I'm not sure where you get the impression the PA crash site was nothing but a smoking hole with nothing in it. It was soft ground they went almost straight into at high speed. A plane is nothing but a big aluminum tube, when it comes down to it. Everything in it, can nearly disintegrate in terms of what is recognizable and it's not unknown or unique to that particular crash site. However, to refer back to the trial exhibits that have stood in court? There are reasons for how the PA crash scene looked.



The big stuff went straight into the ground, as one might expect, and what was first visible was, in many ways, was what settled back over the mass that planted into the soil. It's the site that had a high recovery rate though.

Some was burned or scorched badly...



and some was blown in pieces away and with little burning evident.



Much was blown into the woods as well and another picture shows trees cut off from flying debris as well.



This one also had both recorders recovered so the general behavior and events are known...





When I think this may have been brought down, I'm thinking in terms of guns or a glancing hit, since it did come down more or less intact.

There is quite a bit more, including personal property of average people on the flight, like ID cards and papers. It's all a part of the Government hosted Trial Record at that link and the exhibits dealing with this section run P200057 - P200070 to make ctrl-f searching easy. The PA series had no gore, for those concerned.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Piloting

To "fly" the UA simulator at reported speeds, it was necessary to override or disable the warning indicators as well as the crash logic of the simulator. Otherwise the screen just goes red once Vd is exceeded.

I need to make a CORRECTION, for the sake of clarity and precision, as i have no intention here to in any way mislead the readership.

As it turns out, Captain Dan Govatos did NOT disable the crash logic. They were trying to hit the WTC in the sim the very next day.. on Sept 12, 2001, so while they were aware the plane was travelling at high speed, obviously he would not know what the actual recorded speeds were yet.

They were flying the simulator for a Boeing 737, a smaller and much more maneuverable aircraft, within the Vmo limit, or under 360 knots - he mentions the figure of 300 knots, which is considered at that altitude to be very fast, particularly as it relates to controlled flight and maneuvering/piloting. As for the forces involved, which include both aerodynamic pressures due to airspeed and g-forces due to maneuvering, Dan mentions in the interview that they were "fighting the crash logic" when making the attempt at the "higher speeds" because it simulates the forces involved, and very accurately in fact.

In other words, he and his pilots were trying to hit the WTC South Tower at Vmo and perhaps a bit above.. or 300-400 knots, max, and from what he said, closer to 300 and within with the Vmo limit (360 knots)

They couldn't go faster than that, past Vd (420), because the sim will then freeze and the screen will turn red due to the crash logic, which would require re-setting the simulator.

Again, as far as controlled flight and maneuvering, and piloting goes, they were flying a 737, a smaller and much more maneuverable aircraft, at around Vmo (and less) and were unable to hit the target (south tower) unless and until they reduced the airspeed to near approach level speeds, which for a Boeing 767-200ER is around 142 knots and for a Boeing 737, around 130 knots.

www.boeing.com...

It's also vital in this case, to bear in mind, in terms of a comparative frame of reference, that these were very experienced pilots with years and years and 1000's of hours of flight time on smaller, light aircraft.


As to the "difference between a simulator and what might happen in real life" please refer to my reply to neformore, where i was in no way trying to "swap" (mislead) regarding the difference between a simulator and real life, but instead, by distinguising and differentiating what's actually involved in terms of establishing the flight envelope of the aircraft, to show and in fact, to prove, in no uncertain terms, what the real structural threshold limit really is (Vd of 420 knots).

At the same time - by using the precedents of near or over-Vd in-flight structural failure, whether the plane barely managed to survive or not, the aim was to show precisely what happens when that flight envelope (and Vd), is exceeded by any appreciable margin, to within 5 knots (425), which also just so happens to represent an equivalent airspeed of near Mach 1.0., at altitude, thus further validating the "flutter tested" Vd of 420 knots as representing the outer limit threshold of the flight envelope, beyond which structural failure becomes imminent, for any unmodified Boeing commercial jet.

One might speculate (or mislead people to believe, falsely..) that Vd could be exceeded by a much larger margin, say a full 90 knots over Vd (setting aside all issues surrounding controlled flight and piloting at such speed...), and yet there is no precedent, in the whole of recorded aviation history, which supports such a notion or claim, where the best one, ever, is the DC-8 (re'd in the OP) which, in a controlled dive at a not dissimilar dive angle to the south tower plane, and from an altitude of 52,000 feet to 35,000 feet, reached, at 45,000 feet, an airspeed of Mach 1.01 for 16 seconds in controlled flight and without suffering structural failure, before managing to recover from the dive at 35,000 ft. To clarify again, in regards to equivalent airspeed and the equivalent dynamic pressures involved, 425 knots, near sea level = .99 Mach at around 22,000 feet alt.

The DC-8 however, was actually modified (leading wing edges).

In terms of airspeed, for a similar type aircraft, there is no faster precedent, in the recorded history of modern aviation - except "UA175" (Vd + 90kts) and "AA77" (Vd + 80kts).

In fact, many aircraft have suffered structural failure prior to Vd, prior to Vmo... and just above Va, as explained in this video.

www.youtube.com...


In regards to an historical issue such as this, which is VERY serious, with far reaching implications, not only in regards to modern history, and policy formation (click link), but the public safety - it's vitally important to be clear and precise and not to in any way, shape or form, attempt to knowingly mislead, muddy, or obfuscate the data and the facts in evidence, speaking for myself as i can't be responsible for what someone else might do or try to do, whether knowingly (not good), or unwittingly.

NAM

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 NewAgeMan


So just what would have warranted the plane to break up? I do not believe that it would have broke up just doing a high speed descent. It was not doing any violent maneuvers or quick turns or anything, save for a slight bank in the last few seconds to hit the building dead on. How exactly was that impossible?

I do not deny the plane was operating outside its safety zone, but a plane is not a fragile construction. A normal non-suicidal pilot would NEVER fly like how the terrorists were flying. However what do the terrorists care if they are going to crash anyways? The faster the better and who gives a damn about structural failure. Now had the schmuck missed the Tower and it kept on going with its high speeds, then maybe we could have watched it break up over NYC or at least lose a few pieces. The critical limit can be crossed, if only for a few moments. If they flew like that for a half hour, well, that would have bad. But as you can see, the dive into the WTC and the high speeds lasted for a few moments. 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.