Many don't understand the importance of what you posted so I will do a TL;DR to help your cause and add another 911 "proof" and some bonuses of my own.

First; This all means that the speeds that the airplane achieved would have destroyed the airplane if it really was the one that we were told, but not a military airplane that is built to withstand higher forces.

Second, here is my 911 "proof":

Explosion flashes were caught on camera before and during the first WTC collapse.

Third, here are my bonuses:

Pentagon security cameras were tampered with to either hide or show a faked(?) airplane.

Flight 93 was completely destroyed, somehow there were still 2 calls on that airplane that remained connected for hours.

Turner Construction company "upgraded" the almost exact floor levels where the airplanes hit and where the collapse initated.

That same company helped plan and oversee a top down demolition of the Seattle Kingdome in 2000.

And that same company also participated in the collection and disposal of the WTC wreckage.

Hope this is enough.

i would add this

North Tower Exploding http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

how do you make a textual link like you did there?, duh..

That one has already been "debunked" with "what do you expect from tons of concrete and steel crashing down on each other?" so I only posted the few that they have absolutely no way to explain with the official version.

And regarding the link, here is how you do it (and it is explained below the chat box if you click "formatting help")

[reddit!](http://reddit.com)

becomes reddit!

The only way anyone could "debunk" that would be if they cannot trust their own lying eyes and then lie about what they're seeing.

Timed rate of destruction of the twin towers relative to free fall, leaving a difference of only about 3 or 4 seconds, is another rather irrefutable and self evident proof.

I call the official story about what happened to the twin towers "the foot of God hypothesis" because it just doesn't work within the context of Sir Isaac Newton's Three Laws of Motion.

It's grade ten level physics, and less, both the towers' destruction as well as this plane during it's approach through impact with the south tower and both of them taken together are absolutely devastating to the official story narrative compliments of Philip D. Zelikow.

It's grade ten level physics

We all know that, but they are the ones that refuse to accept it so whenever engaging in such a discussion is always better to address the points that they cannot explain except with the conspiracy version.

If you engage in a debat against a debunker and you talk about everything it will be the same as Bill Nye vs Ken Ham, where everytime you say something they will respond with "nah, NIST this, NIST that". After a short time you will understand what I mean and how pointless it is because they don't care what you say, they will just deny everything you say, label all the sources you use and when they can't do either they simply leave.

What i meant was this is another set of grade 10 level physics, which, when taken together with the grade 10 level physics for the observations involved in the destruction of the twin towers and building 7, forms a viable alternative hypothesis in terms of effects from causes.

CD of the buildings doesn't really make sense in the context of the original planes successfully hijacked and then flown by the hijackers and is highly suggestive, even emphatically so, of the idea that those planes really were planes-as-missiles. What this evidence provides, is absolute incontrovertible and unequivocal proof that this was the case.

The debunkers are also skeptics, many of them, which requires serious skepticism and scrutiny of ALL information, which cannot begin with only one fundamental presumption, namely that the official story is true, if it really isn't and cannot be believed in light of all information and phenomenon according to the proper use of Occam's Razor. I mean they could try to throw up sand in everyone's faces, but it won't work for very long since we're only dealing in facts here, both in regards to the planes as well as in regards to the explosive demolition of the buildings themselves, which is really self evident where MOST (not all) people can clearly see it for themselves and i have faith in that.

So-called "debunkers" are free to believe whatever they like. What they are not entitled to however if their own set of facts.

Thanks for posting this and the above... I had heard a long time ago that the airspeed of the one supposed 767 was beyond what the airframe could handle at low elevation.

All we can do is use facts to poke holes through the theories. The liars\murderers (opposite of truthers) seem to grab whatever sounds good from a official source and run with it. It doesn't matter though if it not physically possible.

The problem is it is physically possible. The argument about all these standards for speed were made with normal operation in mind. Not that they couldn't handle it at all.

Flying that fast makes the components fail faster, not that it would disintegrate the plane if it reached those speeds.

In normal operation parts are changed out every x amount of miles. If you went past those speeds talked about, they would wear faster. So that would be why it would be inherently dangerous. Reaching those speeds for a short amount of time doesn't mean you would not tear the wings off. It means you would stress the plane beyond those normal flying limits.

Not that it is impossible for the plane to stay in the air past those speeds.

Controlled flight is also at issue, and the over Vd speed (90 knots over) was maintained for well over a minute throughout the latter part of the dive and during level flight, including acceleration to maintain that airspeed.

Again there is no precedent in the history of aviation, except on 9/11, for such airspeed in controlled flight without structural failure. None, not one.

according to the proper use of Occam's Razor

I see Occam's razor referenced constantly, SO much so that I have come to strongly suspect that many people do not understand what it is and when to apply it. Occam's razor is not equivalent to the idea that "perfection is simplicity". In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result, nor is it a method by which we derive scientific facts themselves. Occam's Razor is not intended to be a definitive proof or methodology. Rather, all it says is that there is a tendency where often, the less complicated explanations are generally the right ones. It is not a substitute for research, nor is it a reliable way to make decisions, in and of itself.

Would you like to learn more?

Why The Simplest Theory Is Never The Right One: Occam’s Razor Has A Double Edge

yes, leave the debate you cannot win before you lose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woeh1nburyM

Yeah... "debunked".

Make me laugh more please.

If the towers collapse at free fall why does the debris fall faster than the towers?

The "debris" that comes out of the windows is from the floors falling on each other and pushing the air out sideways.

You, debunkers, really love to ignore things in order to keep with your flawed theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yli-if4F0DY&t=293

Pay attention to the right side wall.

The building did "collapsed" as fast as the debris cloud did, in fact it was synched with the cloud of debris all the way down.

What will you say now that I showed you it fell at the speed of the debris? What excuse will you come up now that I proved you wrong?

The "debris" that comes out of the windows is from the floors falling on each other and pushing the air out sideways.

You mean the pancake theory? The one that has already been rejected by NIST itself because it wasn't compatible? When will you actually show us any other collapse that displayed the same "debris coming out of the windows" that are, by an incredible coincidence, exactly like demolition squibs?

you need your eyes checked you can clearly see the debris falling faster.

"the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."

But again things falling down will push air out sideways as its the path of least resistance the air cannot go through the floor below

"As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially. These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building."

"Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST or by the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department, or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation. In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view."

"The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation."

Source

Id just like to say thanks for pointing me to the NIST report i was not aware of it before

I... there's no way or form to talk with people like you. It's like trying to explain things to Bill O'Reilly, absolutely useless!

What about wtc7? That one also didn't achieve free-fall speeds, right?

"oh, that one did BUT it's ok because NIST said it was compatible with their faked model"

clap clap clap

EDIT: The user above felt it was a good thing to add a shit ton more information long after I had already replied so here is my reply to that addition:

Quoting NIST on an unproved and "looks like the real thing" model is not by any means a good form of argumentation. Just because it is in a book doesn't mean it's true, they didn't even tested wether the floors could cause the "squibs". Not even NIST dared to explain why did the buildings completely collapsed, for fucks sakes.

What do you mean you people (Ad hominem) you mean from when the penthouse collapsed through the building to final collapse that's nothing like freefall. it was near freefall but then you will see most of the footage presented by the conspiracy theorists has that part of the video edited out, i wounder why.

And here starts the same old debunker's round and around tactic so let's just jump to the fun part.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xlc96/911_proof_in_evidence_that_the_south_tower_plane/cfcf81k

I will be waiting for your expertise explanations that not even NIST or the Comission couldn't explain.

And remember, you are defending an unproved theory against facts.

you haven't responded to my first point yet

1. Explosion flashes were caught on camera before and during the first WTC collapse. "The above are all equally probable until evidence and/or testing is conducted. You cannot rule one out before you prove it to be true or false."

So not evidence then just more speculation

1. Cameras one was nearer the other two different locations if the camera is closer it will have a narrower filed of view and thus the plain will not enter both cameras frame at the same time. and i thought you guys were convinced it was a missle? when did you change that story?

2. someone died in a plan crash and didn't think to turn his/her phone off? really? thats the best you got? "This is possible, however this is not the case for two reasons; if it was then the official story would have clearly explained it and also" wait what you counter argument is opinion

3. Turner Construction company "upgraded" the almost exact floor levels where the airplanes hit and where the collapse initated. Circumstantial and reinforced how? "Exactly what work was done during that time?" you don't know? but you make a bold claim without knowing and call it evidence?

Circumstantial at best and speculation

So not evidence then just more speculation

You completely ignored the rest of the post and took the intro out of context. This is just plain wrong and this just shows your true intent in this topic.

Cameras one was nearer the other two different locations if the camera is closer it will have a narrower filed of view and thus the plain will not enter both cameras frame at the same time. and i thought you guys were convinced it was a missle? when did you change that story?

You have got to be joking me, right? Tell me that you didn't just write that. Tell me that you didn't justify how an airplane and the trail of smoke can be in one camera and just the smoke can be in the other..

someone died in a plan crash and didn't think to turn his/her phone off? really? thats the best you got? "This is possible, however this is not the case for two reasons; if it was then the official story would have clearly explained it and also" wait what you counter argument is opinion

Again, please be kidding, you didn't really care about investigating or reading anything on the link. It wasn't cellphones, they were airphones, the ones that are part of the airplane. And you also completely ignored that it was impossible for TWO REASONS and attacked the first part only.

Turner Construction company "upgraded" the almost exact floor levels where the airplanes hit and where the collapse initated. Circumstantial and reinforced how? "Exactly what work was done during that time?" you don't know? but you make a bold claim without knowing and call it evidence?

I... this is just sad to read, it really hurts me to see someone that really thinks like this.

Circumstantial at best and speculation

Fires collapsed the buildings for the first time in history, because we saw the fires and the buildings collapse <- not circumstantial and speculative at all.

I am really disappointed to find out that you were like this. I was really hoping that we were going to have a clear and intelligent discussion but you proved that you are not the least interested in anything like it.

This was a useless waste of time.

This was a useless waste of time.

it always is, ive given up trying to educate these narrow minded, unimaginative (and to my mind, unintelligent) people. Its an exercise in frustration.

Thankfully it doesn't matter what they think.

Physics! The upper portions of the towers didn't have enough weight/energy/inertia to collapse the bottom two-thirds/three-quarters of the unharmed/untouched towers. It's just that simple. Energy from the top portions will be absorbed by the remaining unharmed portions as it drops and when that energy has met the resistance of the bottom portions the falling section should have tumbled off the remaining, still standing lower sections. You could probably experiment with this at home. Also gigantic portions of steel structure weighing thousands of pounds are found embedded in buildings hundreds of feet away. Physics has an answer for how those heavy structures ended up where they did. Research, but do it with an open mind. The truth does hurt sometimes.

how much did the upper portion weigh? and as it fell the floors added up to more weight

It didn't weigh anywhere close to the bottom portion, remember as the top falls energy is transferred to the lower portion. The energy is transferred through the entire structure right down to the foundation (which is set atop bedrock). The lower section is essentially pushing up against the falling section (every action has an equal and opposite reaction~Newton's third law of motion) thus the top portion's energy will be opposed and dissipated by the lower portion within the same or less amount of floors of the top section. Remember, as the top section falls into the lower section it is already losing energy. So that brings us to the only logical answer, the bottom sections had to have been weakened somehow in order for the upper section to fall through each and every floor WITHOUT RESISTANCE!!

When commenting, click "link" above the text area. Paste the URL where it prompts you, then type whatever text you want to see into the [brackets] when it brings you back to the text area. It's easy, see?

First; This all means that the speeds that the airplane achieved would have destroyed the airplane if it really was the one that we were told, but not a military airplane that is built to withstand higher forces.

This is so untrue it is laughable.

I am sorry, did I lie about what the OP was saying? What did I say that contradicts what the OP wrote?

You didn't contradict what OP was saying. I think this commenter was just pointing out that what OP was saying was poorly sourced and even more poorly thought out.

Check my recent comments for details.

was poorly sourced

You mean that OP, the one that actually sourced his claims, is "poorly sourced" versus the guy that just says "this is so untrue"?

Is this how rational discussions work these days?

You can cite all the sources you want, but if they don't back up your claims, they're worthless.

I won't re-cover old ground. Check my comment history for my account of why the three incidents cited by OP are in no way helpful to analysis of flight 175's airspeed.

I'm not an expert, but my whole family's in aviation so I could try to outline some of the differences for you based on info I can find on wikipedia. My analysis is based on the government's account of the united 93 crash, which some here have their doubts about, but OP here wanted to hear about what could account for the differences and I can't really answer that question from the perspective of "flight 93 never existed".

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xlc96/911_proof_in_evidence_that_the_south_tower_plane/cfcmuni

Did you know that the pilots4truth also stand against the official story? Do you know the jobs of the members of that movement? Do you know that plenty of them are veteran and still active pilots of boeing airplanes just like the ones on 911? Or what they say is irrelevant because... they don't support the official version?

But what am I doing here? Trying to make someone else understand something that they refuse to listen?i What another waste of time.

I'm familiar with pilots for truth and I'm not invested in the "official" story. I know several lifelong pilots of Boeing aircraft as well. I'm not here with any preconceived notions, I just decided to look into OP's claims and found that the weren't compelling when I took the rest of the evidence into account.

He's comparing apples to oranges with his envelope graph. All of the other incidents he's cited had some other factor that was more relevant than airspeed in causing the damage. In two out of the three incidents he cited, the craft were fine to continue flying after sustaining damage from the g-force of recovering from their dives.

I'm listening to every piece of evidence that's presented to me here and responding thoughtfully. I'm even presenting new evidence that you haven't addressed. If I'm not convinced after hearing what you have to say, perhaps you should look to the quality of your own arguments instead of blaming me for failing to come to the same conclusions as you.

He's comparing apples to oranges with his envelope graph.

Funny that when we compare the wtc7 "collapse" with a demolition you guys have the courage to say "nop, they are not the same thing" but when you use comparisons it works really well because it suits you well.

I'm listening to every piece of evidence that's presented to me here and responding thoughtfully. I'm even presenting new evidence that you haven't addressed. If I'm not convinced after hearing what you have to say, perhaps you should look to the quality of your own arguments instead of blaming me for failing to come to the same conclusions as you.

"new evidence" he means his words. This is the definition of "waste of time" and I will not continue with this joke.

If you still want to believe in an unproved theory vs factual evidence then by all means be another Bill O'Reilly and ignore every bit of common sense that you were born with, just don't bother me with this completely biased personaly justified nonsense.

You'll notice that I didn't say anything about WTC-7. Nor will I because I don't have any evidence to rebut anyone's claims about it. It's not even relevant to the discussion we're having about these aircraft.

I feel as though I'm talking to the backside of an ostrich. If you'd like to engage my ideas, feel free and I'll continue to respond. If you'd like to stomp your feet and yell until you can't hear me any more, please continue as you are.

You'll notice that I didn't say anything about WTC-7.

I also didn't talk about apples and oranges but you felt it was a good argument as I pointed out with the wtc7 example, but if you feel that you need to use this to escape the discussion then by all means, have a nice day.

I feel as though I'm talking to the backside of an ostrich

I know your feeling, it is as if I am talking to Bill O'Reilly.

i'm right here when you're ready to start engaging the content of my arguments. I'm not interested in hearing about arguments you had with anyone else. I've made a thorough rebuttal of the relevancy of the data OP presented and I haven't heard a word from you about it.

This is you

You can cite all the sources you want, but if they don't back up your claims, they're worthless.

This is me

Did you know that the pilots4truth also stand against the official story? Do you know the jobs of the members of that movement? Do you know that plenty of them are veteran and still active pilots of boeing airplanes just like the ones on 911? Or what they say is irrelevant because... they don't support the official version?

This is you

I'm familiar with pilots for truth and I'm not invested in the "official" story. I know several lifelong pilots of Boeing aircraft as well. I'm not here with any preconceived notions, I just decided to look into OP's claims and found that the weren't compelling when I took the rest of the evidence into account.

This is you

I've made a thorough rebuttal of the relevancy of the data OP presented and I haven't heard a word from you about it.

This is me:

It doesn't matter what I say, you will simply reject it and continue defending your story while wasting my time as I just showed.

I'll play devils advocate and ask you this. You seem to know your airplanes and its my perception that you're willing to entertain factual arguments.

Would you or any other 767 pilot dive the plane at 650 (low-balling) knots? Do you think all the control surfaces would function properly, if at all, at that dive speed on a 767?

Heres a case for Lauda Air B767, with PW4000 engines. I'm assuming its the same engine that was in the 911 event, but I'm unsure. - http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/LaudaAir/LaudaRPT.html

2.2.1 and 2.2.2 are the relevant sections. Further down in section 3.1 describes findings (point 5) due to engine thrust reversal deployment EEC memory showed a jump in airpseed from mach 0.78 to 0.99. (Point 6) Verbatim - "The scatter of wreckage indicated that the airplane experienced in-flight breakup at a steep descent angle and low altitude."

Edit: From what I can gather from the report is the engine thrust reversal was deployed midflight (due to a crazy set of mechanical circumstances) while accelerating and climbing. This caused the aircraft to dive and reach speeds close to mach1, at which point the airframe failed. Is this reasonable?

Moving the goalposts.

Jumping to conclusions

There were never any goal posts. All he had to do was engage the content of my rebuttal. Instead he derailed into a conversation about completely different people that he disagreed with on a separate issue on another occasion.

Not at all, because there isn't a single precedent in the entire history of modern aviation of such an aircraft type (commercial airliner) exceeding the Vd/Md limit by more than 5 knots and surviving, whereas in this case it was travelling at an airspeed of NINETY knots over Vd while retaining perfect flight control and maneuvering, even pulling something like 2.5 g's, during level flight near sea level and even accelerating after leveling out, post dive, which also brings in engine performance requiring something at least 4 times more powerful than the standard engines.

It's not. Funny right?

So, it dove faster than it was designed to dive. That doesn't mean that it will immediately cease to exist, just that that is when stresses on the aircraft pass acceptable limits, beyond which you shouldn't go because it MIGHT incur damage, especially if it's not been perfectly maintained. Essentially, his actions voided the warranty. Somehow, I rather doubt that someone intending to dive into a building cares. I mean, even if it had broken up, that just means you have several big chunks of metal, not a full plane.

There's always a loss of flight control before breaking up, and if it broke up it would lost flight capability.

The design dive speed or Vd/Md represents the outer flight envelope.

In the history of aviation, except on 9/11, there is no single precedent of such an aircraft type exceeding it's Vd limit by more than 5 knots, and surviving, whereas the south tower plane exceeded the limit by NINETY knots, while retaining perfect flight control - impossible unless seriously modified, including a hardened structure AND more powerful engines because after leveling off, it ACCELERATED in level flight near sea level, to retain it's speed of 510 knots (air gets increasingly thicker or more dense near sea level).

In the history of aviation, except on 9/11, there is no single precedent of such an aircraft type exceeding it's Vd limit by more than 5 knots, and surviving, whereas the south tower plane exceeded the limit by NINETY knots, while retaining perfect flight control - impossible unless seriously modified, including a hardened structure AND more powerful engines because after leveling off, it ACCELERATED in level flight near sea level, to retain it's speed of 510 knots (air gets increasingly thicker or more dense near sea level).

Not to mention the hijackers who could barely drive a car apparently had no trouble at all piloting a widebody jet at those speeds, and at a rate of descent that high.

EA 990, from the FDR data achieved at 01:50:31 a CAS of 463 knots at 17152 ft. It was pulling about 2.1 G's at the time. The left and right elevators were split as the Captain and FO fought on the controls. This is a EAS of 443 knots and is 23 knots above Vd for the 767. Going that fast, pulling that G with severe twisting moments being applied to the tail section, the aircraft DID NOT break up in flight. The NTSB report is very clear on that. To say otherwise is going directly against the NTSB report and ignores the fact that after the CVR and FDR shutdown due to loss of electrical power, EA990 was observed on radar climbing to 25,000 feet before commencing it terminal dive. The 767 is a very strong design. While this data does not prove that an EAS of 510 knots was achievable, it does set the benchmark for what a 767 can survive without structural failure.

The other thing to remember is that VD is not the physical structural limit speed. It is a number based on FAA/JAA test requirements specifically a percentage over the cruising speed of the aircraft in question. Test pilots are not required to fly to VD, but instead must fly to a speed usually half-way between VMO and VD, called Vdf or Max demonstrated speed. Whether or not Boeings tests pilots actually flew to VD... I cannot find that answer, but they did on the 747. Read Handling the Big Jets by D.P. Davies for an account of that.

To sum up, VD speed comes from certification rules. It is not a structural limit. Above that speed has not been cleared by test pilots during the certification process, so normal flight characteristics are not guaranteed.

I fly the A330. It has a VMO of 330 knots. Finding the VD/MD is difficult but I have found a reference that quotes it at 365 CAS/M.93 which gels with the Certification requirements.

In the A330 flight manual however, it talks of reversions of flight laws at extreme values. One of those values is an airspeed above 440 knots, which is 75 knots above VD. Clearly Airbus don't believe that VD is a structural limit. Neither should anyone else.

Below I reproduce the FAR part 25 reference which discusses how VD is derived, specifically FAR part 25.335 (b) which states:

(b) Design dive speed, VD. VD must be selected so that VC/ MC is not greater than 0.8 VD/ MD,or so that the minimum speed margin between VC/MC and VD/MD is the greater of the following values:

(1) From an initial condition of stabilized flight at VC/ MC,the airplane is upset, flown for 20 seconds along a flight path 7.5° below the initial path, and then pulled up at a load factor of 1.5 g (0.5 g acceleration increment). The speed increase occurring in this maneuver may be calculated if reliable or conservative aerodynamic data is used. Power as specified in §25.175(b)(1)(iv) is assumed until the pullup is initiated, at which time power reduction and the use of pilot controlled drag devices may be assumed;

(2) The minimum speed margin must be enough to provide for atmospheric variations (such as horizontal gusts, and penetration of jet streams and cold fronts) and for instrument errors and airframe production variations. These factors may be considered on a probability basis. The margin at altitude where MC is limited by compressibility effects must not less than 0.07M unless a lower margin is determined using a rational analysis that includes the effects of any automatic systems. In any case, the margin may not be reduced to less than 0.05M.

Based on radar data and NTSB flight path study. UA175 traveled around 60 nautical miles in 4.5 minutes, from 25,000 ft. to 1,000 ft. elevation before it got to NY.

Thats pretty fast.

Like close to 800 mph fast, and thats a average, assuming he was traveling the same speed through the entire maneuver.

Edit: If the distance overlay numbers are close to exact, its hard to believe there wasn't a trail of plane pieces left behind it.

Plus It was close to sea level which is supposed to be impossible.

I keep coming across people citing the envelopes of these planes as proof.

"The dive speed is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly."

Is not the same thing as

Plane is incapable of flying this fast

Which is still not the same thing as

Plane will be uncontrollable at/after flying this speed.

"The dive speed is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly."

Is a way of saying, 'If you fly it this fast things may (or may not) fall off, the structure may (or may not) fail the plane may (or may not) suffer damage. If you fly slower then that (inside the enevolope) NONE OF THOSE THINGS WILL HAPEN.'.

And the thing is, the joke really, is that the pilot didn't give a rats ass about the envelope because he was just gonna slam it into the side of a building anyways.

Something else, you talked about controlling a Cessna. Anyone can fly a plane of any type straight and level. Performing a coordinated turn really isn't that much higher skill wise then flying straight and level. If you have a GPS, you just follow what it tells you to do. There are not even roads or ramps to worry about. If it wants you to turn left, you turn left.

I mean, this isn't how you are taught, but it would work. You are badly overestimating the amount of skill these guys needed in order to do this.

Remember: they had flight training. They had simulator training.

Something else, you talked about controlling a Cessna. Anyone can fly a plane of any type straight and level.

Except that at least one of them was considered unfit to even fly a cessna solo, let alone a 60ton comercial airplane, which according to the official story, he did.

And there's also the aspect of all 4 airplanes being hijacked because the terrorists pointed box cutters. Box cutters, for christ sake, were enough to get the pilots off the commands. Pilots, that know very well what means handing the airplane to terrorists and would rather let the crew be killed than allowing their airplane be turned into a killing machine.

It's the same thing as hijacking an airplane with a pointy pen.

[deleted]

You are completely ignoring the fact that the cockpit doors are locked during flight. These are not just cardboard doors either.

But if you are interested in going out of your way in order to keep making the official story real then please read the following:

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xlc96/911_proof_in_evidence_that_the_south_tower_plane/cfcf81k

[deleted]

But if you are interested in going out of your way in order to keep making the official story real then please read the following:

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xlc96/911_proof_in_evidence_that_the_south_tower_plane/cfcf81k

[deleted]

You completely ignored the rest of the post and only focused on the TL:DR I did of op's submission.

Just now you revealed your intent of not having a worthy rational discussion so I will not continue with this circus.

[deleted]

OK, but you must admit you weren't right about the two arguments I addressed.

You have absolutely no idea what it means to fly at 400mph or 585mph so here's an idea, a simple task for you. Ask the airplane engineers, the ones that streess test, how much more speed can an airplane achieve without breaking after the limit has been passed.

Then ask them if there is any way that a comercial airplane can pass its vmo by 90knots and not break apart, don't be surprised if they laugh at your question.

For your other points, I don't think that's very conclusive of anything.

I'm sure you don't, because what is conclusive about 2 pentagon cameras showing evidence of tampering? Fuck logic, embrace fiction!

Then ask them if there is any way that a comercial airplane can pass its vmo by 90knots and not break apart, don't be surprised if they laugh at your question.

It exceeded it's Vmo/Mmo by 150 knots, and it's Vd/Md design dive limit by 90 knots.

Just to clarify.

[deleted]

I'm also willing to bet you have no idea what an airplane engineer would say if I asked that question.

Actually, a similar question has already been asked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk&amp;t=5608

OP also posted a Wikipedia article about a plane that went over mach 1 (as I already stated), which is over 767mph and still landed safely. That was a passenger plane from the 70s no less. So that basically ends that debate I think.

You'd think that, but not yet, I am curious to know what the VMO of that aircraft is. Because it is one thing to say that even the NASA shuttle can break sound barrier, another is saying that it went past 100mph of it's maximum resistance limit.

All of the evidence I see from truthers is so warped and out of context I need to do hours of Research to get to the bottom of it, and it always turns out to be bullshit. I just don't even bother anymore because it's a waste of time. If any real evidence is ever found (doubtful), it will make its way into mainstream.

But I just told you and you completely ignored it, how appropriate.

This isn't even something hard to check: 2 pentagon cameras recording the same thing except on one frame, one displays the airplane and the trail of smoke, the other only displays the smoke. At the same time with a maximum possible variation of 25ft.

But don't bother with that, you are right, it is a waste of time. "Let me just leave now thinking that I have the upper hand before he points out the same damning evidence that would shut me up..."

[deleted]

That's totally false and highly misleading..

In the case of TWA 841, the NTSB Report states that the airplane reached a max speed of .96 Mach at 31,800 feet, exceeding it's Mmo of .90 Mach by .06 Mach or about 30 knots over it's Vmo/Mmo.

For the following airspeed calculation, please note the EAS or Equivalent Airspeed.. (near sea level)

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ux52cdd2c4.jpg

http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.aspx#EquivalentAirspeed

TWA Flight 841 (1979) NSTB report http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR81-08.pdf

EAS is sea level airspeed. As a factoral expression of the equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe at low vs. high altitude, because the air is so much thicker at sea level, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS. The air is thinner at higher altitudes so the aircraft will need to go faster to match the amount of air hitting the airframe at low altitudes, in thick air.

EAS is defined as: EAS is the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as a True Airspeed at higher altitudes. It is used for determining aircraft performance, structural integrity.. .etc. The Vd limit is expressed in an EAS. In other words, to be more specific, 510 knots at sea level (EAS) would produce the same dynamic pressure as 722 knots True Airspeed (TAS) at 22,000 feet.

Thanks, I'm gonna save this now to read it later! 300mph, holy cow.

Yes read the report to see how you're being misled.

It never did go over mach 1, you might be well served to read the NTSB Report, and see my post, below.

Furthermore, you would be well served to brush up on the meaning of EAS, CAS and TAS for low vs. high altitude, and how that relates to the flight envelope through ascending and descending altitude.

I would say that you're clueless but i don't want to come across as insulting.

You are completely ignoring the fact that cockpit doors weren't locked and you were allowed to walk in and ask to take pictures with the pilots which the regularly would allow.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xlc96/911_proof_in_evidence_that_the_south_tower_plane/cfcsdm1

That's the story, but it's leaking..

How old where you in '01? Previous to 9/11 there was no department of Homeland Security. There was no TSA. Security at airports was about knives and bombs. And they did a terrible job of it.

The pilots would take kids into the cockpit. The cockpit door was just a flimsy thing.

A box cutter is really all that is needed to cut someone's neck open.

You have to consider something: These people had no intention of surviving the ordeal. Landing and negotiating for demands was not something they wanted to do.

Our entire security structure was built around the idea that someone fucking with a plane wanted something and would negotiate for it.

That they would take a plane with no intention of living through the experience was not something we were prepared to handle pre 9/11.

The issue here is only of the alleged hijackers succeeding in all four cases, setting aside the issue of aircraft speed, performance and PILOTING at such speeds.

How old where you in '01? Previous to 9/11 there was no department of Homeland Security. There was no TSA. Security at airports was about knives and bombs. And they did a terrible job of it.

There was NSA and plenty of warnings, they had everything they needed to avoid it. The entire "military ignorance" is a blantant lie.

The pilots would take kids into the cockpit. The cockpit door was just a flimsy thing.

A box cutter is really all that is needed to cut someone's neck open.

And now we start with the redundant personal interpretation of what we want to believe in, just like any other debunker loves to do so let's just jump right to the points that you guys cannot answer.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xlc96/911_proof_in_evidence_that_the_south_tower_plane/cfcf81k

All of the above, the ones that you completely ignored while attacking the "Vmo premise".

Plus, NIST only has a theory, nothing else, without any evidence at all to even prove one of their claims.

We, however, have all the demolitions and the history of...wait a second, I already told someone this. Yeah, here it is:

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xkady/abc_913_43600_windows_600000_sq_ft_of_glass/cfcpds1

EDIT: Would like to add a footnote. You, being such an expert on airplane piloting and what can and cannot be possible, know that the "terrorists" that couldn't even fly a cessna managed to hit with absolute precision the floors that were "upgraded" months before? Now that's is some outstanding coincidence.

[deleted]

Goddamn you guys are dumb.

An absolute perfect example of the debunker's answer when they are faced with something they cannot explain with the official version.

Ad hominem in it's purest form, right here. I will even save this conversation for future debunkers.

We are dumb because we believe in facts and evidence but you guys are not because you believe in an unproved theory that defies logic. In the words of the mighty Bill O'Reilly; "Theory comes in, facts go out. You can't explain that!"

Thanks for your efforts. Everything you've said in this thread makes complete sense.

You make it sound like I am suggesting that at 1 or 2 knots over the Vd design dive limit, which btw can only be achieved for such aircraft types, in a dive, that the plane will explode in midair, although that said, there is no single precedent in the history of aviation of an unmodified aircraft of that type, exceeding it's Vd limit by more than 5 knots and surviving - whereas what we have in this case is a plane retaining perfect flight control with deft maneuvering while travelling at NINETY knots over that limit.

This is without precedent in the history of aviation. That's a fact.

Furthermore, it's an issue as much of flight control, as it is structural failure, and on that note, an issue of successful piloting whereby at that airspeed the control surfaces and the controls in the cabin become unmanageable.

It's not only impossible, unless severely modified for the plane to fly in perfect flight control at that airspeed, but to be piloted by a pilot no more skilled or experienced than Hani Hanjour who allegedly flew the Pentagon plane, at 80 knots over Vd while pulling something like 3 g's, without making so much as a mark on the grass all the way up to the ground floor impact area where at that speed, the entire Pentagon wall is like a small sliver of a target.

You are badly overestimating the amount of skill these guys needed in order to do this.

Is it possible that you are also underestimating the amount of skill to pull off these procedures? Maybe the answer is inbetween the two?

Since he believes GPS tells you how to turn an aircraft, I'm going to guess he has no idea the amount of skill it takes.

Also there's no ramps or roads in the sky how hard could it be? Nothing like clouds, lightning storms, up drafts, and downdrafts your used to on the roads here.

GPS and other electronic instruments DO tell you how to turn an aircraft.

On some commercial airliners there's literally a big circle with wings and a little circle on a screen with your horizons and alt/speeds up in the corners. If you've programmed the computer with your desired heading and altitude or destination, all you need to do is chase the little circle with the big circle so it stays nested inside it.

Even without the HUD, the hard part is doing the math to figure out your route. After that it's just watching the dials to stay on the heading, alt, and airspeed you decided on.

Source: been flying commercial airline sims a few times a year since I was ten.

Source: been flying commercial airline sims a few times a year since I was ten.

Just out of curiosity, did you try replicating the pentagon's crash maneuver?

haha no. The sims they use don't have topo data for the cities to that level of detail. From what I hear that would have to have been one hell of an approach though. I've never used a sim to test any particular theories. Just mentioned that as it's relevant to the concept of "flying by dial".

Ahh, alright, I just wanted to hear your opinion on the maneuver because my pc can't handle the sims so I was curious to know what you had to say.

ah yeah mine won't run the newest ms flight sim either. I get some special family access to commercial airliner sim setups, hydraulic equipped and all. Used to get to fly some military sims too.

I flew a sim once when I was young, friend of mine - now professional pilot - grew with those sims and a powerfull pc with all of those accessories for the game. I found it so boring, it really is something that I wouldn't enjoy doing.

From what I hear that would have to have been one hell of an approach though

But easy enough for an unskilled hijacker to perform flawlessly?

Right.

I JUST said that it would have to have been a hell of an approach for ANY pilot. If I didn't have my doubts do you think I'd have used such a convoluted conjugation?

I can always count on /r/conspiracy to put words in my mouth.

I question ONE theory out of thousands floating around about 9/11 and suddenly I'm some shill who won't look at anything but the official story.

I give time to all the theories on 9/11 and judge them based on their merits. OP's airspeed theory just happens to be wrong.

They had training in a fucking cessna. Great counter argument.

You are badly overestimating the amount of skill these guys needed in order to do this.

Remember: they had flight training. They had simulator training.

I think you do make some good points however. The "you" you are referring to includes many pilots, also military ones. On what are you basing the idea that these were easy maneuvers?

[deleted]

9/11-The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/13/nila-sagadevan-911-the-impossibility-of-flying-heavy-aircraft-without-training/

ive asked him about this and he said the same; the difficult part is takeoff and landing. the actual flying is almost mindless.

Ok, but we're asking about specific maneuvers performed that day, not just flying around. Anyone who has spent any time in even a flight sim knows just flying around and keeping it level is pretty easy.

Well, my father was a piano mover so...

Remember: they had flight training. They had simulator training.

Have you done any research at all about this or do you just spew garbage?

The instructors at the flight schools and simulator facilities all claimed that these guys could barely tie their own fucking shoes. The instructors called the FBI on several occasions to report them. It is well documented that their skills were terrible.

Now there is quite a bit of evidence suggesting they received additional training from Arab speaking flight instructors at Pinal Airpark, using actual 757 and 767 aircraft. This makes sense. You can't learn to ride a tricycle and automatically know how to drive a car just as you can't learn to fly a single engine propeller plane and transition to a widebody jet.

They should care about the aircraft breaking, because if it breaks then it might not make it to its destination. What I think would be more telling is if there was visible flutter in the video. I don't think there is good enough video to tell, though. Or maybe the fact that it can't be seen is evidence in itself.

But they didn't care.

These guys went into a flight training school in Florida and had the audacity to tell the instructors they were not interested in take-off or landing and they were only interested in learning certain models of aircraft.

The instructors later described them as pretty shitty students.

His point was that when exceeding the Vmo and then the Vd, with the stickshaker clacking, warnings going off, controls stiffening etc. that it places the operation in extreme jeapardy, plus it makes the target very very difficult to hit at such speeds.

Pilots with 1000's of hours of flight time on other aircraft types who were training on the UA simulator were unable to hit the target at speeds approaching the Vmo (not the Vd), and could not do so until they slowed down to near approach speeds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78

I've heard the instructors described them as shitty, but I haven't heard that they didn't care about take off or landing. I'd love to read about that if you have a source

It's been a little while. Unlike most of the people here, I was an adult when 9/11 happened. I followed it in the news as they figured stuff out and interviewed people.

The landing and takeoff thing is pretty famous though. The flight instructor reported the students to the FBI, the FBI agent that got the case thought it was important, she (I am almost 100% sure it was a she) couldn't get her superiors onboard. So nothing got done.

Here I am looking for a link.. http://www.wanttoknow.info/911/9-11_summary_articles/010923post_terrorist_flight_training

• Two weeks before the Sept. 11 attack, Davis said, FBI agents returned to Norman seeking information about another Airman student, a French-Moroccan dropout who had entered the country on a visa sponsored by the flight school. The man, Zacarias Moussaoui, had been detained in Eagan, Minn., on an immigration violation after he tried to purchase time on a jet simulator -- even though he had never flown solo in a single-engine aircraft.

AS I stated earlier, is this the sort of person who gives a shit about envelopes? I am going to tell you what he cares about. Turning off the autopilot. Turning off the transponder. Operating the radio. Flying straight and level, changing altitudes, course corrections and using a GPS.

This is nonsense. I don't fly regular planes, but I fly RC which still fly same albeit a much smaller scale.

Yes its easy to fly straight and true, and its somewhat easy to bank. But to hit an object not much wider than the wingspan of the plane while travelling at 500+ knots in a turn. That was some good flying.

Do the ailerons even function at 100 knots over vne? I can tell you on a RC plane once I exceed certain airspeeds, usually in a dive, I stop being able to adequately control the plane. I overpower my planes cause its more fun that way =).

This is nonsense. I don't fly regular planes, but I fly RC which still fly same albeit a much smaller scale. Yes its easy to fly straight and true, and its somewhat easy to bank. But to hit an object not much wider than the wingspan of the plane while travelling at 500+ knots in a turn. That was some good flying. Do the ailerons even function at 100 knots over vne? I can tell you on a RC plane once I exceed certain airspeeds, usually in a dive, I stop being able to adequately control the plane. I overpower my planes cause its more fun that way =).

I don't currently fly regular planes, but I have flown regular planes.

Besides the link to the TWA flight just goes to show that you don't have a fucking clue.

You are everything wrong with this place. Yes his post is only ancedotal evidence but he doesnt try and claim it isnt either. What does he not have fucking clue about? He laid out what experience he has and how it may be applicable but he doesn't fly real planes to know for sure. He actually added something to this duscussion unlike your sorry ass.

Enlighten me sir. Instead of just name calling.

I can prove my point through evidence. I have no ulterior motive or preference for one theory over another. Just facts.

I didn't call you names. I pointed out that you don't have a clue.

Okay, so to clarify on my model (P51D - I like WW2 birds) Over certain speeds, my ailerons lose functionality. Due to a whole bunch of aerodynamic control surface area math I don't fully understand, or make a claim to. I still have rudder and elevator, but ailerons get muddy. It being RC I can easily increase the throw of the ailerons which does help. I don't imagine its easy or even common practice to do that on 767s.

With RC planes (and smaller planes too) you develop a pocket of dead air on the leading edge of your aircraft the faster you go. The faster you go, the bigger the pocket.

This becomes a HUGE problem on straight wing aircraft such as cessnas and your P51. The wing surface is very small and it takes very little to make that pocket extend PAST the trailing edge of the wings where the ailerons are.

Youll notice that large craft dont have this issue due to much larger wings, and small fast aircraft (like fighter jets) either have ailerons close to the fuselage where pockets develop more slowly, or they have wing designs that put ailerons further from the leading edge of the plane (high taper, swept wings, delta wings)

The tradeoff is that straighter wings like on your P51 allow for MUCH better maneuvering at slower speeds, where as swept wing ls and delta wings ( like on airliners and fighter craft) allow for better handling at higher speeds.

Flying a small cessna at higher speeds is difficult, dangerous, and much more difficult than steering a large aircraft like a 747 at high speeds.

For example if you look at the A-10. It is meant to be very slow, but very agile at those speeds. It has long, straight wigs that crate good lift and stability at slower speeds. At high speeds it is essentially a rocket and fairly unreliable. You start to lose aileron control and there is intense buffeting on the wings.

Commercial airliners typically go hundreds of miles per hour faster than a10s. And rarely will you see an a10 go over 400kn. Where a boeing 737-300 cruises at nearly 500kn, with an approved safe top speed of around 550kn.

Thank you for this. TIL.

Edit: I wasn't sure why it was happening, just that it did when I go too fast.

Of course! Aeronautical physics is a hobby (not a job) of mine. I spend a lot of free time learning and testing this stuff for fun.

A LOT of thought goes intodesigning aircraft. I used to think "bigger engine, small body, and lots of control surfaces make it better" but that is actualpy rarely the case!

Ok, so the aircraft exceeded Vne (Velocity never exceed) and was still flying.

There have been many incidents of aircraft over speeds and over stresses occurring.

In the 90's a 747-SP had an inflight upset and during the recovery the airframe sustained a load of almost 5g, which was substantially beyond its design limits......it stayed together, but was damaged.

767 is a strong aircraft. Its a mistake to think that the wings will fall off at Vne. Sure 100 knots faster is hard to fathom, but the airframe may have been bent but still able to stay together.

I have to declare that I do find it hard to accept that these guys were able to hit the towers, and I do have quite a bit of flying experience.

But that doesn't mean I think the aircraft would fall apart at these speeds. Flutter is a whole different matter, but as far as I am aware the data isnt there to either confirm or deny this.

I know that the Israelis took another strong Boeing product (747) and took it to transonic speeds. There was some airframe strengthening, but you can't replace control surface locations etc. The ailerons and elevators would have all been in the same place boeing intended them to be.

Please cite a single precedent where the Vd/Md (same of Vne but hasn't been used in commercial aircraft since the 60's with Vmo replacing Vno, the idea to keep pilots well away from the Vd limit) was exceeded by more than 5 knots and survived, let along retained perfect flight control.

Bear in mind also that when factoring EAS or equivalent airspeed, that 510 knots near sea level is the same, in terms of aerodynamic pressures on the airframe, of 722 knots or 1.19m at 22,000 feet, and still higher at higher altitude.

TWA 841.

727 upset at FL390. Aircraft is believed to have become momentarily supersonic.

That's a lot more than 5 knots.

Edit: corrected flight level.

It did not reach Mach 1.0 that's false

In the case of TWA 841, the NTSB Report states that the airplane reached a max speed of .96 Mach at 31,800 feet, exceeding it's Mmo of .90 Mach by .06 Mach or about 30 knots over it's Mmo.

For the following airspeed calculation, please note the EAS or Equivalent Airspeed.. (near sea level) = 332 knots or a 358 KCAS. So it was actually under it's Vd limit by 62 knots KCAS (knots calibrated airspeed).

Screenshot http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ux52cdd2c4.jpg

Caculator http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.aspx#EquivalentAirspeed

TWA Flight 841 (1979) NSTB report http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR81-08.pdf

It's widely believed to have gone supersonic. As I am sure you are aware, this was a very controversial incident, and the NTSB report was also controversial.

Let's look at this another way - that aircraft withstood a 5.8g pull out. As I am also sure you are aware, that also exceeds the design loads of the jet by a huge margin.

If Boeing build jets that can withstand g loads far beyond their published limits, why would you not think that would equally apply to aerodynamic loads?

Look, I have no doubt that there was some flutter going on, and the airframes involved were probably considerably damaged in these over speeds, but that doesn't mean I think the airframe is going to break up .

Incidentally, there was also a DC-8 that was taken to Mach 1 in the late 60's for research purposes, it also did not fall apart, but there were some problems with recovery.

As i pointed it, it never went supersonic, that was false, and at it's maximum speed in an uncontrolled dive, while experiencing structural failure as a result of both g loads and aerodynamic pressure, it's EAS was around 332 knots, and it's CAS 358 knots, as shown.

You will note that it's placed at the right location on the graph cited in the OP

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/do52cdf0f5.jpg

I think you are deluded somewhat however to try to hold to the idea that the south tower plane was good 'ol flight 175, and i'm not only referring to flutter but tight flight control at that speed, as well as the issue of piloting at such an airspeed, as observed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tywMLqVcBO4

The south tower plane was also pulling g's in the neighborhood of about 2.5g

As to the DC-8, which i myself referenced in another post, as the ONLY other sort of comparable precedent in the entire history of aviation, that plane was modified (leading wing edges) and did it's dive at 45,000 to 35,000 feet or thereabouts, meaning that it's EAS or equivalent airspeed, near sea level, would have been somewhere around 425-430 EAS and 460-465 CAS.

The point here isn't merely whether the plane would rip apart, but how it could possibly maintain such tight flight control piloted by someone with very limited training and skill level who'd never flown the real thing in his entire life.

Do you have any idea what that kind of airspeed does to the control surfaces and the controls that control them?

What you are proposing, just isn't believable on it's face, but especially so when we start to consider all the physical evidence that the twin towers did not really "collapse" as a result of the plane impacts and fire which was obviously employed as a fake causal mechanism to create a suspension of disbelief to "sell" the observing world public the reason for their destruction about an hour and an hour and a half later, first the south tower, although hit second hit lower down, across multiple floors and at a higher rate of speed, and then the north tower, from the 95 floor level, doing the exact same thing a half hour later.

In other words the targeting of the south tower can be seen to have been, in hindsight, of a very high precision nature, and not some just sort of random fluke by a "lucky" crack Boeing pilot hijacker. Surely you can see that, and discuss it without having to resort to calling me a "truther" (although it's better than "liar").

You yourself must admit that it's you who are stretching and straining the limits of credulity here, not I.

P.S. Weren't you the one looking for some data on TWA 841's Vmo/Mmo?

Hope this helps.

Re: 727-191 Vmo/Mmo

The following from Frontier Airlines 727-191 data:

SPEED LIMITATIONS

MAXIMUM OPERATING SPEED – VMO/MMO

35,000’ - 310 KIAS .90 MACH

30,000’ - 345 KIAS .90 MACH

25,000’ - 383 KIAS .90 MACH

20,000’ - 409 KIAS

15,000’ - 403 KIAS

10,000’ - 398 KIAS

http://www.pprune.org/965445-post6.html

P.S. IAS is no longer used on commercial airliners and hasn't been since the 60's.

Instead they now use CAS (calibrated airspeed)

TAS is CAS corrected for non-standard temp and pressure.

In other words, at sea level, TAS is pretty much equal to CAS.

As you climb, TAS increases, which is why EAS and CAS needs to be considered when understanding dynamic pressure based on altitude.

The Vd limit is expressed as 420KCAS

The Vd/Md limit is not published anywhere for the 727, which it could be calculated in theory from the Vmo/Mmo, which is not less than 90% of Vd/Md

To make this crystal clear, regarding these airspeeds, what you need to understand, and apparently have not as of yet.. is that an EAS or equivalent airspeed of 425 knots (near sea level) represents the same dynamic pressures on the airframe as .99 mach at 22,000 feet, which is the point at which the FDR stopped recording for EgyptAir990 during it's plummet.

That's 85-90 knots LESS than "flight 175" was travelling.

So it really is an issue as much of structural integrity, as it is flight control (and piloting).

Furthermore, the Vd/Md limit of 420KCAS/.91M represents the outer flight envelope beyond which structural failure due to flutter becomes imminent, which makes perfect sense since it's also the EAS for an equivalent airspeed just 5 or so knots shy of the .99-1.0 mach airspeed at altitude.

Are you starting to get the picture here?

We can certainly expect damage to an aircraft that exceeds its recommended top speed by that amount. What we can't expect is for it to just fall out of the sky.

Interestingly, none of the incidents you linked to were actually caused by excessive airspeed, though two of the flights provide pretty clear examples of incidents where craft suffering damage in-flight due to a combination of excessive speed during freefall and g-forces and air resistance on recovery were able to continue flying and land safely.

I see no reason why flight 175 couldn't have been flying well above its recommended top airspeed in the last minutes or seconds before impact, despite any damage this may or may not have caused to the craft.

For TWA 841: "The Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the isolation of the No. 7 leading edge slat in the fully or partially extended position after an extension of the Nos. 2, 3, 6, and 7 leading edge slats and the subsequent retraction of the Nos. 2, 3, and 6 slats, and the captain's untimely flight control inputs to counter the roll resulting from the slat asymmetry." The craft was in freefall for 10,000 feet but the crew regained control despite the damage and the plane made a safe landing with no fatalities.

For EgyptAir 990 there are two theories, one from American and one from Egyptian authorities. The Americans think the copilot just wanted to die. The Egyptians say there must have been a mechanical failure in the elevator (the up-down flappy bits on the tail) control system. Either way, the craft mostly broke up when it hit the ocean. An engine fell off during the last few hundred feet but this is not a comparable situation because all the engines of the EgyptAir flight were turned off. When a jet engine is turned off, it becomes a huge center of drag as all the air that would normally be drawn through it just keeps bashing up against the front of it.

China Air 006 experienced an engine failure during a zero visibility situation high in the clouds. The crew thought the attitude indicator (the bit that shows if you're level with the ground) was malfunctioning and ended up in a nose dive, just like the TWA flight. The aircraft experienced significant damage while recovering from the dive but also made a safe landing with only minor injuries to passengers.

TWA 841 - "The National Transportation Safety Board investigated the accident and established after eliminating all individual and combined sources of mechanical failure, that the extension of the slats was due to the flight crew manipulating the flap/slat controls[4] in an inappropriate manner. The rumor was that 727 pilots were setting the trailing edge flaps (which were normally only deployed at low speeds along with leading edge slats) to two degrees during high altitude cruise, while at the same time pulling the circuit breaker for the slats so that they would not activate. This configuration was rumored to result in increased lift with no increase in drag, thus allowing more speed, higher elevation, or decreased fuel consumption.[5]

The crew, Capt. Harvey "Hoot" Gibson, first officer Jess Kennedy, and flight engineer Garry Banks, denied that their actions had been the cause.

At no time prior to the incident did I take any action within the cockpit either intentionally or inadvertently, that would have caused the extension of the leading edge slats or trailing edge flaps. Nor did I observe any other crew member take any action within the cockpit, either intentional or inadvertent, which would have caused the extension.
—Capt. Gibson, April 12, 1979

[6][7]

The crew suggested instead that an actuator on the #7 slat had failed, causing its inadvertent deployment. The NTSB rejected this as improbable and attributed the extension of the flaps to the deliberate actions of the crew. The crew claimed that such failures had happened on other 727s[8] prior and subsequent to this incident. The NTSB report notes seven such cases.[3]

Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_841_%281979%29

Read the first post. - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9179

Specifically this part

<An average speed of 774 mph on a descent from 25,000 feet to below 1,000 feet, covering a distance of sixty miles directly towards target in just over 4.5 minutes, represents a totally impossible achievement, on multiple levels, for a mid-size wide-body twinjet airliner.

NTSB Flight path study - https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Flight_Path_Study_UA175.pdf

Yeah I read the whole article. That discrepancy isn't really relevant to this analysis. What matters is that some sort of mechanical failure with slat 7 caused the plane to enter into a dive, from which the crew recovered, despite damage to the craft.

NTSB seriously disputes mechanical failure. More along the lines of they f'd up with the control surfaces and speed, and recovered.

21 of the 30 minutes of FDR data was mysteriously erased with no known electical or recording issues.

Edit: I'm not saying they are right, or wrong, but this was a pretty expensive and lengthy case from what I can find.

Yeah it's always an expensive and lengthy case when there's an Aircraft Upset incident. A lot of people have their careers riding on the way the report turns out so a degree of contention is to be expected, but this case was something special due to the implication that the flight crew may have covered up evidence.

If you read a bit farther down, though, you'll see that the NTSB does suggest that a mechanical failure occurred. What they ruled out was the idea that a mechanical failure extended the flaps in the first place, instead suggesting that #7 failed to retract after it had been extended by the pilots in an unsanctioned practice of flying with flaps at 2 degrees to gain extra lift and save fuel.

There's no way that the crew could have just accidentally ended up in a random dive while cruising without some kind of equipment failure. The point of contention is whether unapproved practices on their part led to a situation which made the mechanical failure possible.

My father got on the 72 for another carrier just a few years later so I heard a lot about it at the time.

That is a fair assessment.

In the case of TWA 841, the NTSB Report states that the airplane reached a max speed of .96 Mach at 31,800 feet, exceeding it's Mmo of .90 Mach by .06 Mach or about 30 knots over it's Mmo.

For the following airspeed calculation, please note the EAS or Equivalent Airspeed.. (near sea level) 332 knots or a KCAS of 358 knots..

Screenshot http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ux52cdd2c4.jpg

Calculator http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.aspx#EquivalentAirspeed

TWA Flight 841 (1979) NSTB report http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR81-08.pdf

You'll note however that there was a complete loss of flight control amid severe structural damage.

I hereby invite you to provide a single precedent in the history of modern aviation where the Vd/Md for a commercial airliner was exceeded by more than 5 knots, without any loss of control and/or experiencing structural failure.

Also, honest question:

What am I supposed to be seeing in the last youtube link in your original post?

It was offered to give you a visual appreciation for the speed of the plane on final approach in level flight.

Ah thanks. It is quite fast but I don't think my eye's quite keen enough to appreciate the significance of it.

Watch a few videos of similar aircraft flying nearer to sea level, or simply observe flying commercial airliners, as a compare - they appear to crawl, not zoom like a fighter jet. Then you'll be able to tell. Nevertheless, there's the recorded speed determined both by radar and observation pegging the airspeed at 90 knots over the Vd design dive limit, which is unheard of and without precedent in the history of aviation, let alone such speed in controlled flight and under self propulsion in level flight in near sea level air density, so it's an issue as much of structural integrity as it is controlled flight, and piloting at such speed.

The loss of flight control was not caused by airspeed on the TWA or China Air flights, but rather by mechanical failures of the flaps and engine, respectively. There is no evidence indicating a loss of flight control in the Egypt Air case.

I need to run an errand for the next few hours but when I get back I'll do some research on exceeding the Vne in modern aviation.

I have a counter-invitation though: Find a case of a commercial airliner experiencing loss of control or structural damage from exceeding the Vne in the absence of other emergency circumstances.

Both of the surviving flights you cited experienced damage while recovering from steep dives (you'll notice on your own graph that they're outside the envelope on the g-force axis, not the velocity axis) and went on to land safely, while flight 175 is supposed to have cruised more or less straight ahead after attaining its extreme speed.

EA990, which lost an engine at just above the envelope for velocity, suffered this damage because the engine was turned off. If it were powered on with air flowing through it instead of sitting there like a giant airbrake, the plane probably would have still been more or less intact when it hit the water a few seconds later.

You missed the point. During their out of control dives in plummeting to the earth under the force of gravity, they experienced plenty of structural failure due to both g-force and airspeed (flutter), just take a look at the damage to ChinaAir006 to see. Meanwhile, even during these dives at their maximum speed, while experiencing structural failure, they were travelling at equivalent airspeeds over 100 knots LESS than flight 175 was during controlled flight and without experiencing such failure.

I think you're missing my point that the g-force and air resistance related to pulling out of those dives is a huuge factor that didn't exist for flight 175 and makes analogy between the flights next to useless. It's not that these other flights were going so fast that caused the damage, it was the stress of pulling out of the dives.

If you just take a look at OP's graph, you'll see that CA006 and the TWA flight were outside the envelope on the Y-axis, which represents G-force, and well within it on the X-axis, which represents velocity. It wasn't their speed that caused the damage. It was the rapid change in direction as they pulled out of the dive.

I'll get back to you on this this evening, but you're mistaken that the structural damage was due almost exclusively to G-forces, or that the damage only took place from pulling out of the dive. That contention is somewhat misleading on your part..

In the interim feel free to look up and read the NTSB Reports for CA006, TWA841 and EgyptAir990.

Then, take a look at what I've posted in regards to EAS, to better understand the magnitude by which the south tower plane exceeded even the highest airspeeds achieved by those aircraft during their out of control, plummeting dives, while experiencing structural failure throughout those dives.

You're right though that they do not represent ideal analogues, but they are the best and the only ones available as far as near Vd/Md or outer flight envelop incursions and have generally been the favorites used by so-called "debunkers" to try to refute the notion that a standard Boeing commercial airliner would have any major difficulty retaining structural integrity at the recorded airspeed of 510 knots, near sea level, although they don't really address, within that context, the issue of perfect flight control, engine performance issues, nor that of piloting at such speeds by novice pilots.

This also raises the issue of engine performance in level flight in near sea level air density, since to reach the Vd limit (of 420KCAS/.91M) test pilots must take the plane into a dive because the aerodynamic drag exceeds thrust capacity, whereas "flight 175" accelerated post-dive during level flight to retain it's speed of 510 knots, 90 knots over it's Vd limit, as an expression of EAS (equivalent airspeed) the equivalent aerodynamic pressures on the airframe. at 22,000 ft., of 722 knots or 1.19M.

So perhaps the real point here is that there is no precedent of any kind in the whole history of aviation either before, or after September 11th, 2001, either during flight flutter testing, to establish the Vd/Md flight envelope limit, or during out of control, diving aircraft hurtling to the earth under nothing but the force of gravity, whereby the south tower plane surpassed the equivalent airspeed of Egypt Air 990, which experienced structural failure of varying kinds through it's descent, by 85-90 knots..

The closest precedent on record is a DC-8 test flight, diving, at an equivalent dive angle to the s tower plane from 45,000-35,000 feet alt, with an EAS (near sea level equivalent airspeed) approaching something in the order of 465 knots for 16 seconds, although it was a modified aircraft (w leading wing edges).

The south tower plane otoh, maintained the 510-520 knot airspeed for well over a minute, while retaining perfect flight control, and even accelerating after leveling out during level flight in near sea level air density, to retain the 510 knots speed, a feat that would require engine performance anywhere from 4-6 times greater than standard.

It simply cannot have been flight 175, no matter how much some people want to believe the official story about what happened on 9/11, or find the alternative explanation to be unthinkable (that it was some kind of military operation, from within ie: a very sophisticated and complex, high precision engineered - false flag attack, with the patsy hijacker cover story to create the OS narrative as per the official 9/11 Commission Report).

Ok i'm back.

It looks like you might be off in more ways than one, both in terms of when all the damage occurred, for all three precedents offered, something requiring further research but i've covered this ground before and when you look into it, it turns out that all three, 1) TWA841, 2) ChinaAir006 and 3) EgyptAir990, incurred structural damage throughout their diving ascent, and, that although G-force played a major role in the damage in cases 1 and 2, it was by a combination of airspeed as well as G-forces, in all 3 cases, whereby the damage tended to occur during the highest dive speeds with the combination of both G-force and aerodynamic pressure were at the highest peak - not simply during the pullout, that's not entirely true at all, even potentially misleading.

You also need to bear in mind that G-forces have a 150% stress limit, whereas airspeed is a much harder and faster limit when it comes to the flight envelop performance, with no more than a 5-10 knots margin, max beyond Vd, during which structural failure typically becomes imminent.

Please watch this video (you can skip to 3:45) to understand it better, what we're really looking at here in regards to the X & Y axis of the graph.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9R8-3W-nkU

510 knots near sea level while retaining perfect flight control and no loss of structural integrity - represents an absolutely unprecedented airspeed for the entire history of modern aviation for that aircraft type (commercial airliner), before and after September 11, 2001, where even in the case of out of control, diving, spinning, plummeting aircraft, the south tower plane exceeded their equivalent airspeed by a full 85 knots as in the case of Egypt Air which failed at an EAS of 425knots/.99m at 22,000 ft. alt. and MORE in the case of China Air 006 which only just reached it's Vmo/Mmo, or with TWA 841 never exceeding it's Vd/Md limit, although in the case of ChinaAir0006 and TWA841, as seen on the graph, they suffered as much from excessive g-forces as they did excessive airspeed. Nevertheless it's usually as a primary result of excessive airspeed that both loss of control and structural failure due to flutter, occurs.

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/do52cdf0f5.jpg

The only other precedent in the history of aviation, is that of a modified DC-8 (leading wing edges), which achieved, at 45,000 to 35,000 ft alt in a controlled dive without loss of control or structural failyure, a speed of Mach 1.0 to 1.01 for 16 seconds before recovering from the dive. That's at high altitude, however, for which the EAS or equivalent airspeed near sea level (same dynamic pressures that lead to flutter), would equate to about 425-430 knots EAS, max, whereas the south tower plane was clocked at..

510 knots, and even higher (up to 520) during it's final ascent, leveling off and target acquisitioning - or 90-100 knots beyond it's Vd design dive limit (see precedents, above for what typically happens once Vd is exceeded by anything more than FIVE knots over its Vd/Md), and for well over a minute, and while pulling about 2.5 g's during it's final turning maneuver, which some described as the "hijacker" pilot almost missing the building but what i would describe as absolute (evil) perfection if you wanted to hit the building lower down, across multiple floors while at the same time plowing diagonally through the corner of the building in order to produce that absolutely GARGANTUAN fireball, shock and awe display, which created a suspension of disbelief and a type of credibility as to the causal mechanism of the buildings, with the one hit lower down and across multiple floors "collapsing" first, which in turn sold the reason for the second tower to do the exact same thing about a half hour later.

Fireball (from across the Hudson River) http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/mdf50846.jpg

That's it in a nutshell, just wanted to share what i've discovered that's it that's all.

Best Regards,

NAM007

investigate911

Nothing to see here folks, ahhh, please move along... ?!

I see NOTHING!

Great post. Very convincing evidence.

There's a war being fought in this thread.

Unlike a few years ago however, the balance of power is slowly shifting.

Just like conspiracies of the past, the truth won't come to light right away. This would be disastrous for a corrupt government. Slowly, year after year, more truth and fact begins to trickle out. What was once a bunch of people who will die by the word of government, making fun of truth seekers for being crazy people, now seems to be the other way around. The crazy people are the one denying the in plain sight evidence.

This trend will only continue. 9/11 will be revealed for what it was. The catalyst for a paradigm shift desperately needed to counter an awakening global population.

The awakening was delayed, but it's coming, and it's coming strong.

Keep fighting the good fight, you guys are all doing a fantastic job. Don't let the naysayers get you down, they are only fearful of what they suspect is true.

I agree .. I think most debunkers and people who just refuse to acknowledge actual evidence are only in it to put down other people.

Since conspiritard was the subreddit of the day I checked it out, unsuprisingly there was very little discussion there, it was just the usual skeptical echo chamber making fun of conspiracy theorists .. not the theories themselves, but the people .. us

At this point the events leading up to and during 911 arn't even a theory anymore, its evidential fact

There's a war being fought in this thread.

Not really. Turns out it's been surprisingly tame.

A very civilized debate if i must say so, except in maybe only one or two instances which is rather extraordinary given the total number of voters..

Maybe the tide really is turning - time will tell.

Do feel free to share the thread through your network, that's important i think - to get the word out, and get as many eyeballs on this information as possible, and as fast as possible, because there's always a certain sense of urgency in matters that are as important and as vital as this is, given what it's "wrought" upon mankind and the earth and worst of all upon the mind and the hearts of the people via a type of hijacking of their own nationalism and patriotism, and you just don't do that kind of thing with the American people because you cannot fool ALL the people all the time, it just doesn't work that way.

The truth outs, man! : )

Best Regards,

NAM007

I was always skeptical of what hit the Pentagon. Even becoming more skeptical after watching the documentary, In Plane Sight, a few years ago. Last week I finally had enough. I was going to post on Craigslist seeking people that saw what hit the Pentagon. Then I stumbled on a website filled with eyewitnesses and their testaments as to where they were, and what they saw and experienced on that day.

I believe they saw a plane. I'm not convinced it was the plane that the government's conspiracy theory tells us about. However, a few of the eyewitnesses claimed to have seen some of the passengers through the windows because they were that low to the ground and so close to the eyewitnesses. There was one witness that saw it hit a light post before slamming into the Pentagon.

I'm still thoroughly convinced the towers, all three, were "pulled". There's more to this story that we'll likely never really know for sure. And that angers me.

I was just like you (still am really), I just watched massimo mazzucco's doc called 'the new pearl harbor'

it delves into every aspect of 911, the part about the pentagon is both facsinating and definitive. A lot of people claim to have seen a much much smaller plane, like a gulfstream.

Then the structural analysis of the pentagon hole and damage is even better.

I like this doc because he doesn't just claim stuff, almost 100% of it is backed up by newspaper articles, television broadcasts, and expert testimony.

Check it out if you havn't yet.

[(http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&amp;artid=167)]

I didn't originally see this link in the OP, just the excerpts .. oh well, doesn't hurt to repeat

Then where are the wings?

The better question would be where is the engine block and the black box. Another question that's better than yours would be to ask why the FBI won't release the footage from the gas station camera or from any other cameras that saw what hit the Pentagon that day. Simply put, I do not know.

Those are good questions, but what makes them better than mine?

Because part of one wing was pictured on the website I stumbled across. It hit a light post and broke off. Also, it's quite possible that the wings are made out of material that could burn away in a fire. The engine block and the black box would not burn out of existence like that.

Do you have a source for any of those claims?

No. I'm on my phone at work. Which claims do you need source for?

I would like to see the picture you mentioned. Also, as I understand it, the wings are the most structurally strong part of the craft. The fuselage would crumple like a tin can long before the wings would. That they would be made out of a weaker material doesn't make structural sense. If I am wrong, I would like a source so that I may be correct in the future.

My source for the wings being strong is this video series http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&amp;artid=167

I believe it is in part 2 but it might be one of the others

Edit - I realize that structural strength and flammability are 2 different things. If the wings are flammable, I'd still like a source on it.

Here's the site I stumbled upon.

I may have been imagining parts of the wing, but there were definitely parts of the plane that I saw as well as lamp posts.

[deleted]

I modified the opening paragraph slightly just for you.

"Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates."

"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

~ Benjamin Franklin

Pilots Discuss Difficulty of WTC Attacks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78

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

They were trying to hit the WTC in the UA 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 in near sea level air density. 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 or perhaps a bit above.. or 300-400 knots, max, and from what he said, closer to 300 and well 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.

These were very experienced pilots with 1000's of hours of flight time in other aircraft types.

After they tried it about 10 times, Dan himself was finally able to do it (fly the dive and final approach at the high speed of 300 knots and hit the target WTC South Tower), although he didn't say how many times he tried it before finally getting it just right with wing tips within the building perimeter (think of it like parking in or going through a separate garage in your car at full speed out of a turn, but harder, because you're flying and susceptible to "dutch roll" and all kinds of other phenomenon).

Russel L. Wittenberg: Credentials

Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.

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

"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

alleged flight 77 Article 7/17/05

"The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … 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 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying."

Audio Interview, Capt.Russ Wittenberg, 9/16/04

http://911underground.com/WING_TV_2004-09-16_Russ_Wittenberg_Interview.MP3

For more..

Pilots and Aviation Professionals Question the 9/11 Commission Report

250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

9/11-The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training by Nila Sagadevan, Aeronautical Engineer.

Veterens Today Friday, August 13th, 2010

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/13/nila-sagadevan-911-the-impossibility-of-flying-heavy-aircraft-without-training/

Equivalent Airspeed - EAS (this should drive the point home for anyone who hasn't yet grasped the significance of the data presented in the OP)

EAS is sea level airspeed. As a factoral expression of the equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe at low vs. high altitude, because the air is so much thicker at sea level (2/3rds thicker than at 30,000 ft), there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS.

At higher altitudes, the air is thinner so the aircraft will need to go faster to match the amount of air hitting the airframe at low altitudes, in thick air, which is what allows the aircraft to achieve much higher speeds at higher altitude, and is taken advantage of to achieve a max cruising speed at 35,000 feet of almost 500 knots TAS.

Max cruising speed - Parameters: Screenshot

EAS is defined as:

EAS is the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as a True Airspeed at higher altitudes. It is used for determining aircraft performance, structural integrity.. .etc.

In other words, to be more specific, 510 knots at sea level (EAS) would produce the same dynamic pressure as 722 knots True Airspeed (TAS), at 22,000 feet.

For example, the Vmo/Mmo or max operating limit for a standard 767 is 360/0.86M, where the split (/) defines the difference between low vs. high altitude, measured in knots for the Vmo below 17,854 feet, and as a mach # at and above 23,000 ft or 360knots/.86m.

See this screenshot for Vmo/Mmo to understand with perfect clarify how EAS fits into this picture

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/jf52c128c0.JPG

To clarify still further let's take a look at EAS in relation to the Max cruising speed of .86M at 35,000 feet, whereby the EAS (near sea level equivalent airspeed) is 275 knots and KCAS (knots calibrated airspeed) is 294 knots. Closer to sea level, EAS, CAS and TAS become increasingly closer together, but at higher elevations, beyond 23,000 ft, the TAS as an expression of the same TAS at the lower altitude, now EAS, will be much higher allowing the plane to travel as high as 500knots as a max cruising speed at a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet (499 to be precise)

See- Parameters

Here is the caculator

Thus an EAS of 510 knots = 722 knots or Mach 1.19, at 22,000 feet, and at still higher altitude, 915 knots or 1.38 Mach, at 35,000 feet, and reaching Mach 1.39 at about 38,000 ft.

An unmodified 767-222 cannot do it, it's an utterly impossible airspeed unless the aircraft were seriously modified, and impossible to control and maneuver at such airspeed, particularly for an untrained pilot with limited training, and skill level, and zero airtime in the the genuine article. It's just not possible and it cannot be believed, not in light of the facts in evidence before us.

Again, 510 knots is the groundspeed claimed for "UA175", by radar.. (as an airspeed, with the groundspeed and windspeed vectors added together, because the wind was light heading N/W, it would be about 515 knots).

So, dearest reader, consider that those who believe a standard 767 can fly at 510 knots near sea level and remain stable/controllable, MUST also accept that the same airplane could fly in a controlled fashion, even in a dive,

• at 722 knots at 22,000 feet... or Mach 1.19, and 915 knots at 35,000 feet...or Mach 1.38 heading for 1.39 at 38,000 ft.

It's absurd.

510 knots is NINETY knots over Vd of 420 (measured as KCAS), and 85 knots OVER 425, which is itself an equivalent airspeed at 22,000 feet of .99 Mach and 85 knots past the equivalent EAS for Mach 1.0. at an altitude of 23,000 feet and above. 425 EAS is also the same speed, and altitude, at which a diving EgyptAir990's FDR stopped recording, while revealing the occurrence of structural damage taking place throughout it's entire ordeal, before losing finally losing an engine and plunging into the sea while flying apart.

And that's 85-90 knots LESS than the airspeed of alleged "flight 175".

This is all totally fact checked, I'm not making this shit up, just trying to explain it so that it's clear to people what the true significance is of the data under analysis.

There is no precedent in the history of aviation, either before or after September 11th, 2001, for controlled flight without loss of structural integrity for this aircraft type (commercial airliner) occurring at such an airspeed, including those aircraft that entered into uncontrolled dives while suffering structural failure, whether they barely managed to land or not isn't the point, but instead that "flight 175" exceeded those dive speeds in perfect control and without suffering any structural failure at an airspeed of 85-100+ knots FASTER than those out-of-control diving, plummeting planes.

Therefore the plane was and must have been highly modified, including a hardened structure along with more powerful engines, because, as per the Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study, the plane accelerated post-dive, in level flight, to retain an airspeed of just over 510 knots through to impact, as seen in the video, which itself would require engine performance more powerful by orders of magnitude (3-6 times greater) than that which could be achieved by standard engines, in near sea level air density.

Again the plane can fly just within it's flight envelop or Vmo/Mmo of .86m at 23,000 feet but that's 360 EAS as well as CAS (calibrated airspeed - which has replaced "indicated airspeed" or IAS in Jet Aircraft where TAS is CAS corrected for non-standard temp, and pressure). The Vd/Md limit, or outer flight envelope, is a very hard limit to within 5 knots, because again, at 425 knots (EAS) we're looking at .99M at 22,000 ft alt. So it makes sense as an airspeed limitation once this is clearly understood.

Is it any wonder then that celebrated airman John Lear of Lear Jet fame, and who has more FAA certifications than any other pilot in the whole word, has managed to convinced himself, that there could be no plane there, at all, which is of course utterly absurd, but how and why the most certified pilot on the planet would arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion is rather telling as it relates to this issue, is it not?

Vd design dive limit - flutter testing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImSuZjvkATw "The dive speed is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly." Source: http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/airbus-a380/

To further illustrate this concept of EAS - for the Airbus a380 flutter test example cited in the OP where the Vd design dive limit of .96m was reached at over 30,000 ft alt, after significant redesign and modification when the first flight test revealed a problem, please see the following parameter calc

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ux52cdd2c4.jpg

and note, if you will, the EAS or equivalent airspeed (near sea level airspeed) - of 322 knots.., which is 38 knots, nearer to sea level below the Vmo/Mmo of 360 knots and 98 knots or 112.7mph LESS than the outer flight envelope Vd design dive limit of 420KCAS, as presented in the TCDS or Type Certification Data Sheet presented in the OP.

Caculator

And that's .96M at 31,800 feet, which is appropriate for that Airbus flight test, because that's near the floor of the elevation they were using AND it also just so happens to be the fastest speed reached by TWA841 in it's out of control harrowing dive amid severe structural damage, to give you an idea as to the equivalent airspeed, although g-forces played a significant role in that case, yet remained within the 150% limit at 5.5G or thereabouts. Speed limitation isn't typically as forgiving around the 425k/.99m airspeed however.

Now are you starting to get the picture, when we consider the airspeed of 510-520 knots throughout the latter part of a steady dive and in level flight while accelerating to retain said airspeed as described by the NTSB Radar Data Speed Impact Study?

Is it any wonder that celebrated airman John Lear of Lear Jet fame has managed to convince himself that there could be no plane there, at all, which is of course absurd, but how and why the most certified pilot on the planet would arrive at such a conclusion is very telling.

John Lear's affidavit, 2008

"The alleged NIST speed of 443 mph (385 kts,) for American Airlines Flight 11 would be technically achievable. However the NIST speed of 542 mph (470 kts) for United Airlines Flight 175 which is 50 kts. above VD is not commensurate with and/or possible, considering:

(1) the power available,***

(2) parasite drag (NAVAIR 00-80T-80 Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators)

(3) parasite power (NAVAIR 00-80T-80 Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators)

(4) the controllability by a pilot with limited experience. 14 CFR Part 25.253 (a)(B)

Therefore the speed of the aircraft, that hit the World Trade Center, as represented by NIST, particularly that of United Airlines Flight 175 is fraudulent and could not have occurred."

Although he was a little off on the actual recorded speed, using the estimate of NIST instead of the NTSB Radar Data Report, which might not have been released at that time, he makes the point.

Just to clarify, John Lear is a "no planer" who cannot accept that any such aircraft could travel in control at that speed and altitude. He is joined by ex Bush Admin official, Morgan Reynolds, who claims that no such aircraft could possibly have penetrated the exterior steel columned curtain wall of the twin towers, as observed. I know, nuts.

The problems they raise could be resolved however if they were to deduce that the plane was, to begin with, um, cough..real, and was a highly modified 767 type aircraft with hardened structure and modifications to the leading wing edges while travelling at a sufficient speed to get the job done, as observed.

This however, as what really happened, is not "faked" or "fakery" as they like to call it, with the plane either CGI'd and/or the object a hologram, the impact fireball, and impact damage presumably generated by other means or simply CGI'd, which is absurd in the face of the entire video and photographic record and what about the impact damage, was that faked also? The building actually swayed a little bit on impact, I suppose that was CGI'd, also..

So the "no plane" (at the WTC) hypothesis must also be dismissed as not credible or believable and so in the end

all we're left with is military drone 767-like aircraft with hardened structure, upgraded avionics and remote (drone) piloting capability, leading wing edge modifications, both for increased speed and hardness at impact with the steel curtain wall. Also Bigger Engines x3+ (to achieve acceleration at 500+ knots in near sea level air density) - and a paint job and that's it.

Now play the tape back through in terms of the approach, target acquisitioning and the actual impact itself in the case of the south tower, a fireball the magnitude of both buildings and everything in between - WAY out of proportion to the North Tower impact and, what would be expected for a fully wing-loaded fuel tank for a cross-continental flight from Boston to LA. The fireball was too big as well - might as well point it out.

Fireball (from across the Hudson River) http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/mdf50846.jpg

But it happened, and no that doesn't mean it happened the way we were led to believe that it happened, but it certainly doesn't mean that real planes were not involved. Just to be clear on the NRPT (no real plane theory).

Come around John Lear when you read this, for the love of God and everything that's sane and consider how that aircraft must have been modified, to be what it was and to do what it actually did do, and speed is an essential element for the required impact physics to there again, do what actually happened.

Steel can break (and in so doing can be pushed) with sufficient momentum and kinetic energy, at impact.

That's WHY so fast..

Plane wasn't filled with seats though because i can guarantee you it was filled, not with people, but with fuel and incendiary, like a giant fuel air bomb.

The pyrotechnic shock and awe display, was of course needed to create an awe inspiring (however horrific and incomprehensible) suspension of disbelief, as to the cause of subsequent complete annihilation of both buildings in the same manner, first the one hit lower down, and across multiple floors and a higher rate of speed, and then the other from the 95 of 110 stories, doing the exact same thing about a half hour later, to within maybe 3 seconds of absolute free fall for any freely dropped object from the same height, i should add.

It's self evident, both the buildings, and the planes, when we look to the south tower plane, recorded from every angle and perspective since by that time all eyes were trained on tne New York City WTC Twin Tower complex, the north tower smoking already from the first impact, captured in only one video (Naudet Brothers Fireman Video) and with no good still photos, because nothing was expected at that point, except by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Pearl, Paul Wolfowitz, L. Paul Bremmer, among others.

Therefore, the no-planer hypothesis can only be a honey pot of disinfo intended to obfuscate, corrupt, and above all set up to discredit and be discredited, and thus a controlled opposition, whether knowingly or unwittingly it makes no difference in the final analysis, the general effect and impact to blunt the truth at the heart of the matter to render the "9/11 truth movement" crazy and out of touch with reality, is the very same in either case.

It's what i call feeding the honey pot and it's a terrible thing to do, it's bad enough to be actively involved in unwittingly, but quite another to do so with conscious awareness, like taking marching orders from the honey pot of the planning of the operation itself, and playing out the role of "conspiracy theorist", in this case right out there in far left field and not even in the stadium at all by suggesting that there was no plane there, no real plane, at all (at the WTC) - a sound making hologram, at best.

That's absurd, and I'm calling it out right here and now, but I mean no ill will by that towards John Lear, Morgan Reynolds, and Jim Fetzer. I'm just imploring them to look again and get real based on what actually took place in reality.

There can be no real truth or justice otherwise, if it's not real to begin with or based in reality and physics.

That's called shooting ourselves in the foot, I'm pretty sure, and actually doing the enemies bidding when you really stop and think it all the way through as if taking marching orders from the operational design of the events itself, with everything outside the official story narrative being in the domain of "conspiracy theories", and the more the merrier, but it's the weird ones about space beams and holograms which really do the devil's bidding - because then the "honey pot" which was set within the plan itself, is fed, and out of it emanates outlandish and unbelievable and incredible and outrageous conspiracy theories, that of themselves cannot be believed or accepted - which are then employed like strawmen to discredit the rest of the 9/11 conspiracy information, no matter what else is offered that's perfectly sane and reasonable, which gives the OS believers the only excuse they need to dismiss it out of hand.

If one were discover themselves a worker operating actively from within of the honey pot of impossibility, handed out in the rendering of the events themselves, one would think that they would do a double take and maybe rethink their whole premise and focus of activity - if the arrow of inquiry was pointed in the wrong direction, and not at the very crux of the official story and the argument that it cannot be believed by any sane, rational or scientifically minded person.

It's like working the wrong side of the fence, in the domain of the same cause, and that's a disinfo or misinfo agent plain and simple, whether you know it or not.

Why go there, when all we need do it to show that THE plane was not and cannot have been UA175, but a military remote piloted drone, beefed up 767 hybrid filled with fuel AND incendiaries, set up like a fuel air bomb flame thrower, along with near instantaneous detonation within the confines of the building, so as not to give away the plane's identity - a miss would of course spell absolute doom for the operation. "Must, hit, steel."

But it was perfect - according to the detail.

Hit at the right level, at the right angle, and also diagonal to the building's overall perimeter so as to maximize the magnitude of the pyrotechnic fireball.

Best Regards, to all.

NAM007

I know this is old but... Great explanation. Correct me if I'm wrong but what I've taken from this is that essentially a watered down version of the presidential aircraft was used and probably preprogrammed with an exact flight path for an autopilot to maneuver it into position and there is almost zero possibility for anything else to have occurred on the first approach, even with an experienced pilot.

With regard to the Pentagon, I thought the plane thing was horse pucky while I was watching it the day it happened.

Thanks, for the positive feedback.

The south tower plane must have been remotely piloted by a very skilled pilot, because on final approach can be seen the most subtle and precise finger-touch control, so it wasn't pre-programmed but hand flown (just not from within the plane itself of course, because such a pilot wouldn't be a kamikaze).

Additionally, the structure must have been strengthened, almost certainly including leading wing edge modifications, and the engines replaced with something at least 3 orders of magnitude more powerful than standard.

I call it "monster-plane-as-missile".

That's what it was in effect.

What is was NOT and could not have been was "UA175". There's just no way on earth that it was what they would have us believe. It could not have been, and most definitely not as flown by Marwan al-Shehhi.

As with the twin towers, physics and the physics of controlled flight prohibits the official story from being true, and some day, no matter how "old" this info might be - future historians looking back are going to get it right or mostly right, and the "911 truthers" will be vindicated, in the fullness of time and history, can't not.

And as to the nature fo the destruction of the twin towers, future grade 10 physics students, armed with nothing but a stopwatch and a few basic equations including the three laws of motion, and some youtube videos, will prove, time and time again, that those buildings can only have been blown up with explosive demolition bombs which were riddled throughout the building, in advance. There's no other way to account for the physical occurrence of the destruction of those buildings. They did not just "collapse" in some sort of accordion-like pancaking collapse, that's not at all what really happened.

Both phenomenon, the plane, and the way the buildings exploded and fell to within mere seconds of absolute free-fall, according to the official story explanation simply cannot be believed by any sane, rational and scientifically minded person.

It's the saddest truth in the history of the world, plane as day, so to speak.

Something else that goes unnoticed more often than not is the melting point of the materials used to construct the buildings. Not only does jet fuel nor burn hot enough long enough to cause that kind of structural damage on the few floors it directly affected, but, having a background in metallurgy, I know those I beams cannot break the way they did due to their crystalline structure. It's not possible for them to even break without deformation due to the elasticity of steel, without even accounting for the rest of the building.

The building itself also wouldn't burn the way it did without help. I understand there's a lot of flammable and combustible materials involved, but it went up relatively instantly. My thought was that there was more on the plane then what the fuel tanks would hold, whether it be more fuel or other explosives.

As far as the other planes, I remember watching the news while everything was happening and seeing a female reporter from a smaller news group. She was speaking about an extra plane that was not forced down. She stated that it was shoot down and her feed went to static about 3 seconds later.

I still cannot believe that most of America still thinks it was who everyone says it was. The entire world believes it was our own government with the exception of us as a whole. Too many anomalies exist to dismiss it as a foreign attack.

On another note... Years ago a similar thing happened with an air show over seas. Two planes crashed on video and killed a large part of the crowd. Problem... The pilots never ejected and were unscathed. They were also charged with murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. I watched the video over and over but couldn't quite put my finger on what was wrong with it. I died the poster what I was missing and he stated that I should look at all of the pictures of the people that died. Then I should look at the crowd very closely and specifically between two points in the video. What I noticed was that there were no bodies, which I had assumed were obliterated, and that the video had twitches in it like it was edited. When I scrolled frame by frame I realized that the entire video was not twitching, bit only certain elements. They would freeze for 1 to 4 frames and you'd never notice it if you just watched the chaos at fill speed. My conclusion was that those were added to the video. Basically, the people that died didn't exist, or weren't there and no longer exist to the public. The firefighters were putting out the fires that were in an intact cockpit. The entire video was faked. I never figured out why.

The issue with the videos of the south tower plane, in that case involves speed issues where there weren't quite enough video frames in the allotted timeframe to capture enough information and therefore there were strange effects here and there, which would be expected, and there's too much in the video and photographic record for there to be any "video fakery" regarding the events of 9/11.

As to the vid you're referring to it might have been to sanitize it, and remove the worst gore so that people wouldn't have to see it..?

That's what I was thinking but there was zero gore and it wasn't cut for long periods of time. I used to edit videos for a website so I'm somewhat familiar with it although by far not an expert. Think of this... you're watching video and the camera has a bit of shake to it like someone is walking around. Back then, only really high end cameras had the stabilization so shakey video was commonplace. You see people walking around, talking and laughing, eating hotdogs and drinking soda. Your eyes are telling you something is strange but you can't see what it is. Then something dawns on you. There's a burning plane with firefighters teeing to put out the fire around it and these people are just walking around like it's another Tuesday. The video never actually breaks, it's literally a 15 minute video without scene changes. It still didn't look right but the quality isn't fantastic and you can't quite out your finger on it. While scrubbing through frame by frame, the video seems to glitch like a computer or video game. Perhaps it's just a cheap camera. As you scrub more, you notice that the camera is moving but sometimes the elements in the video stay for two or three frames. That could be another processing issue. What really got me was the people would randomly stop moving... All of them sometimes. There was zero gore anywhere in the entire thing despite all the people walking around.

What I got from it is that there were at least two videos layered on top of one another. The reason I think there were more is because sometimes not all of the elements would stop at the same time. Perhaps some of the people would stop this time for five frames but not as many as before. A vehicle driving would do the same. What never stopped was the fire and the firefighters.

Later in the video, portraits were shown of each person that died, one by one. Then, the pictures of the two pilots that collided were shown. They were sentenced for murder. In the beginning of the video, the camera person caught the actual crash. There were no ejections but the pilots weren't even hospitalized. I read up on the crash because I didn't think think there was anything wrong with the video aside from the fact that it had no sound.

Perhaps there is nothing wrong with the video and everything is legit. I'm willing to keep am open mind about that along with everything else. This happened before downloading videos and banning videos was commonplace, so I unfortunately don't have a copy. I showed the video to people that had more experience with videography and it baffled them. Only one person game me any kind of conclusion and he said that he'd love to get the raw footage directly from the camera, if it exists. Being professionals, they didn't want it known they had watched such a provocative video.

This is a great quality post. Thanks for your hard work. I would post this on a better quality forum though. R/conspiracy has gone to hell. Case and point: this post. No upvotes? Come on.

Edit: if I'm not mistaken you posted this yesterday too? Or maybe this morning ?

Thanks and good advice. Some day when i have the time i'll make a blog on it, and spread it that way if the NSA doesn't send a kill order in the interim that is.. jk, i hope.

But once it's out there and circling then it's too late.

Small starts friend, big outcomes. It doesn't matter where or how it's discovered and validated, we all matter even everyone here at r/conspiracy and it's up to each person to make their own choices.

I could see how a lot of people might resent this information and evidence, because they don't want to be told how to look at the world when it's totally different from the way they might have previously seen it (through the msm lens of official storydome).

What this evidence does i think is it severs the false hoax-linkage and hijacking of Occam's Razor for the apparent causal mechanism of the subsequent destruction of the towers, or in other words that it wasn't just a great fluke and lucky stroke of flying genius on the part of the hijackers, but by design, with the south tower hit lower, across multiple floors and a high rater of speed, to account for the reason that it "collapsed" 1st although hit second, with the north tower then doing the same damn thing from the 95th floor, about a half hour later.

When you put the evidence of CD together with THIS evidence as well, then there's a causal chain that's capable of placing a double bind on the very beast that did this horrific and dastardly deed in the first place, because when the FAKE linkage is totally severed in the light of scientific truth, then a new chain of reason and logic and truth envelopes and squeezes the life out of the Big Lie, and hey that's a good thing, no matter how painful it might be to look at and consider you know the horrific item under scientific observation or what i call simply "the murderous hoax" and psy-op, of 9/11.

The reverse psy-op, otoh, based on nothing but truth and reality, although it might appear to start very small, as a light in darkness is still a light in the darkness, lighting it up.

One at a time, and one more is all we need...

investigate911

Its great to finally have some solid physical evidence. You're right it shod get the ball rolling to open peoples' minds that don't believe any of it. I'll pass on the link where I can.

Thanks man, and i don't see what's wrong with reddit, even r/conspiracy, hey anything's possible these days and the internet is our friend, but this does require a nice blog presentation. I know enough about this now as a layman that i'm in a position to even describe how the flight envelope works in terms of EAS, TAS, CAS and Mach# within the context of ascending and descending altitude. It's valid and the data points are correct.

In the interim, until we get that fancy presentation together, thanks for getting the word out, it matters, it makes a difference however big or small it all adds up, so thanks again for reading, paying attention and for doing your part.

investigate911

No, No thank you. You know I woke up and I was thinking about this. Most of my well thought out and well researched comments have gone unnoticed or down-voted. Not just here but all of reddit. I thought maybe there's a conspiracy there, shills working to keep people from thinking. But ultimately, The quick one-liner is funny, thinking is not. People don't even want to hear someone say 9/11, the MSM has us all trained to be far too comfortable. My dad is a nonbeliever, well he's about as bad as it get's in terms of being "I'm american damnit, The govt knows what we need even if we don't". But one time I was telling about why I thought 9/11 was a hoax, he was telling me to shut up but then he said something I didn't expect. I didn't know what he meant until now. He said "What if it is true? Then what? Where do we go from there?"

I think a lot of the public has seen some evidence and been scared by it. If that is true, what else is true. What happens when the whole world finds out that the tyranny in america is all real world knowledge. There would be changes, riots, uncomfortable ways of life for the middle class and higher. (I use the term middle class very lightly) I think there is a large, large majority of this country that if MSM reported 9/11 was a false flag, would deny it. Or worse, just not care. Sure the people directly effected (survivors and families) would be in outrage, but how many others would be? Is that too much? Then JFK was an inside job, could pearl harbor be prevented, who killed those kids at sandy hook?

sssshhhhhhhh American Idle's on..........

You'll find that if you press people on their belief on something and you take them step by step there will be a point at which they are forced to either agree with you or give in to the cognitive dissonance and accept it.

Most people, when brought to this point, will decide to ignore what you've said rather than consider changing their view.

I try to stay open minded at all times. I believe 9/11 was a false flag but hell evidence could come out tomorrow completely proving it wasn't. People like to put all their faith in something and never open their minds that it could be different. Its lazy. Lazy for the mind and lazy to society. Its halts progression. Just like religions. We know that the earth wasn't made by some god, yet people still kill each other so they won't be wrong and it won't catastrophically change their whole nations ideals. Sounds stubborn to me.

What's funny are the downvotes with no comment, funny in a sad sort of way, but hey to each their own, not everyone can handle this type of information.

I know you probably haven't been online yet today but since you posted this a whole bunch of people have left very well thought out criticism of the theories you presented.

I'd suggest that at least some of the downvoters are more than capable of "handling this type of information" but have some serious qualms with the way you're presenting evidence from aircraft incidents that are in no way analogous to the incident with flight 175.

It's like saying "my cousin crashed his passat at 100 mph after hitting a patch of ice so I don't believe you could have been going 120 in your honda civic before you crashed it into a brick wall."

There's very little else to compare, that's the problem, and what precedents there are show us that such aircraft typically cannot exceed their Vd limit by anything over a few notes or five max and even in those case, when diving and hurtling to the earth, they not only lose control but experience structural failure. They just are not made to achieve equivalent airspeeds which, at altitude, reach or exceed mach 1.0 and which represent, near sea level something in the order of 425-430 knots.

In controlled flight without any structural failure, it's absolutely without precedent, either before, or after September 11th, 2001.

Post to

/r/911truth/

I saved it and will if you don't.

Credited to /u/NAM007

you can.

Thank you very much! :)

[deleted]

I'm convinced that it was carrying more than just the normal payload of jetfuel for a transcontinental flight, but no i don't think it was carrying thermite, but certainly other incendiaries, plus if the seats were removed it could carry a whole lot more of it.

Fireball: http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/mdf50846.jpg

Thermite has to be directed for it to do much of anything. All that would happen in that case would be a massive explosion and maybe it would eat through a few floors, it wouldnt cause what happened though.

The fire was nothing special, have a look at high rise fires on youtube for an idea of how relatively small it was.

Good points, thanks.

Keep up the truth guys, your doing more than you think;)

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/realskeptics] 9/11: Evidence that the south tower plane was a modified military drone aircraft and not flight 175 (x-post)

^{I am a bot. Comments? Complaints? Send them to my inbox!}

Perfect. Better title too. Thank you reddit bot for reporting. No complaints. :)

What about the passengers..?

Here's where it gets really creepy and painful, when the cell phone record is considered

PART 3 - THE AIRPLANES http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&amp;artid=167 1.37:30 - What happened to the passengers? 1.38:35 - The cellphone calls

To hone in on the relevant part, i invite you to check out the recording left by CeeCee Lyles on her husbands answering machine, which can be found smack dab in the middle of the public record.

Just to go Wikipedia's flight 93 page and scroll about half way down the right side in search of the player under the name of CeeCee Lyles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

And when you find it, put on your headphones, turn UP the volume and then listen to her entire delivery very very carefully, it's right there in that final whisper..

at 22.5 seconds just after she says "three guys, they have"

its been edited, you can hear the break in the flow of the audio, you can see the taper where somebody faded the recording down and up.

What am I supposed to be listening for? Theres a wierd noise after the click but I cant discern anything

The video points out that CeeCee Lyles says something else right before the call ends, that something else has been interpreted as "it's a frame".

it could be print through from a previous recording, cheap cassette tape was notorious for doing this, but the whole message is suspicious, why would she say "my children" not 'our children' to her husband.

and theres the little matter of the deliberate editing at the 22 second mark, somebody doctored this recording to mask out something on the tape. she says "three guys, they have..."

the good rule of thumb with anything govt related or what they put forward to support their 9/11 myth, is to consider it suspect and fake.

Because maybe her husband was a distant stepfather?

it could be print through from a previous recording, cheap cassette tape was notorious for doing this

Yes, it must be that - the context certainly doesn't suggesting anything otherwise, including the entire cell phone record..

She whispers "it's a frame" at the end just BEFORE fumbling around with the phone and eventually hanging up (as it it would typically give her so much trouble..).

Listen to every nuance of the context of the whole call as well, in light of the entire cell phone record which proves that those calls when taken together can only have been made from the ground, where, although that call was allegedly made from an airphone, her later call to him was from her cellphone, while travelling at over 5,000 feet at over 400mph, a sustained call, with them praying together etc. and no dropping of that call.

This is what I think happened to the passengers.

Check out the 'Family Centers' exposed by Jesse Ventura on Conspiracy Theory, banned episode. It should be required viewing for all Americans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuOf945ZCoE

xpost to r/conspiracybestof

It is good you included TWA 841, cause it demonstrates my point about the envolopes:

On April 4, 1979, a Boeing 727-31 (tail number N840TW) operating as TWA Flight 841 took off from John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York City, en route to Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport in Minneapolis, Minnesota. At around 9:48 p. m. local time, over Saginaw, Michigan, while the plane was cruising at 39,000 feet (11,887 m) and Mach 0.816, it began a sharp roll to the right. The roll continued despite the corrective measures taken by the autopilot and the human pilot. The aircraft went into a spiral dive, losing about 34,000 feet (10,363 m) in 63 seconds. During the course of the dive, the plane rolled through 360 degrees twice, and crossed the Mach limit for the 727 airframe. Control was regained at about 5,000 feet (1,524 m) after the first officer, with the captain in agreement, extended the landing gear in an attempt to slow the aircraft,[1][2] and following the loss of the #7 slat from right wing. The plane suffered substantial structural damage

The plane was damaged, but it was flyable and landable.

Flying outside of the envelopes does NOT gaurentee any outcome. It simply increases the odds something bad is going to happen.

So your case in point is that they deliberatly tried to go beyond the safe speed of the aircraft and lost control. Once they slowed the plane down, through landing gear and other control surfaces they were able to regain control. Great point.

My point is more broad then that. The OP is making the statement that it is impossible for the planes to fly outside of the envelope.

This is not the case. The truth is that you can very well fly outside of the envelope. The 841 flight I quoted is an example of a plane flying outside of the envelope - sustaining damage - then being brought under control and landing anyways.

To say that one of the planes couldn't be a passenger plane because it would have had to fly outside its envelope is a demonstrably false statement.

NINETY knots beyond it's Vd/Md design dive limit.

Please feel free to cite a single example of a commercial airliner exceeding it's Vd limit by more than 5 knots without experiencing completely loss of control and structural failure.

So that, and you've got an argument, otherwise forget about it.

To say that one of the planes couldn't be a passenger plane because it would have had to fly outside its envelope is a demonstrably false statement.

I never made this statement.

Almost 100 knots outside the envelope is pretty far though, no?

And we're not talking about the Vmo/Mmo which represents the beginning of the outer envelope, but the Vd/Md limit established by wind tunnel and in flight flutter testing.

http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/airbus-a380/

Furthermore, there isn't a single precedent in the history of aviation, except on 9/11 where a commercial airliner, even in a totally out of control, hurtling, plummeting dive, exceeded that limit by more than 5 knots, whereas the south tower plane did so while retaining perfect flight control, by 90 knots over it's Vd limit and 150 knots over it's Vmo, even accelerating post dive during level flight to retain that airspeed, which is itself utterly impossible unless the plane in question had more powerful engines by at least 3 orders of magnitude,

I agree with you. The Lauda Air 767 went it to a steep dive at close to mach1 and broke in to pieces. The report states all the control surfaces had massive damage because the pilots were trying to regain control, but it was physically impossible at that speed for a 767. It states the dive started at 24,700 ft. where the air density would be less than trying to pull the same maneuver at sea-level.

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/LaudaAir/LaudaRPT.html

Mach 1.0 at over 23,000 feet is equal in terms of equivalent airspeed to about 425-430 knots near sea level. None have ever gone faster and survived, ever.

For a point of reference, i refer you to the peak speed reached by an out of control diving, spiraling TWA841

In the case of TWA 841, the NTSB Report states that the airplane reached a max speed of .96 Mach at 31,800 feet, exceeding it's Mmo of .90 Mach by .06 Mach or about 30 knots over it's Mmo.

For the following airspeed calculation, please note the EAS or Equivalent Airspeed.. (near sea level)

Screenshot of parameters http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ux52cdd2c4.jpg

Calculator http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.aspx#EquivalentAirspeed

TWA Flight 841 (1979) NSTB report http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR81-08.pdf

I'm on your side dude. I was hoping that would be clear by now.

I've been trying to find more evidence to support your thread so that people on the fence can come to the same conclusion that you've presented.

It is clear, and has been all along, i'm just adding some additional info for further clarification, that's all nothing more.

Edit to add - check your inbox..

My bad. I just didn't want you to feel like you have anything to prove to me. I've read pretty much everything you showed here.

That's not what happened. They didn't lose control because of their cruising speed. One flap on one side of the craft failed to retract, causing it to roll and enter into a dive.

During it's harrowing descent it experienced complete loss of flight control and severe structural damage.

Please provide a single precedent in the history of aviation, except on 9/11 when a commercial airliner exceeded it's Vd/Md limit by 5 knots or greater without experiencing a loss of control &/or structural failure. Thanks.

Although i do not endorse the following video and link in support of the evidence contained in the OP and this thread, i nevertheless found this to be of interest and potentially relevant..

Dov Zakheim - 9/11 Comptroller and Remote Control Planes

9/11 Research - Remote Control

OP A) & B) Graphs/Diagrams - explained.

I can't remember which 9/11 video I saw it in, it was a while back, before reddit even. Anyways, they discussed the fact that commercial airliners have a software hard-limit that prevents them from doing maneuvers in excess of 1g. Mostly for safety reasons, despite the fact that the airframe of these planes can handle several G's. The only way to push one of these airliners in a maneuver above 1G is via remote control @ NORAD. The maneuvers the planes used to hit their respective buildings required >1G turn.

Wish I had sources on it.

Edit: PS, great post.

If such a system were in effect, wouldn't it dangerously prevent pilots from recovering from stalls and dives?

Seems like BS to me unless you've got the source on hand.

I was looking at a plane crash in my home town and would like some feedback.

Colgan Air Flight 3407 is the one I am referring to (where is wiki bot when you need it). This was all over the news here with plenty of pictures along with live feed. It was a DISASTER area. Does anyone know how similar this plane was and the planes that hit either in Shanksville or the Pentagon?

It looked like a plane dropped in Amherst, but when I see pictures from the two 9/11 sites, it looks like a crash site in a B movie. I listened to audio (pictures as well), I believe it was on the Loose Change doc, and they said that when crews got to the Shanksville site that there was nothing really there but a hole in the ground. Did they ever recover any bodies from these flights, because I know they did here?

Just a question and if it can be explained let me know because if the planes are similar then I would expect the crash sites to be similar.

I'm not an expert, but my whole family's in aviation so I could try to outline some of the differences for you based on info I can find on wikipedia. My analysis is based on the government's account of the united 93 crash, which some here have their doubts about, but OP here wanted to hear about what could account for the differences and I can't really answer that question from the perspective of "flight 93 never existed".

The plane that crashed in Amherst was a Dash-8, a midsize propeller plane. It's smaller and slower than most jet airliners but not by too much. The 757 that's supposed to have crashed in Shanksville was significantly faster and much larger.

The biggest difference in situation is that Colgan 3407 was on approach to land, at low altitude, with flaps extended and significant ice buildup when it stalled out. Their last reported airspeed was 130 knots, a dangerously low speed. Flight 93 still had active throttle with no flap extension and was aimed towards the ground. It was reported as having an airspeed of around 500 knots and an attitude of 40 degrees below horizon. It's supposed to have left a ten foot deep, 30-50 foot wide crater at the impact site. Few pieces of significant size remained intact.

The difference between the incidents is roughly the difference between 1: losing control of your car while braking on ice and 2: crashing your car head on into a concrete barrier at a speed higher than you'd ever normally be going.

Thats bullshit. Just because the recommended speedlimit or whatever is it called is a certain number doesnt mean it will exploded or rip off the wings in one second. Case closed, a lot of you have not the slightest idea of physics and holding on the last details of some evidence. 9/11 is in some way fucked up, but this is ridicoulos. Have fun, its not in a slightest way true. My opinion, im not a physican, but just necause some company writes a number down, it isnt the max speed a plane can reach.

Take a look at how that Vd limit is established

http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/airbus-a380/

I invite anyone to come up with a single precedent in the history of aviation either before or after 9/11, when a commercial airliner exceeded it's Vd limit by more than 5 knots without experiencing complete loss of flight control amid structural failure.

The point is that unless seriously modified, such an aircraft cannot successfully FLY at such a speed near sea level air density.

Well you wont convince people and even if you did they would do nothing.

All they have to do for now is spread the word among family and friends, coworkers, acquaintances, because it's about a psy-op and perception, and either a compliant or an outraged citizenry.

Once the number of people who do not accept the OS exceeds 50% then it's a whole new ballgame because the nature of the info is a one way street.

You're either part of the solution or your part of the problem, and let me be the first to tell you that your view isn't helpful to the cause of truth, justice and liberty.

I am just saying people in the US don't have what it takes.

We do have what it takes but the only thing stopping a revolt is the fact tha tour society is too happy. Most of us are well fed and have a place to sleep, thats why majority of americans wont revolt because of complacency.

Come to power!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1-0o0cSw24

If you found this to be of interest and important, please send the link around

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xlc96/911_proof_in_evidence_that_the_south_tower_plane/

For additional info, please watch "World Trade Center Attack"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZrpNK4lJVc

[deleted]

It has already been done

That's right, and i was very pleased to see how they dealt with the very same issue we're looking at here.

In that case they used the max operating speed limit or Vmo/Mmo while expressing that in terms of miles per hour, whereas here we're using the outer OUTER flight envelop Vd/Md design dive limit expressed in knots and as established by wind tunnel and in flight flutter testing by pilots in Orange Jumpsuits (so they're easy to find just in case...) while wearing parachutes although well aware that if the plane breaks and goes into an out of control dive during flutter testing that the odds of making it out of the diving aircraft amid those g forces would be slim or in short, while almost crapping their pants. It's a real limit in terms of airspeed, beyond which loss of control and structural failure is indeed typically imminent unless the plane were seriously modified.

Beyond Vd/Md, well there's nothing at all to use as an example for high precision controlled flight anywhere past 5 knots over Vd EXCEPT alleged "flight 175", as well as "77" which was flown with high precision (by Hani Hanjour?) at 80 knots over Vd, while pulling even more g's yet never so much as touching the grass all the way up to the wall of the ground floor impact. At that speed the whole WALL of the Pentagon is itself nothing but a sliver.

So that's the only difference where Vmo/Mmo represents the beginning of the outer flight envelop and Vd/Md it's outermost limit.

The Vmo/Mmo is 360(under 17854 fit alt)/.86m(above 23,000 ft alt)

Therefore, in knots, the plane was 150 knots over it's Vmo, or 173mph OVER that aircraft type's max operating limit beyond which loss of control, as well as structural failure becomes imminent, unless seriously modified.

Engine performance is also an issue, because the plane actually accelerated in level flight near sea level during it's final approach, in order to maintain, at the lower altitude a groundspeed of 510 knots (with the winspeed vector added, for a very light wind to the N/W, about 515 knots, airspeed).

I was reading some where that at sea level, at those speeds, the engines act as a brake. The incoming air is faster than the rotors are turning, so it effectively starts slowing the plane down.

Edit: I don't know if its true or not.

Yes, that's true.

From the Airbus a380 flutter test cited in the OP

The dive speed (Vd) is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent), as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. At the dive speed, excessive aircraft vibrations develop which put the aircraft structural integrity at stake.

http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/

All it takes is a quick glance at the facts of the other cases OP linked to see that they're not really comparable situations and don't really back up the theory.

The closest analogue was the EgyptAir flight, as it involved a sustained descent into the ocean speculated to be a pilot suicide. An engine came off of that flight at much lower speeds than flight 175 which seems at face value to be supportive of OP's theories, but if you look a bit closer the analogy falls apart. The engines on the EgyptAir flight were turned off, meaning that instead of acting as "tunnels" for air to flow through or vacuums sucking air in, they were acting as giant, heavy air-brakes. It's easy to see why a turned-off engine would separate from the craft at a far lower speed than a properly operating one.

The other two flights involved planes sustaining relatively minor g-force damage while recovering from free-fall and still managed to land with no fatalities. A craft moving straight ahead with no unusual g-force could be moving much faster and still suffer from less damage than a plane making a recovery from free-fall like that.

It's not like 175 couldn't have sustained some damage in the last few minutes before impact anyway. I doubt whoever was in control would give two shits about dropping a few nuts and bolts on their way in.

EA 990, from the FDR data achieved at 01:50:31 a CAS of 463 knots at 17152 ft. It was pulling about 2.1 G's at the time. The left and right elevators were split as the Captain and FO fought on the controls.

This is a EAS of 443 knots and is 23 knots above Vd for the 767.

Going that fast, pulling that G with severe twisting moments being applied to the tail section, the aircraft DID NOT break up in flight.

The NTSB report is very clear on that. To say otherwise is going directly against the NTSB report and ignores the fact that after the CVR and FDR shutdown due to loss of electrical power, EA990 was observed on radar climbing to 25,000 feet before commencing it terminal dive.

The 767 is a very strong design. While this data does not prove that an EAS of 510 knots was achievable, it does set the benchmark for what a 767 can survive without structural failure.

My understanding that it's highest speed recorded during it's dive was .99M or 425 knots EAS.

It also experienced structural failure throughout it's descent, and eventually lost it's engine while breaking up and plummeting into the sea.

As to damage, it wasn't only the left/right elevators split, or the engine which was torn off..

From the NTSB report -

"including portions of two wing panels, fuselage skin, horizontal stabilizer skin,and the majority of the nose landing gear assembly"

Here's the report http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2002/aab0201.pdf

As to the electrical power cutoff.. if you are arguing that the FDR stopped recording and the transponder not working due to the engines being shut off, this is false.

The 767 has a Ram Air Turbine (or.. RAT).. .so that if the airplane loses electrical power from the engines, a RAT will deploy out of the fuselage and start spinning... creating electrical power which will power the ATC Transponder. Since this did not happen, the only conclusion can be that the airplane was broken at this time. This is all covered in 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, sourcing pages from the 767 Aircraft Flight Manual.

This is what the RAT looks like on a 757... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/757_ram_air_turbine.jpg

And to be clear.. .the radar returns showing a second "climb and dive", could have been the radar bouncing off pieces of the airplane which were flipping through the air, giving false altitude data.

Could you please offer a cite as to where you're getting the 463KCAS number at 17152 ft. - will look back through the NTSB crash report myself to see where you got that from.

But just to be clear that plane suffered structural damage throughout it's high speed descent, did not survive and broke apart which only further illustrates the central point made in the OP and throughout the thread, since the south tower plane was recorded at about 510-520 knots airspeed, including a g-force of up to 2.5g's while accelerating in level flight, post dive, but without any loss of flight control, and without incurring structural failure, while allegedly piloted, by an absolute novice, where that airspeed was maintained for well over a minute and not just for a few seconds.

It just doesn't make any sense and cannot be believed for a standard, unmodified Boeing 767, and as pointed out it's without precedent as an in-control airspeed without experiencing structural failure, for a commercial airliner, in the entire history of aviation, either before or after September 11, 2001.

The NTSB report clearly states the aircraft did not break up. Your continued assertion in did is not supported by the evidence. You have a theory when it suits you, and you quote the report when it suits you. It is called cherry picking. The 463 knots at 17152 feet is from the CSV data from the FDR and occurs at the data point I mentioned. The EAS at that point is 443 knots. The damage you are quoting did not happen at that point, once again selective quoting.

I wasn't trying to mislead. Will check it.

At what point(s) ie: altitude, airspeed - did the damage that I quoted, take place? Curious..

One of it's engines did fall off prior to impact, I'm sure you're aware of that, and that other damage did occur, which you made no mention of whatsoever, while implying that the only damage to take place was the left and right elevators split as a result of the Captain and FO fighting over the controls. Um..isn't that "cherry picking"..?

I'll read the report again and check back, because I had no intention to mislead, but let's hope that you haven't done so, yourself, we'll see..

P.S. Again, could you please provide the link, as requested before, for the CSV data file from the FDR you used, for verification on that 463KCAS at 17152 ft? Thanks. Not that i don't trust you but i'd just like to see it for myself because that's quite a bit higher than the 425 EAS as per the #2 diagram ref'd in the OP.

The research I've presented here isn't my own but comes from a group called "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" that i've come to understand as a layman, and if any of it's in error I would very much like to know precisely where and how, and by how much they might have erred because i'm committed to the truth nothing more nothing less. Thanks again.

Loss of an entire engine prior to impact with the ocean would qualify as a "breaking up" though, wouldn't it?

I have some more research to do on this, because we can't both be right, and you've indicated that I've been making false assertions unsupported by evidence, but that's just not my thing.

I sure hope you haven't gone and done the very thing that you've accused me of.. because we will get to the bottom of this.

You can approximate it from the FDR readout data on the NTSB report. If you want the CSV data, I will need an email address.

One question for you however, the crux of your argument is that Vd/Md is a structural limit, correct? I have posted above in the thread how these speeds are obtained from FAR Part 25. Perhaps you should read that. They are the limits to where the test program has cleared the flight envelope, nothing more.

From the original post, you quoted a speed of .99M. That is 0.08 Mach above Md. The aircraft did not break up at that point either. So obviously Md is not a structural limit.

The RAT is a small propeller device that gets dumped into the airstream as a result of loss of electrical power. No argument there. In answer to why is didn't power the transponder, I suggest dumping it into a 443 knot airstream rendered it unusable, or blew it off the airframe. It wasn't designed for those air loads. That is supposition on my part, but seven radar sites tracked the aircraft climbing up to 25,000 feet and then descending again.

The debris field was found where their tracking indicated it would be and the entire debris field was only 1200 feet long.

If you deduce what the TAS was of the aircraft at 17000 feet it comes to approx 550 knots ( I am guessing on the OAT, I don't have it handy). At 550 knots the aircraft was covering over 900 feet per second. The claim that an aircraft breaking up at that speed and altitude, flying horizontally, (from the FDR trace) would have a debris field of only 1200 feet in length is not credible. AF447 descended vertically in a stall and had a debris field larger than that. I haven't accused you of anything. But perhaps you shouldn't take everything from P4T as gospel.

Further to my last, the RAT on the 767 only supplies hydraulic pressure. There is no electric generator connected to it. EA990 would have had a HMG (Hydraulic Motor Generator) which would have supplied some electric power once the two AC generators in the engines stopped functioning after the engines were shutdown. Whether the transponder was connected to a bus being powered by this generator, I don't know. My sources suggest its output, without the centre Hyd system being powered by the AC system, would be about what you would expect from the battery. Its output is DC, so the transponder would have to be connected to a DC emergency bus. I still say however that the RAT wasn't designed to handle those air loads, and it was never recovered from the wreckage.

Hi Cobra1959 -

I thought you were going to come to debate us on our forum? But after reading your many false replies above, I can see why you haven't.

You may want to check the EA990 report from the NTSB again...specifically this part...

"It is apparent that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage separated from the airplane at some point before water impact because they were located in the western debris field about 1,200 feet from the eastern debris field."

Your claim that "seven sites" recorded the second climb and dive is also false. Seven RETURNS were recorded, and they were primary returns subject to potentially large errors as pointed out by the NTSB. The same type of data shows "AA77" at nearly 60,000 feet along points of its flight path. This all was pointed out to you when we debated on YT, but apparently you chose to ignore it.

Rob, the size of the debris field says it all. There is no way an aircraft breaking up at 17000 feet doing that sort of TAS would have a debris field of 400 yards.

Why do you quote some of the NTSB report yet ignore the part that says;

"The results of the Safety Boardís examination of CVR, FDR, radar, airplane maintenance history, wreckage, trajectory study, and debris field information were not consistent with any portion of the airplane (including any part of the longitudinal flight controls) separating throughout the initial dive and subsequent climb to about 25,000 feet mean sea level (msl)." ??

Regarding the radar tracking, we are both wrong.

NTSB report states;

"Information about the remainder of the flight came from the airplane ís two debris fields and recorded primary radar data from long-range radar sites at Riverhead, New York, and North Truro, Massachusetts, and the short-range radar site at Nantucket. The height estimates based on primary radar data from the joint use FAA/U.S. Air Force (USAF) radar sites indicated that the airplane ís descent stopped about 0150:38 and that the airplane subsequently climbed to about 25,000 feet msl and changed heading from 80º to 140º before it started a second descent, which continued until the airplane impacted the ocean."

While I cannot discount there may be errors in the altitude information, I'd be interested in your explanation as to how debris, tracked by four radar sites, executes a 60 degree turn before it commences descent?

I didn't say I was going to your forum to debate this. I reserve the option to do so however..

Mike,

The debris "field" were two distinct debris fields ("distinct" word used by the NTSB) which lead the NTSB to conclude the aircraft broke apart prior to impact with the water. You claimed "The NTSB report clearly states the aircraft did not break up", you were wrong.

You claimed there were seven radar sites tracking the aircraft during the "second climb and dive". You were wrong. There were Seven radar "RETURN ESTIMATES" (which the NTSB claims were subject to potentially large errors).

I never claimed how many sites were tracking.

You are also wrong that it was four sites. Only three sites tracked the targets (Riverhead, North Truro, and Nantucket), and they were tracking primary targets (no Mode C) which also included "clutter", which means it was metal, which means it could have been debris from the airplane flopping in the air in all types of directions, bouncing all types of erroneous/faulty radar information. Have you ever worked with RADES primary altitude data? I have, altitude estimates are all over the place compared to Mode C. Read the Egyptian reply to the NTSB report. The Egyptians point out many errors made by the NTSB which caused the NTSB to revise their reports many times, including complaints of limited access to analysis and incomplete analysis. One which stands out is that Boeing refused to do wind tunnel testing.

You are also wrong with regard to establishing Vd/Md. Vd/Md is established in the wind tunnel based on the onset of flutter or other control issues. Vc is then established (which in turn sets Vmo) through margin of Safety Calculations. Then test pilots go out and see if they can really fly to Vd. If they are unable to reach Vd due to the onset of the factors described, they either lower Vd thereby lowering Vc/Vmo.... or they modify the airplane to achieve Vd. The A380 video was an excellent example of this. They actually broke something on the airplane prior to reaching Vd. They had to abort the test and modify the airplane to reach Vd.

Bottom line, EA990 suffered in flight structural failure. The NTSB states the peak speed reached was .99 Mach which is 425 KEAS. After we received the csv files, we found out 443 KEAS is higher of the two as it relates to EAS, but only by 18 knots. You still have another 67-80 knots to go to compare to "UA175". Also keep in mind "UA175" performed 2.5 - 3G's pulling out of the dive for a much longer duration than any of the peak G's seen with EA990, then rolling on G's (which reduces structural G limits) to turn into the WTC South tower. All this supposedly done by a pilot with zero time in type, and less experience than one who could not control a 172 at 65 knots.

"UA175" data is far beyond the performance of EA990 which in fact suffered in flight structural failure, or any other aircraft which suffered structural failure or loss of control.

Please let us know when you find one aircraft which is POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED to have maintained control and stability at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pulling 2.5 - 3G's-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank...

Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than opinion or "Because the govt told me so...".

Robert, there is so much cherry picking in that reply you really should open an orchard.

Bottom line: EA990 did not suffer ANY structural failure at either VD+23KEAS while pulling 2.1 g nor at Md+0.08M, rendering your VG diagram video worthless and misleading.

Let us know when you have any evidence that you don't simply make up to suit your agenda.

He's correct however that it's absolutely without precedent in the history of aviation for commercial jet aircraft, including EA990, by 67-80 knots. It's also true that 510 knots KEAS (near sea level) = 722 knots / 1.19m, at 22,000 feet, which would be over Md by .28m which is a far cry from .08 over .91, and a difference of .2 Mach faster, or in short

90 knots / .28m OVER the Vd/Md limit, as established by the methodology he described (wind tunnel and flutter testing).

in perfect flight control..

ACCELERATING, after coming out of a 10,000 ft dive the majority of which occurred at a sustained speed of 510-520 knots groundspeed (just slightly higher with wind vector added), in level flight as observered

This would be utterly impossible for the standard engine, whose capacity for thrust is already exceeded at that airspeed, even at altitude, forcing the aircraft to enter into a dive to achieve such speeds, typically.

But ACCELERATING at that speed, in level flight after the dive, in order to retain such speed in near sea level air density, is unheard of and not possible for standard engines.

More research needs to be done in this regard (required engine performance to fly and accelerate, in near sea level air density @ 515 knots airspeed).

The dive speed is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent), as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. At the dive speed, excessive aircraft vibrations develop which put the aircraft structural integrity at stake.

On the Airbus fly by wire aircraft, it is not possible to reach the dive speed, due to the flight envelope protections available in normal law. If the sidestick is maintained full forward, and the airspeed crosses VMO/MMO, the pitch nose-down authority smoothly reduces to zero at approximately VMO +16 / MMO + 0.04. This however, does not guarantee the airspeed stabilizing at this speed.

http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/airbus-a380/

You'll note above that the controls start doing certain things automatically to fight against the pilots ability to reach and achieve such speeds. The control surfaces at such speeds also start doing very funny things (which Rob and other pilots would be well aware of), so there's just no way yes a NOVICE pilot, with limited time (if any) in the UA simulator and with zero time in the real thing, who's comparable skills and experience was considered no better than Hani Hanjour by the 9/11 Commission "Investigation" could be flying the plane even if it could achieve such an airspeed while retaining perfect flight control, and while executing a deft g-pulling maneuver all at the same time.

Experienced pilots could not do it in the UA simulator at UNDER Vmo/Mmo, even when trying it again and again, only able to hit the target by reducing speed to near approach level speeds.

It's just not believable.

So Rob's right to say - show us a precedent.

There isn't any.

Why such speed..?

That's the question we ought to be asking ourselves at this point, not whether it could have been flight 175 piloted by Marwan al-Shehhi, ex room mate of Hani Hanjour, fellow crack Boeing Pilot.

Why so fast and why did it hit the south tower where it did and in the way it did?

And what really happened to the twin towers (and building 7)?

Best Regards,

NAM007

investigate911

I'll tell you what. I may be able to access a 767 sim in the next few weeks. Lets wait and see what that turns up.

In the meantime have a look at this:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/358016-easyjet-b737-pitch-down-incident-12-january.html

VMO on the aircraft is 340 Kn and the pilot reported seeing in excess of 440 kn. The aircraft recovered without hydraulic flight controls.

100 knots over Vmo is not 150 knots over Vmo. You still have another 50 knots to go "Cobra". Not to mention the fact it took the (ahem... highly experienced) crew more than 10,000 feet to recover after the upset.

Why would you claim to know anything related to aviation using an example of Vmo+100, while trying to compare it to Vmo+150?

Do you know what happens as airspeed increases?

Here is a hint... http://content.answcdn.com/main/content/img/McGrawHill/Aviation/f0480-02.gif

Are you deliberately trying to mislead the readers?

Now show us an airplane which has been positively identified to have exceeded Va+220, Vmo+150, Vd+80, pulled 2.5 - 3G, while rolling on G's, and remained controllable and stable.

Tiffan... er Robert. NAM was asking in this thread for an example of an aircraft that had exceeded Vd+5 and hadn't broken up in flight. I don't know what the Vd of a 737-700 is but I suggest this is a likely candidate.

It is yet another reason why your Vg Diagram video is wrong. Please take the ethical steps required to avoid misleading the public further, by either correcting it or withdrawing it.

Now show us an airplane which has been positively identified to have exceeded Va+220, Vmo+150, Vd+80, pulled 2.5 - 3G, while rolling on G's, and remained controllable and stable.

answer: UA 175, until proven otherwise.

By proof I don't mean "arguments from incredulity", the staple of P4T.

Further to my last, I have a 737 pilot friend high up in the training world and he places Vd for the 737-700 at VMO plus 40=380 knots.

So there you are NAM. Vd plus 60 with no hydraulics. Aircraft landed safely. Maybe you guys should rethink the whole Vd+5 = death scenario?

Robert, you really need to re-edit your video.

Let me guess. you also believe in Santa Claus because NORAD tracks him each December?

Ok... lets look at the Adam Air crash of a 737-400 in 1989.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/pdf/Final_AdamAir_PK_KKW_17032008.pdf

In the report it states that for a -400 Vd is 400 knots and Md is M.89.

This aircraft broke up at Vd+90 (490KCAS) and Md+0.036 (M0.926). It was pulling between 3 and 5 G at the time.

The break-up was recorded at approx 13000 feet which yields a EAS of 473 KEAS so lets adjust that to Vd+73 at 3G-5G.

We getting closer now guys? Do you think the 3-5G may have had some influence? Either way... this aircraft went well over Vd before breaking up. Your video is looking sicker by the moment Rob.

This aircraft broke up at Vd+90

In other words, it didn't remain controllable and stable?

The break-up was recorded at approx 13000 feet which yields a EAS of 473 KEAS so lets adjust that to Vd+73 at 3G-5G.

In other words, it did not remain controllable and stable?

How much time did the Crew have in type? Were they able to hit a target with a 25' margin for error each side of wingtip?

Oh wait... you admit the airplane broke up in flight.

Thanks for supporting the claims in the OP.

You haven't read the report Robert. Get back to us when you have.

Why bother to read the report when you have admitted the airplane broke up in flight and you still have not provided one aircraft which has been POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED to have exceeded Va+220, Vmo+150, Vd+80, pulling G's, rolling on G's, and remained controllable and stable?

What you have done is provide information/data which supports the OP.

What i find interesting about that, is this.

Given that it's (the airspeed) absolutely without precedent, for controlled flight with deft maneuvering even while pulling g's and rolling on g's, setting aside even the issue of successful piloting at that speed and maneuvering, as well as engine power and performance at that speed and altitude - while employing as points of comparison diving, out of control planes hurtling to the earth under nothing but the force of gravity..

Here's my question:

Why is it that, in light of and in the face of all the evidence, data, information and phenomenon - we are supposed to consider that the official story, namely that this was flight 175 piloted by Marwan al-Shehhi as being entirely "self evident", and perfectly credible, as the best and seemingly only permitted explanation according to Occam's Razor? That's the territory of ignorance which begins with one and only one possible conclusion, simply because in this case the alternative is "unthinkable" including evidence of precision engineered CD of the twin towers and building 7.

It ignores all evidence, while suggesting that the official story about what happened there MUST be accepted even in spite of all evidence to the contrary..!

Why then is the OS considered fact, and that which is in alignment with reality and truth, nothing but "theory"? Because it's the generally accepted POV? That we should all believe it because the majority of people believe it, while ignoring all evidence to the contrary?

That's absurd!

That's not scientific at all, nor the least bit objective.

It's a farce really, nothing but a ruse first expressed in the murderous hoax itself and then in actively covering it up in all manner of aiding and abetting seemingly for no other reason than the nature of The Big Lie when placed under the lens of scientific inquiry, and historical analysis as well with all of it pointing in one and only one direction, and it isn't towards the validity or even the believably of the official story and public myth regarding what happened. It isn't credible, not because of irrational incredulity, but based on the real facts in evidence, and the truth at the heart of the matter - that the plane wasn't and could not have been flight 175.

Therefore for anyone to knowingly cover it up is a type of crime in and of itself, knowingly being the operative word.

The uninformed can be forgiven in their ignorance, but not the fully informed.

Therefore i have to support you P4T in your condemnation of Cobra for his efforts, even though i don't adopt a style of ridicule and mockery. It's worse than that.

Some people ought to step back and really think this through and think twice about their loyalties and allegiances and what it is they are trying to support, guard and protect, and by that i don't mean you.

This is serious business and i'm sure more pilots will be along to inspect the data for themselves, some day.

Best Regards,

NAM007

investigate911

UA 175 did. Millions watched it... I was one of them.

Your "theories" are just that. Your incredulity is not proof of anything but bias. Get over it Robert. It happened without one shred of proof to the contrary.

Since you have been shown a 737 that survived Vd+60 intact, when are you going to amend your "Destruction at Vd+5" video? It must be getting embarrassing now.

UA 175 did. Millions watched it... I was one of them.

He's not saying that didn't happen, but there's no way it could have happened the way we were led to believe and have since been told to believe.

It can't have been flight 175 and you damn well know it.

There is not one other single precedent of controlled flight at such an airspeed in the history of aviation for a commercial airliner, ever, even in the midst of any and every precedent you can come up with of diving, out of control planes hurtling to the earth under nothing but the force of gravity.

This plane outperformed them all.

Are you nuts?

It was a military variant painted with the UA livery. No scientifically objective rational observer can honestly deduce otherwise, and most especially, if they themselves happen to be a pilot.

It's not believable.

That is not to say that it didn't happen don't be absurd and take another look at the title of this thread and OP.

Best Regards,

NAM007

investigate911

OMG - it broke up, at 473 KEAS.

There it is.

That makes the point of the OP and thread title, perfectly clear.

Thank you.

Our of fairness EA990 does need to be moved forward slightly on the graph, that too was helpful, to get these benchmarks down right to the mark.

So thanks again for that as well Mike.

It did, but it wasn't a 767, and it was pulling 3-5 g in a spiral dive at the time. So it is a different case. A 737-400 has a VMO and a Vd 20 knots below a 767 and UA175 hit 510 knots in the last seconds before impact.

and UA175 hit 510 knots in the last seconds before impact.

That was misleading, and you know it. Now i can see what Rob was talking about.

Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--UA175

"For much of it's final descent, UAL175 maintained a descent rate between 4000 feet per minute and 8000 feet per minute. During the descent from 12,000 feet to 6000 feet, the aircraft groundspeed remained between 500 - 520 knots. As the aircraft made it's final descent to 1000 feet, it ACCELERATED and impacted Word Trade Center tower #2 at approximately 510 knots groundspeed."

So not only did it maintain 510 knots, for well over a minute, but it accelerated, post dive, to retain a 510+ knot airspeed (approx 515 adding the windspeed vector), and it did this in near sea level air density.

You can tell you are not a pilot. You haven't factored in the changes in TAS during descent. 510 knots TAS, say at 10,000 feet is 438 EAS. Since this discussion is centred around EAS, lets keep it at that.

Here is the the Speed/Alt Data and an airspeed calculator. Note the airspeed is GROUNDSPEED.

https://www.metabunk.org/sk/Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_StudyAA11_UA175_1.pdf

http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html

You can do the calculations yourself. At 5000 feet for example, the EAS is 454, Vd + 34. That is done using nil wind and hence Groundspeed equals TAS. If you have access to any lowel level wind reports from the day, (I don't) you can convert the GS to an accurate TAS and therefore an accurate EAS.

With 20 seconds to go to impact the EAS was approx 461 or Vd +41. The aircraft accelerated from there. Remember that the Easyjet 737 landed safely after exceeding VD+60. UA175 didn't exceed VD+60 till about 12 seconds before impact.

Vd is measured as a CAS or 420KCAS, so what you're trying to do is highly misleading.

And was the Easyjet in perfect flight control, as observed with "UA175"?

Also, airspeed can be calculated by simply adding the wind speed vector, which was very light and to the N/W as seen by the drifting smoke from the north tower, which adds just slightly to the ground speed for an airspeed aka TAS of 515kn, and of course you are well aware of what happens in terms of dynamic pressure due to the air density increase as a plane descends down into the lower strata of the atmosphere - so how was it able to accelerate after coming out of it's dive in near level flight, near sea level, to retain an airspeed exceeding 510 knots, and while executing the entire maneuver with what i would suggest was absolute perfection in regards to target acquisitioning and final orientation upon impact. It didn't "almost miss" and that final maneuver not not evidence of a "loss of control" but you of all people would know that, as a pilot, one would think..

And was the Easyjet in perfect flight control, as observed with "UA175"?

No, it was not. In fact it lost more than 10,000 feet during the upset.

That is why "Cobra1959" refused to answer my questions regarding stability and control, and still refuses to use his real name.

He implied "UA175" was NOT in "perfect" control because of that final turning maneuver to remain on target, by suggesting that it "almost missed"..

However, when we play the tape back through in regards to the way and manner in which the buildings were destroyed by precision engineered CD, what we see, looking back in hindsight, is that the hit was rendered absolutely perfectly in the sense that the building hit lower down, across multiple floors, and at the higher rate of speed, "fell" first, with the "collapses" initiated around the impact areas, first the south tower, then the north in exactly same manner about a half hour later whereby the south tower destruction "sells" the north even though it "fell" from around the 95th floor to within a mere two or three seconds of absolute free fall for any freely dropped object in nothing but air alone, or in other words violating the laws of motion including conservation of momentum, if the official story is to be believed. It's what i call "the foot of God hypothesis" absent the use of precision timed explosives to bring the buildings down, as observed and as it actually occurred in reality, something that the NIST Report hardly addresses, if at all, calling what occurred simply "inevitable" once the conditions for a hypothetical collapse initiation point were reached (which they were not and couldn't have been, given the temperatures present and fire conditions), thereafter with the remaining intact structure offering practically "no resistance" and thus "freefall" (admitted to by NIST) "as seen on TV". That's absurd, right there, by it's self evident nature, making of the plane impact and behavior of the plane worthy of close inspection, and lo and behold what do we see?

So it's not an argument of incredulity relative to what we might have been led to believe and have been told to believe and accept, but actual physical evidence under the lens of scientific analysis and deductive reasoning and logic, rendering the event itself as it occurred nothing but a murderous hoax of the very worst kind.

And then within this context, there's also the fireball magnitude (suspension of disbelief as to the causal mechanism of destruction), for the south tower impact, best achieved by a slightly diagonal impact, yet with the wingtips remaining within the horizontal width of the building, and on an angle hitting across multiple floors for maximal damage - quite the feat! eh?

It didn't almost miss, at all, and it was in perfect flight control with deft maneuvering, in order so that, the plane would hit on an angle, across multiple floors, and on a diagonal through the building producing that absolutely GARGANTUAN fireball.

Fireball (from across the Hudson River) http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/mdf50846.jpg

Which is certainly by many orders of magnitude larger by far than it ought to have been and by that i am not referring simply to a dead-on instead of a slightly diagonal hit through the building.

I sort of believe in the spirit of father Christmas, but I don't need physical proof of his existence.

God Bless,

NAM007

Was there any damage? - i need to read the whole thread to see I guess. How to the two aircraft compare? Was there any loss of control at any point while such speed was reached?

I appreciate you bringing these forward.

Vd+5=death, you're right, but that doesn't mean it's limitless, as noted in the next precedent example you bring forward.

I think he said that there were two distinct debris fields, where as i understand it the engine was found well over a kilometer away from the rest of the debris, but i need to study the report again myself.

Again, here's the report

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2002/aab0201.pdf

What you're suggesting is that the plane never experienced any structural failure until it hit the ocean, and that there is only one debris field, with no separation and no loss of structural integrity prior to impact. and, that .99m at 22,000 ft (which equals 425 knots EAS) was not the fastest speed recorded, but that instead it was 463 KCAS at 17152 feet for an EAS of 443 knots - to show that a 767 can withstand all that punishment and hold together, all the way to it's final ocean impact.

I guess we're going to find out soon enough since anyone and everyone can read the NSTB crash report for themselves..

If so, you've manged to move the benchmark up a few notches - even though it's still 67 knots less than flight 175 was recorded flying, while accelerating, post-dive in near sea level air density (ie: self propelled) to retain the 510 knot airspeed through to impact, and while executing about a 2.5g turning maneuver and PILOTED BY A COMPLETE NOVICE who was considered no better trained or skilled than Hani Hanjour of Pentagon Plane flying fame.

No, I said that according to the report, the aircraft suffered no structural failure until the second dive. The report states that during the second dive, for which no FDR data exists, the left hand engine separated from the aircraft along with some other bits, creating two distinct debris fields, situated 1200 feet apart.

WRT your last paragraph, that is correct. Pending proof otherwise, that is what happened.

The hijacker had a commercial licence, several hundred flying hours and many hours in flight simulators. Not a novice.

You haven't mentioned that the aircraft recording M.99 at 22000 ft and 443 knots at 17152 feet invalidates the position that Vd/Md are structural limits.

Where do you get 2.5g from BTW?

Cobra1959 says -

"No, I said that according to the report, the aircraft suffered no structural failure until the second dive"

False.... you never made such a claim.

You said...

"The NTSB report clearly states the aircraft did not break up."

and...

"The 767 is a very strong design. While this data does not prove that an EAS of 510 knots was achievable, it does set the benchmark for what a 767 can survive without structural failure. "

and....

"... the aircraft DID NOT break up in flight."

You were wrong on all of the above and attempted to backpedal when pointed out the real information provided by the NTSB.

You went further to state...

"Rob, the size of the debris field says it all"

And then backpedaled when in fact it was pointed out to you that the NTSB found two DISTINCT debris fields.

Your replies are misleading, twisting the words of the NTSB, and as proven, flat out false.

This is why you have not come to the P4T forum to debate us after giving you an open invitation. And once you do get the nerve to come the P4T forum, I will point out more of your errors.... and show you the difference between RADES position and altitude data (RIV, NOR), vs radar which can only determine altitude with Mode C (ACK).

Then we will discuss how an aircraft loaded for a cross-atlantic flight.... can climb nearly 10,000 feet without engines.

Robert, lets analyse your techniques here.

You are adept at the Strawman argument... unless the person you are arguing with is aware of it. Which I am. You also seem to have great difficulty admitting errors.

First point. I did say that because that is what the report says. Refute that: It is what the report says before anything else.

Read my lips.. The NTSB report states categorically that there is no evidence to suggest that EA990 suffered any structural failure during the first dive, where it achieved VD+23 and MD+0.08, true or false?

Second point: You take out of context and is directly associated with the above claim. Read the first point and instead of trying to attack me.. address the claim.

Point 3: The benchmark referred to is 443 knots EAS. You gave me the CSV data yourself yet obviously didn't run it through your airspeed calculator. Your own FDR data unequivocally supports the max EAS of 443 knots. Correct or not?

Point 4. The debris field referred to by me included the reference to the two different fields, 1200 feet apart. To say otherwise is dissembling. Are you seriously suggesting an aircraft breaking up in level flight at 17000 feet, with a TAS of ~550 knots would have a debris field of 400 yards?

Point 5. You ignore how a debris field can change course by 60 degrees, indicating that it was an intact airframe being manoeuvered. Address that issue instead of the ad hominem attacks.

When you can cease the strawman, ad hominem and appeals to authority styles of argument, and can address the solid facts, then I might consider going to your forum. Until then it is a waste of my time.

"Cobra",

The readers will decide.

You first claimed through several of your initial posts...

"The NTSB report clearly states the aircraft did not break up."

and...

"The 767 is a very strong design. While this data does not prove that an EAS of 510 knots was achievable, it does set the benchmark for what a 767 can survive without structural failure. "

and....

"... the aircraft DID NOT break up in flight."

After I have given you the correct quote from the NTSB, you now claim...

"No, I said that according to the report, the aircraft suffered no structural failure until the second dive"

Well, no. You have never claimed as such. You only made such a claim after I corrected you.

People can read, "Cobra". I won't even bother to get into your initial claims of a "debris field", while you now backpedal after I corrected you on the word "distinct" used by the NTSB.

Again, people can read.

Your posts are misleading, twisting the words of the NTSB, while omitting the full details.

When and if you wish to learn about RADES data used by the NTSB, and why you have been so wrong on your first "Seven sites", and then "four sites"... I will then teach you why and how the NTSB might think the airplane climbed nearly 10,000 feet without engine power.

Can you address, "Tiffany in LA," how debris can change course by 60 degrees?

While you are at it "Tiff", read the NTSB report about the simulator flights that proved that the momentum of the aircraft as it began the climb was more than enough to climb 10,000 feet even with the speedbrake extended.

the momentum of the aircraft as it began the climb was more than enough to climb 10,000 feet even with the speedbrake extended.

That's not really possible, is it? No engine power?

I presumed that the engines were started up again.. must re-read that report and go through it with a fine toothed comb.

P.S. The ref to the sockpuppet "Tiffany in LA" is hilarious imho, and means nothing.

It should be noted however that for the most part Rob uses his own name, which is pretty brave especially given what's happened to other 9/11 researchers.

P.S. The ref to the sockpuppet "Tiffany in LA" is hilarious imho, and means nothing.

Exactly...

And if we were to apply the same standard with "debunkers", "Cobra1959" would be a snake with rotten teeth....

Hmmm... :-)

My use of "Tiffany in La" is in retaliation to Roberts "Cobra1959" references when he knows full well my entire name.

Its another silly little debating technique Robert uses, attempting to ridicule people and thus create some sort of perceived ascendancy.

Robert knows who I am and what I fly, even the country where I live.

Attempting to cast doubt on whether or not I am a pilot is another silly little game played here, in order to divert attention away from un-addressed issues such as the 60 degree change of course.

I am quite willing to keep this on a first name basis... NAM I don't know yours however. So If you are happy with NAM I will keep it that way. Mine is Mike BTW

My use of "Tiffany in La" is in retaliation to Roberts "Cobra1959" references when he knows full well my entire name.

I am using the name you have chosen. Are you saying you will allow me to use your full name?

If so, be sure to post it. Most forums do not allow the usage of a full name unless the user first reveals their real name.

Keeping in mind, I have never claimed I am "Robert" on this forum... and would have no problem if you addressed me as "PilotsForTruth".

I have never once claimed I am "Tiffany In LA" until you brought it up... but as you now see.. .it backfired on you.

If you are upset of my use of "Cobra1959", then why did you choose it?

"Are you saying you will allow me to use your full name? If so, be sure to post it."

Really Robert?... What is the first word in this post?

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xlc96/911_proof_in_evidence_that_the_south_tower_plane/cfjypfa

"Cobra1959" asks - "What is the first word in this post?"

My reply...

It is "Mike".

Is that your real name? Is that your "full name"?

Let us be clear here. Would you rather be addressed with your alleged "full name", or the one you have chosen, "Cobra1959"?

How exactly would you like to be addressed? And why are you making such a big deal of it when you have chosen the username "Cobra1959"?

If you wish, I can upload the images you gave me, to our server, and post them to this forum. Would that be ok?

Thanks Mike, but the truth is that I don't really care what you guys choose to call yourselves or one another.

I was hoping that you would address the questions i've raised, instead (see post above yours).

Thanks,

NAM

I can address "Tiffany In LA".

It is a name I registered at ATS since the CEO of ATS has banned virtually anyone who posts information from P4T. In Fact, the CEO of ATS has accused us of shutting down his whole 9/11 Forum, while he moved threads to his "Hoax" forum based on a post in which some anonymous member posted a 767 manual created by Microsoft Flight Sim enthusiasts. (The CEO of ATS, in fact, lost a lot of support for such a decision... from both "debunkers" and "truthers" alike)

Hey "Cobra", how many jets do you know which have a Vno limit? You may want to give the answer to the CEO of ATS as he still hasn't a clue...lol.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&amp;showtopic=22131&amp;view=findpost&amp;p=10810572

If you know anything about Pilots, or have ever visited a pilot forum, such as flightinfo.com, you will find many pilots who have porn star avatars and/or screenames. But considering you were born 1959, it is clear you are not as sharp as you perhaps once were with regard to the industry.

However...f you know anything about the cockpit, you might have encountered hidden porn?

Well, maybe not you.. .but many of the rest of real pilots have...

Those who use "Tiffany In LA" as an insult, only prove themselves someone who cannot debate the topic....

Now, anytime you wish to answer my questions, feel free.

Quick question: Do you acknowledge that an EAS near sea level of 510 knots represents the same dynamic pressure as 722 knots TAS or 1.19m at 22,000 ft alt? Isn't that a big problem in regards to over Vd/Md limits?

Also, since the south tower plane accelerated, post-dive, in level flight, to retain the 510 knot groundspeed (515 knots airspeed adjusted to include the windspeed vector, for a light wind to the N/W), don't we then have an issue or a big problem in regards to engine power and performance ie: to avoid compression stalling at such speed in near sea level air density?

I should point out that earlier, you seemed to be trying to give the impression that there was only one debris field, and no breakup of the aircraft prior to impact..

Since the RAT is deployed when there's a loss of engine power, with the plane presumably entering into a rather harrowing dive, it's design would almost certainly be strong enough to handle just such a circumstance and airflow, so i don't think it's fair to assume that the moment it was "dumped" into the airstream, that it broke right off instantly or as the dive continued. Therefore i think it's fair to assume that something rather drastic had happened to the plane, even in the event that engines were restarted, with a second climb. And if in the first instance it was an intentional "in control" dive, then why are we to assume that the second one would be faster than the first?

The plane broke at .99M, doesn't mean it was all over, yet, but that's when the plane started breaking, when the FDR and transponder stopped.

Funny how, on the one hand you have the plane intact, never breaking up prior to ocean impact, with all damage occurring only during the second ascent, of unknown speed, but the moment that a RAT pops out to provide power to the FDR and FTC (is that the right acronym for the transponder beacon circuit?), you have it snapping off in the excessive airspeed...

Good point NAM.

Also keep in mind that many jet aircraft/engines still produce electrical power even when the engines are in the "cut-off" position during flight. The Engine is still "windmilling" due to airspeed, which means the Alternator/Generators are also turning. Anyone who knows anything about Alternators/Generators knows that they produce electrical power when turning. They do not need jet fuel.

With that said, I do not claim to be a 767 pilot. But I can find out pretty quickly. "Cobra1959" claims to have flown the 767.

So I ask Cobra since he is here, do the engines on a 767 produce electrical power while windmilling?

In other words, does the engine "cut-off" switches also "cut-off" electrical power being supplied?

In every aircraft I have flown from piston to turbo-props to jet aircraft, the "cut-off" switches only inhibit fuel flow. There are separate switches for alternators/generators. Which means if the engines are windmilling, the engines are producing electrical power, regardless of the "cut-off" position.

In fact, you can start engines in flight from pure windmilling due to forward speed.

So what does it say in your "manuals", Cobra1959?

Never read the story of the Gimli Glider, Robert? Perhaps you should. EA 990 was on battery power only. The AC system would have been powered by the HMG, except that comes off the C Hyd system which is powered either by Bleed Air or AC electric pumps... neither of which were available due to the engines being shutdown.

You did not answer my question "Cobra".

Can the 767 electrical systems be powered by windmilling engines? Yes or no?

Each Generator has a GCU which monitors electrical output. When that output falls below certain levels, such as engine shutdown, the generator is disconnected from the AC bus... so No.

Again you fail to answer my question(s). (not to mention you fail to provide any source... and since your credibility is diminishing, anything you say means nothing)

So... with that said...

When an engine is "shutdown" in flight, does it "stop" rotating?

Are you aware that you have compared a 1983 incident to a an airplane manufactured in 1989?

Robert, what part of "No" don't you understand? Look it up yourself. I'm not your systems monkey. If I am wrong I am sure you will tell me.

(again with the ad hominem attacks... seriously? ?? I really do threaten you it seems.)

You are wrong. And it is clear why you refuse to provide sources for your claims.

For example... I will submit as many sources as you have provided. (ie, none)

For those who really want the truth, feel free to email us.

Bottom line - "Cobra1959" is full of crap which is why he/she/it refuses to provide any credentials of his expertise to the readers here.... and sources a 1983 incident to compare to a 1989 airplane, in a 1999 accident.

When and if "he" does, you, the readers, will know why he/she/it is biased and has gotten so many of "his" claims wrong.

This from a man who has never flown anything bigger than a King Air and hasn't flown for years

I don't care what the electrics on your bugsmasher did, Robert, the GCU on the 767 monitors the current coming from the generator for undervoltage, overvoltage and correct amperage. When those values go out of range, it cuts off the supply.

This is because the generator supplies an AC bus that has many different systems on it, which are intolerant of those conditions and it usually has a backup source in either the other generator or the APU generator. When an engine is shut down, the bus ties open, letting the other IDG power the AC bus. When both are shut down, and the APU is shut down, there is no AC power available.

This from a man who has never flown anything bigger than a King Air and hasn't flown for years

This from a man who refuses to use his real name on a forum, and then complains when people use his chosen name.

You are also very wrong that a King Air is the largest airplane I have ever flown. But keep trying to use that argument. It only makes the people laugh at you who really know me. Perhaps that is the reason you refuse to ever use your real name.

(you also alienate King Air pilots across the world... good luck with that... i dont blame you for not revealing your real name here when you make up such BS)

you wanna talk in "alphabet soup"?

Honeywell Primus, IAC's, MADC, DAU's.. BPCU's... EFIS of course... MFD, PFD, EICAS, FADEC... the list goes on.. .when you are ready to really debate.

Mike... you ever have that FO who is much sharper than you? That perhaps calls in sick when he see's you on the sched next time around?

lol

..except for the RAT.

It can power the AC bus, and is designed to do just that.

I'm just a layman, but that's what it does, providing power to the FDR and the transponder circuit the FTC i think it's called.

I'm just a layman, but it seems to me that the plane must have broke, and that it wasn't simply a case of an engine shutdown, and if you're saying that the plane, after diving, with the accumulated dive speed re-ascended 10,000 feet WITHOUT ENGINE POWER, then i don't give a damn if you are a heavy pilot - that's just not possible.

I think you're really stretching the bounds of credulity, in a whole host of ways, which I suppose is the reason that Rob's like a mongoose to your cobra, because of what you are trying to represent, and to promote, even to cover up, or mislead, with understanding and knowledge that that's what you're doing. Is it because you cannot believe that the alternative hypothesis could not possibility be true, or, did you come from the JREF "truther" haters, or do you REALLY believe it - that that aircraft was being flown like that at that speed by Marwan al-Shehhi..?!

That's disturbing, if you really are a Boeing certified active pilot, imho.

If you were NOT a pilot, but just an anti-truther person, then that would be understandable.

You really believe it? If so, then fair enough because everyone's entitled to believe in whatever they like, but to be honest it appears as if you are only concerned here in this thread with raising a "reasonable doubt" as if performing a duty.

Meanwhile the south tower plane accelerated in near sea level air density, to maintain a 510+ knots airspeed while doing what it did, with perfection, especially if one rolls the tape back through from self evident proof of CD of the twin towers (and building 7).

In other words it was perfection, and not a random fluke by a very lucky novice pilot who seemed to think that such speed was somehow vital to the mission, when the truth of the matter is that it's the other way around.

And you can't say that it just got away from him and that he was not in control, if you can even put the pilot there to begin within in light of the evidence.

Are you familiar with the testimony of Russ Wittenburg posted elsewhere in this thread?

Don't deflect here now - how you respond will tell much.

You didn't reply to my other question about engine performance either, and that was rather conspicuous how you skipped right over that.

The RAT on the 767 does not power the electrics. On some aircraft it does, but not the 767. End of story. Go to Smartcockpit.com and download the Hydraulics module. Check for yourself.

The 10000 ft climb. They checked it in the simulator. Read the report. It is there. I am just quoting the report. Do you realise the amount of momentum a 767 travelling at 550 TAS has?

I currently fly the Airbus A330, my last flight in the 767 was 9 years ago, however I have 6000 hours on it. Rob has my details, any doubts he express are street theatre for the audience because he realises the threat people like me are to his bogus video business.

Your argument style is called an argument from incredulity. You don't believe it could happen a certain way. That is not proof. It is just disbelief. Up to yesterday you were convinced that no aircraft had survived past Vd +5, till I showed you that EA 990 certainly survived Vd+23 and the Easyjet 737 survived Vd +60 and landed safely. So maybe you should examine a few more beliefs? One belief is that UA175 flew perfectly into the south tower. It didn't. It almost missed due to the crosswind .that was the reason for the split arsed turn at the last minute.

The engine performance... Show me the science behind the claim. Then I will address it. Turbofans regularly propel aircraft to supersonic speeds, 510 knots should not be a problem.

As I said, I may have access to a 767 sim in the next few weeks and should be able to fly and film the profile. I will let you know how it goes.

Then what is the purpose of the RAT?

Your argument that it's self evident and entirely credible that the south tower plane was UA175 piloted by Marwan al-Shehhi and performing it's feats of unprecedented airspeed in perfect flight control while deftly maneuvering is not credible, or believable, and you ought to know that, and there's the rub.

The RAT provides hydraulic power to the centre Hyd system if both engines fail. The C system is powered by two AC pumps and an air pump, all of which you would lose due to load shedding and lack of bleed air in a dual engine failure situation. The C system is the most important and pervasive hydraulic system on the 767.

Once again you argue from incredulity. There is no evidence for the alternate theories. Who said he had perfect control? As I said before, he almost missed the tower.

and lack of bleed air in a dual engine failure situation

How much of a lack of bleed air is there when 767 engines are windmilling at more than 400 knots?

You have failed to answer this question time and time again. Why is that?

"Cobra1959", are you claiming that 767 engines/systems built in 1989 do not have more capability than engines built in 1983?

And if so, do you still want me to address you by your full real name?

lol

Rob, if they are the same model, for the same airline, generally no.

In my airline the first -300 models were delivered in 1989 and the last about 10 years later. The engines were identical. It is called fleet standardisation. The last A330-200 delivered to my airline has the same engines/systems as the first delivered 10 years ago as well.

I am not surprised that you don't know that. Your "airline" flying was regional bugsmashers, and you haven't flown for quite some time. Completely understandable ignorance on your part.

Don't get me started on your ignorance of bleed air systems. Did you know that the first indication of an engine failure in the 767 was generally an EICAS message indicating that the relevant Bleed air valve was off? No you wouldn't have the slightest idea of that would you?

Rob, if they are the same model, for the same airline, generally no.

So you have never experienced many STC's and modifications over a 6 year period on any aircraft you have flown? Especially after an accident has occurred?

You have claimed to fly the A330 currently. You didn't receive any Pilot Read File after the A300 accident in Queens? How about after the many 737 rudder "anomalies"? How about after the Alaska MD-80?

I am not surprised that you don't know that. Your "airline" flying was regional bugsmashers, and you haven't flown for quite some time. Completely understandable ignorance on your part.

Where exactly are you getting your information "Cobra1959"? And are you willing to put your full name on such claims?

I am certain many of the pilots flying "Regional Bugsmashers" (as you put it) would like to know who you are....

How many "bugs" do you know that fly at FL350 with a CRJ? Or a G-V?

Do you consider a Citation X a "bugsmasher" at M 0.96 cruise?

Have you ever been above FL500? If so... how many "bugs" did you find up there?

"Cobra1959", you are the typical old timer on his way out.... I get it. And this is the very reason why you refuse to debate me on our forum using your real name.

The info we got on the A300 was simply don't mash the rudder whilst in wake turbulence. Anything else was not relevant as it is a completely different type. The 737 rudder anomalies was dealt with, in my airline anyway, by a Vref addition of something like 20 knots. I have never been on the fleet so can't comment much more than that. We don't fly the MD-80 so my knowledge of that accident comes from the usual literature.

After AF447 crashed we got extra training on stalls and use of the back up speed scale, BUSS, and the changes to the "unreliable airspeed" checklists But that is not changes to the certified engines and bleed air systems. You have indicated your ignorance of how bleed air systems work, what else don't you know?

The info we got on the A300 was simply don't mash the rudder whilst in wake turbulence.

And what does it say in all aerodynamics literature with regard to full deflection of ANY control surface below Va/Vra on any aircraft?

You tell me Robert.. you get so much wrong it will be interesting to see if you get this correct.

I won't bother to look it up considering I am a CFI II MEI and already know it pretty well...

This is what I tell my student... and to remind old timers like you...

At any speed below Va, there was once a time that we could "mash" any control surface in full deflection as many times as we wanted, and nothing will fall off the airplane. But now, it appears that the rules have changed due to American 587. So if you find yourself in Wake Turbulence on an approach or departure, not only do you not have the assurance of the definition of Va, but you may not have the ability to recover with full control surface deflection...

(and then under my breath... i tell students and old timers like you who mostly agree).... Don't worry... you can crank (mash) that rudder as much as you want on the approach or departure.... i haven't had one fail yet.... in thousands of hours.

The old timers nod... and the students say thank you in reply...

So, "Cobra1959", have you ever had a vertical stabilizer fail when getting caught in wake turbulence below Va? Can you rely on an Airbus rudder when landing in a crosswind?

I fly a FBW aircraft. It is not an issue in Normal Law.

Another conspiracy theory?

I fly a FBW aircraft. It is not an issue in Normal Law.

Then why are you attempting to argue aerodynamics when it is clear you have become so complacent to rely on "Normal Law" FBW?

Ever heard of FLCS?

If not, google it. And then I will educate you on the rest... :-)

Then we will discuss BVR, TWS, RWR.. and so on...

Feel free to debate this post on Metabunk... be warned however that Mick West won't let you get away with debating anything else but the facts in a respectful fashion.

I am out of here.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/easyjet-737-incident-debunks-pilot-for-9-11-truth-vg-diagram-video.3160/#post-90953

I am out of here.

As expected.

be warned however that Mick West won't let you get away with debating anything else but the facts in a respectful fashion.

Be advised that "Mick West" is more then welcome to debate us on our forum... as such invitation has been given to you... and now you run.

I still say however that the RAT wasn't designed to handle those air loads, and it was never recovered from the wreckage.

Nevertheless, I smell a "rat" of some kind buried in the content of your attempted rebuttals, and i will surface it and bring it to light.

No need to reply. Give me a few days..

Regards,

NAM007

investigate911

get a job

Cars can drive faster than speed limits even though they aren't allowed to, as well. Its not optimal for fuel efficiency or the life of the engine to go faster than ~55 mph, but we still do.

That's... one of the worst analogies I've ever heard.

Wow.

Aircraft are not capable of exceeding those speeds because they will literally break apart.

Its great to finally have some solid physical evidence. You're right it shod get the ball rolling to open peoples' minds that don't believe any of it. I'll pass on the link where I can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woeh1nburyM

No. I'm on my phone at work. Which claims do you need source for?

Of course! Aeronautical physics is a hobby (not a job) of mine. I spend a lot of free time learning and testing this stuff for fun.

A LOT of thought goes intodesigning aircraft. I used to think "bigger engine, small body, and lots of control surfaces make it better" but that is actualpy rarely the case!

Read the first post. - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9179

Specifically this part

<An average speed of 774 mph on a descent from 25,000 feet to below 1,000 feet, covering a distance of sixty miles directly towards target in just over 4.5 minutes, represents a totally impossible achievement, on multiple levels, for a mid-size wide-body twinjet airliner.

NTSB Flight path study - https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Flight_Path_Study_UA175.pdf

Yeah I read the whole article. That discrepancy isn't really relevant to this analysis. What matters is that some sort of mechanical failure with slat 7 caused the plane to enter into a dive, from which the crew recovered, despite damage to the craft.

You can cite all the sources you want, but if they don't back up your claims, they're worthless.

I won't re-cover old ground. Check my comment history for my account of why the three incidents cited by OP are in no way helpful to analysis of flight 175's airspeed.

You did not answer my question "Cobra".

Can the 767 electrical systems be powered by windmilling engines? Yes or no?

Vd is measured as a CAS or 420KCAS, so what you're trying to do is highly misleading.

And was the Easyjet in perfect flight control, as observed with "UA175"?

Also, airspeed can be calculated by simply adding the wind speed vector, which was very light and to the N/W as seen by the drifting smoke from the north tower, which adds just slightly to the ground speed for an airspeed aka TAS of 515kn, and of course you are well aware of what happens in terms of dynamic pressure due to the air density increase as a plane descends down into the lower strata of the atmosphere - so how was it able to accelerate after coming out of it's dive in near level flight, near sea level, to retain an airspeed exceeding 510 knots, and while executing the entire maneuver with what i would suggest was absolute perfection in regards to target acquisitioning and final orientation upon impact. It didn't "almost miss" and that final maneuver not not evidence of a "loss of control" but you of all people would know that, as a pilot, one would think..

I won't bother to look it up considering I am a CFI II MEI and already know it pretty well...

This is what I tell my student... and to remind old timers like you...

At any speed below Va, there was once a time that we could "mash" any control surface in full deflection as many times as we wanted, and nothing will fall off the airplane. But now, it appears that the rules have changed due to American 587. So if you find yourself in Wake Turbulence on an approach or departure, not only do you not have the assurance of the definition of Va, but you may not have the ability to recover with full control surface deflection...

(and then under my breath... i tell students and old timers like you who mostly agree).... Don't worry... you can crank (mash) that rudder as much as you want on the approach or departure.... i haven't had one fail yet.... in thousands of hours.

The old timers nod... and the students say thank you in reply...

So, "Cobra1959", have you ever had a vertical stabilizer fail when getting caught in wake turbulence below Va? Can you rely on an Airbus rudder when landing in a crosswind?

He implied "UA175" was NOT in "perfect" control because of that final turning maneuver to remain on target, by suggesting that it "almost missed"..

However, when we play the tape back through in regards to the way and manner in which the buildings were destroyed by precision engineered CD, what we see, looking back in hindsight, is that the hit was rendered absolutely perfectly in the sense that the building hit lower down, across multiple floors, and at the higher rate of speed, "fell" first, with the "collapses" initiated around the impact areas, first the south tower, then the north in exactly same manner about a half hour later whereby the south tower destruction "sells" the north even though it "fell" from around the 95th floor to within a mere two or three seconds of absolute free fall for any freely dropped object in nothing but air alone, or in other words violating the laws of motion including conservation of momentum, if the official story is to be believed. It's what i call "the foot of God hypothesis" absent the use of precision timed explosives to bring the buildings down, as observed and as it actually occurred in reality, something that the NIST Report hardly addresses, if at all, calling what occurred simply "inevitable" once the conditions for a hypothetical collapse initiation point were reached (which they were not and couldn't have been, given the temperatures present and fire conditions), thereafter with the remaining intact structure offering practically "no resistance" and thus "freefall" (admitted to by NIST) "as seen on TV". That's absurd, right there, by it's self evident nature, making of the plane impact and behavior of the plane worthy of close inspection, and lo and behold what do we see?

So it's not an argument of incredulity relative to what we might have been led to believe and have been told to believe and accept, but actual physical evidence under the lens of scientific analysis and deductive reasoning and logic, rendering the event itself as it occurred nothing but a murderous hoax of the very worst kind.

And then within this context, there's also the fireball magnitude (suspension of disbelief as to the causal mechanism of destruction), for the south tower impact, best achieved by a slightly diagonal impact, yet with the wingtips remaining within the horizontal width of the building, and on an angle hitting across multiple floors for maximal damage - quite the feat! eh?

It didn't almost miss, at all, and it was in perfect flight control with deft maneuvering, in order so that, the plane would hit on an angle, across multiple floors, and on a diagonal through the building producing that absolutely GARGANTUAN fireball.

Fireball (from across the Hudson River) http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/mdf50846.jpg

Which is certainly by many orders of magnitude larger by far than it ought to have been and by that i am not referring simply to a dead-on instead of a slightly diagonal hit through the building.

That's what I was thinking but there was zero gore and it wasn't cut for long periods of time. I used to edit videos for a website so I'm somewhat familiar with it although by far not an expert. Think of this... you're watching video and the camera has a bit of shake to it like someone is walking around. Back then, only really high end cameras had the stabilization so shakey video was commonplace. You see people walking around, talking and laughing, eating hotdogs and drinking soda. Your eyes are telling you something is strange but you can't see what it is. Then something dawns on you. There's a burning plane with firefighters teeing to put out the fire around it and these people are just walking around like it's another Tuesday. The video never actually breaks, it's literally a 15 minute video without scene changes. It still didn't look right but the quality isn't fantastic and you can't quite out your finger on it. While scrubbing through frame by frame, the video seems to glitch like a computer or video game. Perhaps it's just a cheap camera. As you scrub more, you notice that the camera is moving but sometimes the elements in the video stay for two or three frames. That could be another processing issue. What really got me was the people would randomly stop moving... All of them sometimes. There was zero gore anywhere in the entire thing despite all the people walking around.

What I got from it is that there were at least two videos layered on top of one another. The reason I think there were more is because sometimes not all of the elements would stop at the same time. Perhaps some of the people would stop this time for five frames but not as many as before. A vehicle driving would do the same. What never stopped was the fire and the firefighters.

Later in the video, portraits were shown of each person that died, one by one. Then, the pictures of the two pilots that collided were shown. They were sentenced for murder. In the beginning of the video, the camera person caught the actual crash. There were no ejections but the pilots weren't even hospitalized. I read up on the crash because I didn't think think there was anything wrong with the video aside from the fact that it had no sound.

Perhaps there is nothing wrong with the video and everything is legit. I'm willing to keep am open mind about that along with everything else. This happened before downloading videos and banning videos was commonplace, so I unfortunately don't have a copy. I showed the video to people that had more experience with videography and it baffled them. Only one person game me any kind of conclusion and he said that he'd love to get the raw footage directly from the camera, if it exists. Being professionals, they didn't want it known they had watched such a provocative video.