El Al flight 1862 crashed into an apartment building in 1992,one black box was found,mangled and it's tape broken,the other was never found
the only videos that actually show the south wall of the south tower being penetrated by the alleged "FLT175" were shown after the fact, NO live video was shown except for the ones that had the north tower obscuring the view of the actual crash site. The aircraft bits or alleged aircraft bits that fell to the street that morning, were any of them identified as parts of wing-tips? was there ever any inventory of parts for any of the 4 airliners that allegedly were used as weapons that morning? The bit you point out, about the wing tips not actually making full penetration into the wall, then begs the question, if the wing tips didn't fully penetrate, were are they? the tips simply busted up in to such small bits as to rain down on the street like a shower of aluminum confetti? or maybe they spun around and entered the hole already made by the wing root? Two things still make this whole scene a made for TV drama, 1> the debate over can any Boeing 757/767 type aircraft be flown >100 mph over VNE at near sea level and be controllable? 2> how is it that in the hole(s) left by "FLT11" & "FLT175" there is no remnant of aircraft to be seen, no tail or even broken off control surfaces?
1. Obviously they can 2. They would not escape total destruction at that speed. As you can see in the following video, the wing tips only escaped destruction because they did not hit anything. [video=youtube_share;cIe5h_L480Y]http://youtu.be/cIe5h_L480Y[/video]
"obviously they can" doesn't constitute proof. and the destruction of an F4 against a totally unyielding target is not a correct analogy because in the case of the alleged WTC tower hits, the aircraft ( or shall I say alleged aircraft ) penetrated the wall. Also, note that the total KE calculated for the entire aircraft would not apply to the wing tips, because once broken free, the wing tips would have KE that is a function of their mass and velocity alone.
You seem to forget that the wingtips are attached to the rest of the aircraft via spars which are the strongest part of the wing. You have no proof they 'broke free'. - - - Updated - - - Eye witness accounts and video prove otherwise. [video=youtube_share;iyBCn0TPepE]http://youtu.be/iyBCn0TPepE[/video]
If the wingtips did not break free, they would still be attached to the rest of the aircraft and would therefore have had to complete the cut in the wall, if the cut in the wall was incomplete, the wing tips would have had to have broken off.
The fastest plane, flight 175 allegedly (I say allegedly because it is a calculation of speed not an indicated air speed) into the building at a ground speed of 503 mph (visual analysis) to 590 mph (radar analysis). Vmo is maximum operating speed and what is published. Vne is never exceed speed Vd is dive speed and the speed where structural problems can start to occur, the biggest one being flutter (or any loss of control). Flutter does not start at any particular speed and something needs to start the flutter. FAA design requirements. The airplane shall be designed to be free from flutter of wing and tail units, including all control and trim surfaces, and from divergence (i.e. unstable structural distortion due to aerodynamic loading), at all speeds up to 1.2 VD. Vd for the 767-200 is 410KCAS = 483mph. KCAS is calibrated airspeed which is essentially the same as KIAS indicated airspeed. That is indicated airspeed, not ground speed which is also affected by the speed and direction of the wind which in this case was quartered from the rear of the aircraft meaning it's indicated airspeed may have been less than ground speed. 483 * 1.2 = 579.6 mph indicated airspeed. Indicated airspeed is the same at any altitude including at ground level but the ground speed increases with altitude. So a 767 should not experience flutter (or any loss of control) below 580 mph. And given that flutter requires additional excitation, and some initiation time, and that the very highest estimate for speed for US175 was 590mph, then it seems unlikely that flutter would have caused significant problems for the pilots of UA175, who were intent solely on crashing the plane into a building.
That is but half of the explanation required, was there sufficient power available from the engines, to overcome the air-drag so as to propel the aircraft to 590 mph?
again proof of a negative, not happening.... the mainstream media was the first to assert the idea that hijacked airliners were used as weapons, therefore they have the burden of proof to support their claim. The people who are so interested in promoting the official story, need to be able to provide a foundation for the official story, and my point here is that the physical evidence of an alleged 4 airliner crashes, is very thin at best. also to address a claim made in post 182, at what altitude is that 483 mph supposed to be? max speeds have specific altitudes associated with them. an aircraft that can cruse at over 500 mph at 30,000 ft is not going to do well, if at all, attempting that speed near sea level.
Top published speed is 565 mph airspeed so yes, on a decent with a tailwind it is more than possible. Remember, the speeds given were estimated ground speeds, not airspeeds (aircraft speeds are given relative to air). http://www.airlines-inform.com/commercial-aircraft/Boeing-767-200.html
No, wrong. You're making the claim that the plane lacked "sufficient power available from the engines, to overcome the air-drag so as to propel the aircraft". Im asking you to prove this claim. Clearly, you cannot because the plane did, in fact, accelerate.
This is max speed at what altitude, it matters, there are graphs for various types of aircraft that illustrate the different variables at different altitudes such as stall speed is different at 20,000 ft as opposed to 1,000 ft. Max speed can be expected to be considerably lower at lower altitude because the air is denser at lower altitudes.
Really this sort of claim is exactly like the simple native who was given a magic amulet to keep great white bear out of jungle and when told that polar bears do not live in the jungle, he replies "see .... magic GOOD"
Vmax is relative to airspeed which is at any altitude. That is why ground speed at altitude is higher than airspeed.
the irony! that the alleged plane just happened to allegedly impact at 565 mph! sounds contrived but it must be just another 'coincidence', like all the rest of the 911 coincidences
The estimate is 503 to 590 mph, not 565 ground speed (not air speed) and as explained earlier, the aircraft was within design parameters so loss of control would not have been a factor.
I am very skeptical of that "any altitude claim, and upon doing a web-search I got quite a few references to Pilotsfor911truth, however, what has been promoted here, is "oh that is just another one of those silly truther sites" don't go there, however, what substantiation for the claim "at any altitude" is there? I would really like to know.
Rule of thumb calculation of ground speed from indicated airspeed at altitude. 0 1.00 5000 1.08 10000 1.17 15000 1.26 20000 1.37 25000 1.50 30000 1.64 35000 1.79 40000 2.02
a moot point, the ground speed = airspeed because the alleged "FLT11" & "FLT175" had to have been flying @ below 5000 ft.
Yes and no, there was a quartering tailwind if you look at the direction of smoke so the estimated ground speed would be higher than actual airspeed putting the aircraft well within Vd time 1.2 where possible flutter or loss of control could (not necessarily would) start happening.
and the issue of the engines producing enough power to propel said aircraft at such speed, has simply been dismissed? Not only that, but the point about the airliner being able to actually fly and be controllable at 590 mph or whatever alleged air-speed or ground speed it was .... The whole story is highly questionable because both "FLT11" & "FLT175" struck their target with such precision, that is in a + or - 25ft of wall area, the planes hit so near dead center as to indicate that the hijackers hit the jackpot making that lucky hit, it just happened to happen like that. what are the odds? far too many things that "just happened like that" Just an additional bit for this, in the case of flying over-speed there are cockpit alarms, and these alarms are quite loud, they are designed to demand attention, could the hijackers maintain sufficient concentration to actually fly the aircraft with these alarms going off?
Well, more of the same dismissal and misinformation eh? If they hit the buildings precisely, why didn't they both hit on the same floor? If they hit so near dead center why did one not head dead center? I have already proven it is possible to fly at that speed and remember, they were not flying straight and level but on a decent; thereby, giving them the ability to increasing their speed. Max cruising speed in level flight is 565 mph indicated airspeed and the estimated speed range is well within range of the possible and max cruise speed is easily exceeded but that is design for normal operation. Warnings are just warnings and would not be much concern if someone wanted to crash the planes in the first place.
depending on source for data, and interpretation of charts, the max speed for a 757/767 type aircraft would be 415 mph, @ < 1000 ft altitude, thus at 515 mph the aircraft would be exceeding its max speed by 100 mph. you have not produced any substantiation of your argument that altitude doesn't matter, max speed is a function of altitude. I can see by your sig, that you are anti-Statist, however, by supporting the excuse for "home land security" and all that it involves with the negation of personal privacy and liberty. WHY are you supporting the idea that 9/11/2001 was the product of angry Arabs instead of the logical choice to at the very least, QUESTION the official version of events?
