Holes shaped like planes?

Discussion in '9/11' started by Vlad Ivx, Dec 29, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    REALLY? how is it supported, that is the idea that an airliner
    could be flown at such speed and at such low altitude?

    Short of a press release from Boeing or possibly a demonstration by some hot-shot pilot who has the Chutzpah to actually attempt to fly an airliner at low altitude & that fast ..... what is offered up as proof that any of the aircraft either FLT11, FLT175, FLT77 ..... could have flown as was alleged?

    quoted from the link you provided, & yes, Boeing officials did remark on the fact that the speed was "off the chart" as described. so WHY should this be considered even within the range of possibility for a hijacker "pilot" to have flown the aircraft in the manner that it was alleged to have been.
    Indeed if it could be demonstrated that it is a physical impossibility to fly an airliner in the manner alleged for the aircraft on 9/11/2001 then this blows away the whole show. I have no doubt in my mind that it is a physical impossibility to fly an airliner at >550 mph <1000 ft altitude.
    and really a press release from Boeing would clear the air on this subject, but will they do it?
     
  2. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Physics.
     
  3. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    gotta love it ..... a one word "rebuttal"

    How about the fact that the air is significantly denser
    at <1000ft as opposed to Boeing specified alt of 35,000 ft
    for its cruising speed specification.
    how about the fact that air-resistance goes up by the
    cube ( that is X^3 ) of the velocity.

    Note that if you are driving your car on one of those
    out in the middle of nowhere roads and you put your
    foot down, and at some point, the car stops accelerating
    maybe at 90, or maybe at 120, but at some point it stops
    accelerating because you have reached a limit. The very
    same can be said for aircraft, at some point, you can not
    advance the throttle more, you have done all there is and
    you have reached the limit, all physical systems have a basic limit.
    How can it be supported that is the idea that the aircraft
    "FLT11" "FLT175" "FLT77" could fly as was alleged and not have
    reached the limit of what is possible before attaining the speeds
    that were alleged to have been?
     
  4. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    More incredulity?
     
  5. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    88,476
    Likes Received:
    20,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    genericBob still doesn't understand what airspeed is.
     
  6. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did you read the statements by Boeing officials?
     
  7. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    post some.
     
  8. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Perhaps you could explain the difference between
    Air Speed and Ground Speed at <1,000 ft altitude
     
  9. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Air speed is measured in knots,even at 1000 feet altitude.
     
  10. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OH ...... well EXCUSE ME, when news reports the alleged speed
    of FLT175 as 590 mph, because most people can relate to MPH
    rather than knots. Its a moot point, how do you get an airliner
    to travel at such speed as was reported as the alleged speed of
    "FLT175" when all of the indications are totally against this sort
    of speed.
     
  11. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Says who?...planes fly much faster than theyre rated at,but don't because of safety reasons
     
  12. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I stated FACTS that contribute to basic limitations and
    you apparently haven't read or given any thought to
    any of it. oh well,
     
  13. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Source for these 'facts'? Did you make them up?
     
  14. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Apparently you think it's MY fault that you can't understand that the top speed of airliners is faster thanthe specs.
     
  15. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and with that you totally dismiss the quotes from Boeing
    officials to be found in the link provided in a previous post.
    The fact that there are limitations such that one simply does
    not exceed said limitations, but you insist that not only would
    it be plausible that hijackers could fly airliners way beyond
    the limitations of said airliners but also exercise precision
    control over said aircraft. and you wanna bust me for
    "incredulity" ...... Think People B 4 it becomes ILLEGAL!
     
  16. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    88,476
    Likes Received:
    20,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have given you the V speeds and design limitations before. Just because you ignore them does not make them false.
     
  17. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    See post 651, do you deny that a Boeing spokesperson
    said that the speed was "off the charts" and another

    "In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude, a Boeing official said."

    This constitutes operating out in totally uncharted territory
    in that the hijackers had NO way of knowing if the aircraft
    would be controllable and if it wasn't controllable, the mission
    could end up with the hijacked airliner in the river next to the
    towers rather than hitting the tower(s). Even if the aircraft
    could be pushed to that sort of speed in level flight @<1,000ft.
    There is a LOT more evidence pointing to IT CAN'T BE DONE,
    than there is pointing to hijackers flying airliners at ridiculous
    speeds and so low altitude.
     
  18. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pilots don't exceed them for safety reasons....geeze,the hijackers weren't concerned about safety,they wanted to inflict as much damage as they could.

    Think!
     
  19. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    88,476
    Likes Received:
    20,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no evidence it can't be done, in fact the evidence is clear it can be done.
     
  20. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yet neither of those Boeing officials express any doubt that it was done. Whoops!
     
  21. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just one itty bitty question for all the supporters of the hijacked airliners used as weapons bit......

    What would you guess the actual top speed of an airliner, (Boeing 757/767) would be at aprox 1000 ft altitude? Mach .99? or?

    Like that drive on a long stretch of highway, and you find out at what speed your car will max out(?)

    what speed would an airliner attain before it simply will not accelerate any more?
    that is with the stipulation of @ < 1000 ft altitude?
     
  22. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    around what we saw them flying at on 9/11
     
  23. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Consider China Airlines 006, a Boeing 747, is thought to have exceeded Mach 1 by accident... with one of its four engines flamed out, and the other three at ordinary power. It exceeded 650 MPH, well above its "rated" speed.

    Egypt Air 990 nearly reached Mach 1 at sea level as it dived to its destruction. And this was even a fellow Boeing 767, similar to Flight 175. Its final speed was nearly 750 miles per hour. At sea level.

    The speeds cited by NIST are entirely credible for a 767 in a power dive. Flight 175 was at full power and diving from 28,000 feet at over 10,000 feet per minute when it struck WTC 2.
     
  24. EggKiller

    EggKiller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    6,643
    Likes Received:
    473
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Thanks, I was just about to point out the effects of gravity to the flat earthers but you beat me to it.
    I'm personally amazed suicidal hijackers plummeting towards their death weren't more safety conscious myself.
     
  25. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are very few examples of accidental over-speed events and these ended in the total destruction of the aircraft. The fact is that flying an airliner at such speeds may or may not be possible, and one of the HUGE unknowns here is the possibility of control, because if the hijacker can not control the aircraft, the mission is in jeopardy because the airliner very likely would miss the target and end up in the river near the tower, but not having hit anything except the river. There is a whole risk benefit trade-off to be considered and it all totally winds up in speculation, would whoever planned the events of 9/11/2001 ( if indeed they were using hijacked airliners ) would anyone risk the consequences of not being able to control the aircraft, in a situation where the goal was to strike the WTC tower(s).
    Remember, that flying an airliner super fast as was alleged by the supporters of the hijacked airliner story, is totally uncharted territory, there may or may not be a controllable aircraft under those conditions.
    also, the video of "FLT175" approaching the south tower, doesn't look
    like a dive, looks rather level to me, so where is this "power dive" happening? also, please consider this, to do a power dive, with an
    intended target in mind, you have to know the aircraft you are flying.
    The whole power dive bit needs to be a precision maneuver in that
    if the hijacker pilot were to put the aircraft into this power dive state, and then achieve the speed desired and pull out, what guarantee of alignment with the WTC tower is there? WW][ Dive Bomber pilots had to have a LOT of training and practice to get it right so as to make the precision maneuver required.

    The whole 9/11/2001 story depends on a LOT
    of "it could happen like that" when in fact we
    see a stack up of events that = somebody rolled snake eyes
    1,000,000 times in a row. crazy!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page