http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103 You are confusing knots with mph. 493 knots = ~568mph Why question the obvious?
this is NOT and I repeat KNOT a mix up between KNOTS & MPH I know the figure that I quoted and it was for < 1000 ft altitude for max speed of said airliner. There is also a very serious question, & I'm hard pressed to actually locate the youtube video, but the video had a rather interesting and totally believable wrinkle to the story, in a computer simulation of the airliner flight characteristics, the the airliner was pushed to 400 mph at <1000 ft and at some point around 450 mph, the aircraft was nose up, and no application of control surfaces would cause the nose to come down, it was in climb mode and that was a built in design feature of the aircraft and that is all you can do at the speed & air density at that low of an altitude, at higher altitudes, the aircraft would level off and cruise but trying to operate the aircraft at high speed so near sea level, may be impossible because of built-in design features of the aircraft. I realize that this is a terribly controversial subject and still the fact that Boeing has not weighed in on the subject, speaks volumes.
I have given you the a link to the specs, max speed, Vd speed, the FAA design requirements, what airspeed is, the difference between airspeed and ground speed, and all you have is a Nu-Uh and a youtube video? Why would Boeing weigh into what is public knowledge and already known to satisfy a bunch of crackpots?
Your attitude is showing ...... Where is the specification that indicates the speed at < 1000 ft is the same as the CRUISING speed? cruising indicates that the aircraft would be at cruising altitude and that will most certainly not be < 1000 ft The air is more dense at < 1000 ft than at cruising altitude. why should you expect the cruise speed to apply at <1000 ft?
Your ignorance of fact, flight, and aircraft is showing. Airspeed is airspeed irrelevant to altitude. Airspeed - the speed of an aircraft relative to the air through which it is moving. Because density decreases at altitude airspeed translates to faster ground speed thus at the altitude so close to sea level in NY, the airspeed would be close to ground speed with the exception of a quartering tailwind giving a slightly higher ground speed.
You just don't get it....YOU'RE THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM. You're the on that claims the planes engine could not have accelerated due to draG...YOU CARRY THE BURDEN OF PROOF. PROVE YOUR CLAIM OR STOP MAKING IT.
The mainstream media is the one that first asserted that hijacked airliners used as weapons did all the damage, and so they have the burden of proof, nothing has been proven as yet, the lack of physical evidence of there having been any "FLT11" or "FLT175" or for that matter any of the alleged hijacked airliners is very significant. also the rampant debate over the capabilities of an airliner with regards to flying at 590 mph near sea level and also the HOLLOW POINT PROJECTILE behavior that has never been properly addressed, the whole bit adds up to a total fiasco. there is NO reason at all to think that hijacked airliners inflicted the damage to any of the buildings on 9/11/2001.
Stop attempting to move the goal post and answer the question. "You just don't get it....YOU'RE THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM. You're the on that claims the planes engine could not have accelerated due to draG...YOU CARRY THE BURDEN OF PROOF. PROVE YOUR CLAIM OR STOP MAKING IT." Second, ALL the evidence supports the what everyone saw from the ground, on TV, from the ATC towers in NJ and across the river....it all confirms that planes crashed into the WTC. The rest of your post is complete drivel.
LOL, "HOLLOW POINT PROJECTILE behavior". Now there is a new one. You have already confirmed you know nothing of aircraft or flight, now you expect us to believe that you know something about hollow point projectiles?
You obviously want to avoid the subject, however, note that the aircraft is hollow behind the nose that is cockpit, passenger compartment and just like a hollow point fired from a gun, the airliner would be hitting the wall at high speed and so what would anyone with knowledge of hollow point bullets expect to happen?
The only one avoiding anything is you. You have yet to address any of the facts presented but continue to move the goal post to something else even more ridiculous. FYI, hollow points can go through car doors. Address that.
Wiki Pedia: Mach 0.80 (530 mph, 458 knots, 850 km/h at cruise altitude of 35,000 ft or 10.66 km) Speed is at altitude, not sea level. See NASA Mach number calculator page for explanation about Mach number and example calculations. Straight out of good ol' Wiki ....... Altitude does matter. So top speed at near sea level is different than top speed at 35,000 ft.
Still endeavoring proving your ignorance eh? Top 'ground speed' is different at altitude, not airspeed. Airspeed is relative to air. Ground speed is relative to ground. Indicated airspeed of 520mph is the same at ground level as it is at altitude.
I sense that you are attempting to simply stir the pot here. the issue, with regards to the crash into the south tower, is one of ground speed, because that is the relevant bit, and anyhow, at near sea level, ground speed = airspeed. so what is the big deal? and so far, NONE of the discussion has even touched on the possibility that the engines could not power the aircraft to 590 mph that near the ground.
Nope, just trying to school you on something you don't understand. So far I have shown you that the max cruise speed (which would be straight and level) is well within the estimated speed they were going and they are capable of going faster.. You don't seem to be able to grasp these things.
Cruise speed is specified at 35,000 ft, what is the VNE for <1000 ft? If "FLT175" could fly at 590 mph @ <1000 ft, can it be demonstrated that the jet engines had sufficient power to do the job? The mainstream media has the ultimate burden of proof here, because the media was the first to assert that the attack was done with hijacked airliners.
An aircraft flying at 590 mph indicated air speed at ground level will also fly at 590 mph indicated airspeed at altitude. Air speed is relative to air. Air is thinner at altitude so ground speed increases, indicated airspeed doesn't. Ground speed at 35K with an indicated airspeed of 590 would be approx 1,056 mph. Since airliners don't fly at those speeds normally, mainly due to fuel consumption, they will fly a much slower cruise speed.
So let me get this straight, you assert that it is possible for a Boeing 757/767 airliner to travel at 590 mph @ < 1000 ft & its all good ..... right?
The facts are clear. No one flys them at that speed but then no one is usually trying to crash into buildings at top speed.
so to be perfectly clear on this, you assert that its entirely possible to fly a Boeing 757/767 airliner at 590 mph @ < 1000 ft altitude right?
Bob, it sounds like you have more than sufficient proof of the impossibility of airplanes being used in the WTC attacks based soundly on physics and pure reason. You have exposed the participation of every major news network in a government sponsored mass-murder, false-flag operation. Congrats. You're a hero. I look forward to the formal disclosure of the findings of your investigation to the public. In which periodical will you be publishing your research? Will you hold a press conference? I still have a nagging question though, what's you theory regarding the numerous firefighters and EMS personnel who reported hearing, seeing, and even feeling the alleged planes that struck the Twin Towers that morning? Were they lying? Part of the plot and cover-up? If so, why would they risk their lives that way, knowing the truth of what was happening? What about the firemen who perished? Congratulations again.
what about the other witnesses? [video=youtube;bq1-BCeNcm0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1-BCeNcm0[/video]
Hold on a minute, when thousands of people say they saw the plane stike they become a unreliable witness (according to truthers). But what makes this one guy in the video reliable is it because hes going with your side of the story. So let me get this straight thousands of eye witnesses,tv, flight data and other evidence is all wrong and unreliable but this one guy is spot on, is that right ?
