Does it really make any difference that they couldn't go 580MPH...when just about any speed will get the job done?
As a matter of fact, do you think they (hijackers) really needed to worry about exceeding the aircraft's structural integrity ....when they are about to bash the airplane and themselves into the side of abuilding?....LOL
@AOXOMOXO Yes they do have to worry about the integrity of the plane if they want to hit their target. If the integrity is compromised then the wings break & the plane shakes so violently that it basically falls apart. Plus those speeds r listed in the official story so it does matter if they're impossible to accomplish b/c that means ur being lied to. Most people would rather believe a comfortable lie then face an uncomfortable truth. The implications r so dire that few question it.
Alex Jones may be wrong but not by much. many different agencies have measured the speed using frame by frame speed and it comes in at a minimum of 525 mph. Very unusual. There are many videos from which to measure the speed. So what was it? It looks like a Boeing but looks aren't everything.
HOW CAN I PLANE WHO IST BUILD ONLY ON ALUMINIUM,GO ALL THE WAY TRTUH A STEEL STRKTURE?? IF U WANNA GO TRHUGH STEEL YOU MUS HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS HEAVIER AND STRONGER THAN STEEL,LIKE URAN938,,OR OR WOLFRAM,,also u need 3 times 1000 km fast to break trhu steeel structure,,
wtc was build that no plane can fly into,,theplane would falling down without entering,,lol,,,don belave that bullshit
Alex Jones was mentioning those speeds and saying that they were impossible. He's not actually saying that the planes went that fast, he's saying that the official story says that they went that fast. Anyone who knows that the air below 10,000 ft is much thicker then the air above (y clouds have flat bottoms) would also know that planes that big can't fly that fast without totally breaking apart. The official story is a lie for so many reasons, this being one.
@uppercutter21 "Anyone who knows that the air below 10,000 ft is much thicker then the air above (y clouds have flat bottoms) would also know that planes that big can't fly that fast without totally breaking apart." Ever hear of the Bonneville salt flats or Blackrock? A jet powered land vehicle has gone Mach1...... at sea level. On the ground.
@AOXOMOXO That's true but the vehicle they used was designed to do that. For the commercial plane that supposedly hit the pentagon those speeds would b impossible. Many commercial and military pilots know this. There r vehicles that can hit those speeds at low altitudes but they're designed to do so. Don't believe the official, b/s story they try to feed u on 9/11 because most of it is lies. The average person doesn't know this because the average person is poorly educated.
@skyarcher : Totally taking what he said out of context, but whatever, it's your strawman video. If you want to actually give people information learn basic video editing. When you put text up you should be able to read it 2 times fast before removing it.
@BadBoriBoy Alex jones is a shill . Hysteria merchant. If you have given him or his show personal details congratulations you are now on some data base. He pushes the official story of planes and pushes the speed (impossible speed) of those planes to cement the idea of planes hitting the buildings. This is a media hoax. Media + Govt as a unit = fascism.
I like your point about my text) They are indeed too fast. Its ridiculous. Exactly like the speed of the planes at sea level. Thanks
@skyarcher I totally agree with you about the speed of the planes. however, why use alex jones out of context like that? it will put off more people than it will bring to your cause. you may not like him, but you could find some total shill saying the exact same thing or even the "Official Story".
@beachcomber2008 DID THEY REALLY?? Wow that's amazing the y picked out a body but the plane disappeared, and i have no doubt the engines went through, my concern is the did not leave marks or visible entrance holes, you must admit the hole is very small, you could be right about everything and I could be wrong no conspiracy everything was terrorist based, but In my opinion a plane does not appear to have hit the pentagon.
@pearcey03 There is surveillance footage of the pentagon plane. OH! That's right . It doesn't fit your story, storyteller. I guess you are the smartest dude on the planet. Smarter than the WHOLE of the world. You guys being so smart and all, you should be world leaders. I mean you do have all the answers, don't you? DON'T YOU? That's what I thought. You know, you can use computers for GOOD, too. Whatever BUZZ your on, take a break for a couple of wweks. Clear your brain.
@420hillbilly420 lol where did you come from?? Yes I am the smartest person on earth, don't blame me because your shit country and its leaders are rotten to the core, lions masquerading as lambs!!! Yes, there is surveillance footage of the planes, we just not allowed to see them and to be honest it happened in America a place that if it exploded tomorrow I couldn't give a shit so keep your knickers on pal, If I were you I would just concentrate on how your country is going down the toilet.
@beachcomber2008 Would bomb proof windows not smash when a plane travelling that speed crashes into it? I wonder because the WTC buildings had an obvious plane shape in it with the wings, but the pentagon had almost no indication a plane went into it. They apparently picked up a piece of the nose of the plane I find that astonishing, the plane might be durable but the nose isn't surely? Especially considering what it had to go through and what about the holes from the engines???
@pearcey03 I heard that nonsense too, that they found the nose of the plane at the pentagon. Even though the plane totally broke into a million tiny pieces, according to the official story. It's such a lie.
@beachcomber2008 that's another thing, hitting all those lamp poles, tree massive generator still hit that building perfectly that plane must of been made of steel lol, actually it must of been to punch through all those other walls after its wings disintegrated before it hit the pentagon then the rest followed when it came to a stop. ;)
@beachcomber2008 Also, sorry one more thing, I was not trying to dispel your knowledge on how fast planes can go at certain hights, all I am saying is.....If a plane hit the pentagon could it of travelled taking into account pilot skill, that fast that low to the ground? Honest question no malice involved!!!
@beachcomber2008 Also you can call me a liar I couldn't care less all I do is state facts not opinions I wouldn't dare make something up because there are people who have the knowledge to pick up on false facts. I have looked and looked and I have never seen a steel building that has fallen due to fire if there is I can't find it.
@beachcomber2008 Ok show me another steel framed building that has fallen due to fire?? A plane hit the empire state building it was quite small compared to modern planes but the fire was incredible and it never fell and certainly did not free fall, the fire in madrid raged for 72 hours consuming 30 stories proper fire as well not just smoke and never fell.
@beachcomber2008 yeeeaahhhh I would go back and have a look at the definition again I don't think any of those define the word liar. You have not said anything useful so why would I acknowledge your reasoning? I am a fair person and I often watch debunking videos to get to grips with both sides of the argument some things I say ok fair enough that makes sense, I don't often agree with the truthers points some seem far fetched but I think there is definitely something wrong with that day!!!
@beachcomber2008 Ha ha ha your a sweaty jock, knew it inferiority complex it all makes sense now. Don't remember calling you a retard but would rather be called all the obscene names under the sun than be called a liar without reason. Did you check the definition of a liar by the way?
@beachcomber2008 Oh and the reason I thought you were American is because they are not the most intelligent race on the planet, such a disappointment that you are in fact English.
@beachcomber2008 Anger management I think not and I have been a lot more courteous than you, every time you reply you can see the bitterness in your comments and you still have not answered my question. I can see you do not believe in the official story every comment you have made indicates to me how much of an idiot you are, certainly dumb enough to have to wool pulled over your eyes. Its simple physics, steel buildings do free fall by fire and planes do not glide through steel.
@beachcomber2008 He is a motor mouth agreed but it was strange that someone who did not believe in the official story would be having a go at him considering he does not believe in the official story either!!!
@beachcomber2008 I think your confused with the definition of a liar!! But let me ask you this, In your expert knowledge of aeroplane engineering, are you saying that a plane can travel between 200-500 mph at sea level or perhaps a few feet off the ground and can a plane glide through a steel building as it did in the trade towers but when it hits the pentagon it simply disintegrates? So glides through the towers like butter disintegrates in the pentagon!!!! Tell me oh knowledgeable one!!!!
@beachcomber2008 Your a fucking Idiot please stop labelling yourself anything other than this. I am not sure when you ever saw me write about "tampered radar plots" I have no idea what you are talking about. I also wonder whilst you do not wish to list the "Truther" lies, you are not listing any of the so called consistencies of the official story, JK Rowling couldn't of made a better story than this. The facts against the U.S.A government and their involvement in the attacks is astonishing.
@beachcomber2008 I'm a Brit? I rather much doubt it, as we do not call ourselves that, you must be a complete jack ass rather than a "BRIT". How can you call someone who reveals absolute physical facts to be a liar? Whilst believing the official story which give no evidence to what they say? It is you sir who is the liar. For someone who is an "ex-aeroengineer" to disprove all the evidence from people who do not believe the official story is baffling!! Pot Kettle Black!!!!!...LIAR!!!!!
@beachcomber2008 Go usa, I wonder, is it your ignorant American pride that your government in all Its American glory bla bla could not simply do an act this heinous, which I personally believe it is, or are you just a complete and utter retard who does not accept facts because you live in a country that is so far up its own ass and so completely cut off from the rest of the world that you can't see past your home comforts because you have never seen in real life such atrocities????
Hang on I think I have got my wires crossed, I thought you were trying to say the plane that hit the pentagon especially could fly at over 500mph that close to the ground, what are you having a go at alex jones? He is on your side surely? Thats why I wrote my comment.
@flanksteak2 Vd is set out BEFORE an aircraft even is assembled...
It is a specific speed ONLY for flight testing purposes and .. as you (may)know.. many aircraft fail to make this speed at and are given a 'demonstrated design speed' ...
390 knots is the top speed the 767 ACTUALLY had to demonstrate in flight testing..
If Flansteak2 you know of any place were any 767 is documented as flying at over 420knots,still way less than 911, pls direct us to it .
@skyarcher "Vd is set before an aircraft is even assembled"
LOL. Where on earth are you coming up with this crap?
We know a 767 can fly at 540 MPH at near sea-level because we have video of one doing that on 911.
Your claims about certain safety limits are retarded because you have no idea how they are established nor do you have any numbers as far as the actual stress on the airframe at different times.
@skyarcher You have no evidence for your claim making it pure fantasy. Kinda pathetic that a grown man like yourself would still engage in "Make-Believe" isn't it?
I am a pilot.No.You are Troll. You have lost your ability to think critically.VD is set out before the plane even is designed you idiot. The last speed which must be demonstrated or very nearly demonstrated is 390- demonstrated design speed.You are not aware of this. Again Contact Boeing the maker of a 767 and ask them.
390 is still miles below the alleged speeds of the 911 aircraft. You dont care about the real details you just want to believe the story.
@skyarcher I am looking at the FAA booklet FAR/AIM right now.
VD is a high performance manuever in which high stress is placed on the wings. It's to simulate an emergency dive from altitude down to a safe breathing altitude with a rapid pull-up at the end.
@skyarcher VD must be a at least X so when the plane is designed that is a minimum as with all aircraft. This does not mean that is the fastest the plane go, but merely that the plane has to at least be able to go that fast in order to comply with FAA regs. You can figure the plane can go 150% of VD without structural failure or loss of control.
Notice how the debunker stay the hell away from this. You can argue with those who believe that 911 was an inside job all day but you can't tell Boeing who designs commercial airliners how fast their plans can go. This can't be debunked. Case closed.
the best evidence to the no plane theory is the question no one can answer which is why are we shown a 3ft diameter engine in the street under some scaffolding when a boeing 767 engine is 9ft in diameter ? Some one please answer , if you can't then tell me what the towers and the pentagon were hit by . No debunker can answer this question , nobody except the no planers can . No abuse please .
"the best evidence to the no plane theory is the question no one can answer which is why are we shown a 3ft diameter engine in the street under some scaffolding when a boeing 767 engine is 9ft in diameter ?Some one please answer"
Because, you fucking ignorant luddite, the 9ft diameter portion is the width of the compressor blades at the front, which I wouldn't expect to survive a collision.
The planes were not going that fast to begin with, and it's not true that they would have broken up at low altitude if they had been going 580mph.
The idea that the planes were "added" is dumb, thousands of people on the ground saw the jets hit the towers! There are amateur videos that show people looking up at the jets as they hit the North tower.
Besides, you have to account for all the passengers that were killed. Do you think the gov, has them hidden somewhere?
@Bullettube The planes wouldnt have broken up if they had been going 580 mph? I have shown the data from Boeing... where did you get your info from..O you just made it up? Well that makes sense thanks. Thanks for that intelligent contribution.
Lets start with this point. Please direct us to data published which states a 767 can reach those speeds as sea level.
Any BS answer and i will block you. Please point us to official data.
@skyarcher Boeing specified 360 as a safe, recommended speed, the jets can certainly go 580, especially in descending toward the towers. Video evidence was used to calculate relative speed, not airspeed. Since the black box info hasn't been released for "security reasons", the actual air speed is guessed at.
Regardless, the facts remain: they were passenger jets that were hi-jacked and crashed into the twin towers.
@Bullettube released? when did they ever find them? I thought all they found was a hijackers passport? Security reasons? They released the black box data from flight 77, because of the Freedom of Information Act. There are no facts from 9/11 except that people died inside the WTC buildings, the buildings came down at free fall speed, defying the laws of physics, theres a crater in the ground in PA, more people died at the Pentagon, and a lot of bodies were never found.
@skyarcher Boeing's own website is a good place to start. Info I have seen indicates that above a safe speed of 360knots, there will be increased drag at the engines because air will dam up in front of the opening. The dammed air will spill over the wings causing vibrations which can damage the wings and at the very least, shorten the life of the airframe and cause discomfort to the passengers and crew.
The terrorists of course wouldn't have cared even if they had known about it.
@Bullettube Look at the boeing website? Are you for real? talk about digging a hole for yourself...I will ask you one more time... I am presenting here the official boeing data on these aircraft.. you are presenting different data.. where do you get it from...pls post link...or I will block you.
@skyarcher Nevermind...you're another foreigner who knows absolutely nothing about Airplanes....yes we know you think you do so you don't need to "challenge" my statement.
@skyarcher I don't think this "plane" is a Boeing. It looks like one. Thats all. It's a one off and very high tech. Aluminum would react differently on impact. This thing just "powdered up". Real wing tips and edges would shred on impact, not glide seamlessly and completely into the WTC, proceed 3 frames more and then explode. Explosion should be on impact. No Yaw on impact. And all video gives a speed of 500+mph. This "plane" used some nano technology. Like the nano thermite found in the dust.
@IExposeMormonism Nano tech' is on Youtube. Breathtaking at the public realm. Nano Thermite uses nano aluminum. the WTC plane is made of aluminum. I say it's constructed of something special, "Unobtainium", and the real surprise was inside the fuselage.That's why we see the"nose out" event. Regardless, no aluminum plane of 140 tons is going to bring down 500,000+tons steel and steel reinforced concrete. All the concrete and office contents are pulverized. All of it. nano thermite is in the dust
@Bullettube thousand people didn t see the jets hit the twin towers, by some strange chance the only people on the ground that saw these planes hit the building were employees of major TV networks.
I wasn't in the military, can't fly a plane, and love the ideals of this country, but overwhelming evidence is just that. The european structural engineer or scientist, whoever he was publicly stated no sensible evidence. History consistently shows U.S. govt. using catastrophic events as a tool to motivate war effort. consider WW II, Vietnam, and others. Thanks
"Please point out to the viewers ANY deformation of the plane you can see while it is penetrating the wall??"
Don't be absurd. The velocity was 840 feet per second: 14 feet per video field, that is a lot of motion blur and it swamped any chance of being able to identify even the slightest distortion of the airframe. Only a super hi-speed camera, perfectly positioned, could have separated out any frames for you to pause on to make a valid point about the apparent absence of such distortion.
I applaud your efforts to use REAL science to convince a group of people who I've come to compare with Holocaust deniers. It doesn't matter what kinds of real arguments you make, they will just continue to scream conspiracy at the top of their lungs begging for attention and justification of their paranoia. In addition, hurricane force winds can drive a straw though a turtle shell. For a better example of this, there is a technique to put a straw through a potato with out a break
That particular example is clearly hyperbole to emphasize my point. However, the previous, much more real world example of a straw through a potato is easy to find. And in terms of scale is actually far more accurate. And your ideas are far crazier than what I presented The best part about your theories is that anyone with credibility is involved in the conspiracy, thus making any real scientific evidence invalid based on your criteria, making it impossible to prove you wrong.
It's Gunny by the way. As in Gunnery Sergeant. You inepitued at spelling it makes you look rather foolish. I would also like to point out you rather blatant dodging of my point that not only are most of your theories untestable, if anyone of repute were to find them incorrect you'd simply scream that they are in on the conspiracy. As such I see no further point entertaining any sort of discussion with you. Have fun in crazy town.
Gunny. sorry. I still think you are an idiot. You talk about my 'theories' when in actuality in this video i present the speeds a large can travel as tested and certified by the manufacture Boeing. The speeds of the 911 story are 40% above these figures. You simply ignore this. The official 911 story is the real 'conspiracy'. 360 mph is the Vmax of a large jet at sea level not 560 mph. Pls direct us to any evidence you have a which states otherwise. We await your response.
@skyarcher good link! the whole straw potato/ plane building comparison is moot though. It all comes down to density and the molecular numbers of the elements. Iron is more dense than aluminum therefore.....
@skyarcher I have seen pictures of straw driven thru a palm tree. And a long fine splinter thru a tree. But a Flying beer can, no, It can't do anything proportional like that. Many of us have seen the Lockheed plane test where 2 phone poles are used and they do quite a number on the wing. We can conclude steel poles would be very devastating. Especially every few feet! (And I haven't seen any turtle shells pierced with straw either).Oh,wait, there is video of Steel shafts ripping wings. ugly
Nano-thermite has been found at twin towers. Something hit the pentagon and it wasn't a 767, and planes don't evaporate like water when they crash... So at this point i almost don't give a shit about plane speeds because it wasn't planes that made the hits...
FAA approved Vd (design dive speed) for the Boeing 767 is 420 knots: 483.3 mph. Increase that by 19% and you get the speed estimated for the South Tower plane, by the Royal Aircraft Establishment: 575 mph.
Questions:
1. Would the RAE have given that speed, knowing it was impossible at that altitude?
2. Who would fly in aircraft which could not handle an emergency increase of only 19% on an FAA approved TEST speed, at which the plane must not start falling apart?
Vd is set out BEFORE an aircraft even is assembled...
It is a specific speed ONLY for flight testing purposes and .. as you know.. many aircraft fail to make this speed at and are given a 'demonstrated design speed' ...
390 knots is the top speed the 767 ACTUALLY had to demonstrate in flight testing..
If ALan you know of any place were any 767 is documented as flying at over 420knots,way less than 911, pls direct us to it .
lmfecher: People who claim knowledge of Newton's laws should know this. If a car or a plane crashes at 50 mph, into a wall, damage will certainly be done, and the vehicle may crumple and perhaps recoil. However, if the same car or plane crashed at ten times the original speed: 500 mph, the energy and the damage would not be simply 10 times that of the slower crash, it would be the square of the increase in speed. That is 100 times the force of the slower speed, with quite different results.
An absurd analogy, because the plane did not come out of the other side of the wall intact. You are as ignorant of the kinetic energy involved as anyone who has ever made such a comment. The formula, in case you did not know it is: EK in Joules = (1/2) X (Mass in Kg) X (Velocity in metres per second, squared). For a plane of mass: 145,150 kilograms moving at a velocity of 128 metres per second the kinetic energy was a massive 1,189,068,800 Joules, which made the hole and shredded the plane.
Please point out to the viewers ANY deformation of the plane you can see while it is penetrating the wall??
Tell us where to pause the video??
If there is not deformation of the aircraft as it penetrates the building it must be intact on the other side as none of the plane breaks off or falls to the ground below the building.
again.. the video is here... pls point out any 'shredding' of the plane you can see... pause the video where you see this.
How come an engine section fell out of the South Tower, opposite to the impact area; hit a building on the way down and ended up at the corner of Murray and Church streets? This video leaves so many things unexplained that it is not worth spending much time criticizing. None of the alleged planes were properly identified by the NTSB or the FAA using serial numbers from the debris, including that engine, which was dumped in a landfill on Staten Island.
Yes, but the engine did come from a 767 lookalike, probably a KC 767 tanker. The parameters on the A1NM sheet for the 767-200 are probably close to those for the tanker versions, but military aircraft do not come under the FAA's airworthiness standards. You should also know that civil airliners cannot fail ANY of the FAA's speed tests, and be passed as airworthy. If there is an exception, give me your source.
There is NO evidence of the engine section been planted. It can be seen in many of the videos, exiting the South Tower and arcing its way down to towards Murray & Church streets, when it hit a building on the way down. And your point about size is absurd, as well. This is a part of an engine, the core; the by-pass fan section having been stripped away during its passage through the building. But we'll never know it's provenance, because it was dumped in a landfill on Staten Island.
the flight was straight and level moron, it can reach close to 600 with bad consequences if it were going to do more than fly into a building. Du har faen meg klikka min venn!!!
This is specious logic. Like saying, Because a VW can't go 200 mph it can't win a race. Since the same people who said burning jet fuel heated the steel superstructure to 1800 F also said the aircraft impacted above 500 knots, why would anyone believe them? The speed of the airtcraft may be at doubt, but not the fact of impact which has been abundantly, irrefutably established by film, video and hundreds of witnesses. The no plane theory is a disinfo distraction to discredit 911 Truth. QED.
I'm glad you brought up IMPACT. Upon IMPACT of tower 2, several things should have occurred.
1. An explosion.
2. Deceleration.
3. Crumpling of the nose and fuselage.
4. Wings/tail section destroyed.
An airliner is mostly aluminum and the fuselage is a HOLLOW tube. Yet, the videos all show an airliner passing through a steel and concrete wall unimpeded and THEN exploding once inside the tower. This is impossible as per Newton's 3rd Law and basic crash physics.
I think you are really grasping at straws with YOUR rather childish video and comment.
You assume that the highjackers care that the plane "might" be damaged by going faster than the "supposed" plane destroying speed as you claim. And how do you know for a fact that these speeds would destroy the plane? Because the manfacture's say to not go over this speed do you think that it's the max?
So according to you the aircraft manufacturers build aircraft with no safety for over speed or over stress
grasping at straws?? u come totally ignorant of the issues involved, then fail to respond in any way when asked for actual facts regarding aircraft, and now you leave petulant comments here..
go share your lack of knowledge on some other channel. blocked.
Yes man, people will do anything to protect their computers from viruses etc. and yet allow anyone with any kind of agenda access to their grey matter.
media successfully hacked into our brains and placed this load of crap there on 911(
Only firewall against this sort of attack is to turn off TV.
"television the drug of the nation, breeding ignorance and feeding radiation, ..."
So, what you are saying is, the story you would like us to believe, is that the aircraft were actually piloted by professional pilots with thousands of hours under their belts. Makes me wonder what happened in the lives of these pilots that would make their lives as well-paid commercial airline pilots so miserable that they would agree to fly their planes, full of people, into to of the tallest buildings on the East coast. Were they on psychotropic drugs?
Really? Well, they must have had some pretty fast animators, since I was watching live when the plane hit. Next, you'll tell me they had it all cued up and ready to go ahead of time and not only that, but that they predicted precisely where the plane (or, what was it if not an aircraft?) was going to hit, with 100% accuracy. Were the eyewitnesses under some kind of hypnotic spell, too, to make them believe they were seeing an aircraft (with their own eyes)?
Google: "When TV brings you the news as it didn't happen"
"Broadcasters are using virtual imaging technology to alter live broadcasts - and not even the news is safe from tampering
"a number of companies have developed new ways of commercially exploiting their military navigation and tracking expertise.
None of the companies will publicly discuss how their's works. But the principle is common: each alters the live video image in the split second before it is broadcast."
"It is perfectly possible now to insert sets of pixels into satellite imagery data that interpreters would view as battalions of tanks, or war planes...
Im amazed that we have not seen phony video, he says, before backpedaling a bit: Maybe we have. Who would know?
...a government, terrorist or advocacy group could set geopolitical events in motion on the strength of a few hours worth of credibility achieved by distributing a snippet of well-doctored video."
Vne (or Vmo) does NOT mean the aircraft can't exceed the speed. It's an instruction to the pilot that he MUST NOT, because it's the point at which he would START to put his plane in danger ('CAN pose a THREAT...')
A plane that's doing over 500mph in a steep dive from altitude isn't going to care about V speeds and won't slow down just because YOU think it should.
Tim where is your reply to the other video? The CNN fakes video. Could you pause it where you see any deformation happening?
I dont claim in this video that it is impossible to go above the mentioned v speeds. Pls look at the video again because you have missed the point of it.
You have not come back either on the 'area rule' - a fundamental difference between high speed aircraft design and commercial aircraft design.
"I dont claim in this video that it is impossible to go above the mentioned v speeds."
??? Dude, the TITLE of your film is "The 911 aircraft speed lie." At the beginning you say anyone who believes a 767 could do that speed at that altitude is either a fool or a shill, at 0:34 you say it's as believable as Santa Claus.
If you're not saying 550mph is impossible, then what's the lie?
"vne is velocity NEVER exceed to not destroy the aircraft."
That does NOT mean you will definitely destroy your plane, just that you're beginning to run the risk. BTW Vne is 90% of emergency dive speed (Vd) which test pilots achieve during testing.
"the vne of flight 767 was exceeded by 40%"
550mph is only about 15% above Vd (emergency dive speed). Crazy dangerous, yes, but POSSIBLE.
re the dive speed discussion ("TO 17,854 feet" 2:20)
Um, I think there's a little misunderstanding here. Did you really think the engineers are so stupid that they set a speed limit for diving UP??
The phrase "VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854ft" does NOT mean "diving down TO", it means the 420 kts (483mph) speed limit applies at altitudes FROM sea level UP TO 17,854ft!
Maybe you should consult with a pilot - and a native English speaker - on your next film lol.
Changed with new annotation . Thanks for clarification (and nice pepper of sarcasms,)
Up down issue aside... Vd is not a certified speed like Vmo etc. but a maximum speed involved in flight testing and so may not be achieved. Vfc is a certified speed which is the maximum speed at which stability characteristics must be demonstrated (14 CFR 25.253(b)). This is 390 knots or 115 knots short of the speed needed to hit the tower at 580 mph.
"Changed with new annotation . Thanks for clarification (and nice pepper of sarcasms,)"
Well, your movie is all about the sarcasm; I was just going with the flow : )
Anyway, the bottom line is this: While it's certainly a BAD IDEA to exceed the V speeds, it's POSSIBLE. Vd does NOT mean "your plane will definitely break apart if you exceed it" only that you're beginning to run the risk. Flt 175 was only doing ~15% over Vd.
"550mph is not impossible." I do respect that you know about these things.
But...
1. Explain how 'hijakers' had the knowledge and training to precisely 'trim' a 767 to fly at 150 knots above it's 'never exceed speed' and fly inch perfect into the target? Pls explain this one ? Pls shed some light on this?
2.The speed issue is just one side of the story.
Explain how a plane can hit a solid steel wall and expdrience no deceleration? This is what was shown on tv...? pls address this.
"1. Explain how 'hijakers' had the knowledge and training to precisely 'trim' a 767 to fly at 150 knots above it's 'never exceed speed'?"
Um, maybe it was the months of flight training he received while earning his commercial pilot license, including dozens of hours in Boeing flight simulators?
The trim question is a non-issue, anyway. Take a 767 up to 29,000 feet, then point the nose down & pin the throttles and you could probably hit the speed of sound no problem, V speeds be damned.
I gave you credit as someone who seemed to know what they were talking about.
I retract that now.
Pls pause my video 'RAW FOOTAGE 747 breaks up' at the point where you can see any deformation of the structure of the boeing. The plane passes through the exterior load bearing steel wall INTACT!
You have been duped - this is faked footage, get over it.
This video is just 44 seconds long and actually involves 2 planes. We are here talking about the 911 'aircraft' so i presumed you might have guessed i was talking about the latter aircraft.
The Kalita footage is real and the 911 footage is faked.
pls take another look. This clip is famous and was shown on Cnn. This is called 'ghost plane' as it disappears unharmed through the steel wall and thus breaks Newtons laws of motions.
@TimReed22222 the deceleration would have happened on impact , and no aluminium plane can penetrate a building designed to withstand multiple strikes . applying newtons 3rd law of motion but instead we have a stationary plane and the tower(s) travelling at whatever speed , the faster the better , would the plane when struck by the tower be swallowed up inside the building , no , there would be minimal damage to the tower and major damage to the plane . newtons laws took the day off that day .
Dec 2000 Atta and Alshehhi issued with temporary 120-day licenses allowing them to fly small, twin-engine planes
Dec 29 and 30 at the SimCenter flight school at Opa-Locka Airport, near Miami, they each pay $1,500 in cash and spend six hours, split over the two days, training in the schools Boeing 727 simulator.
Henry George, the schools owner who trains them, describes their training as a mini, mini introduction,
6 hours in 727 old style guage cockpit and they become experts.
Me: 'Take a 767 up to 29,000 feet, then point the nose down & pin the throttles and you could probably hit the speed of sound no problem, V speeds be damned. '
skyarcher: 'how about this one " laws of physics be damned" '
Which law(s) of physics would that be? Please be specific, and show some math if you're able (in the context of the current discussion on V speeds, please).
Thrust to weight ratio of 1 to 3.25 (767)compared to 1 to 1.5 typical of fighter aircraft capable of high speed low altitude flight.
"point the nose down & pin the throttles " totally ignores parasite drag and parasite power.
Military aircraft need need Dr. Richard T. Whitcombs 'area rule' which the 767 lacks and which allows it meet 14 CFR 25.253 in which the airplane is placed in a dive and may not exceed 420 kts (VD) by preventing it from exceeding that airspeed by specific design.
Air at 700 feet is 3 times denser than at high altitude.
The engines of a 767 are designed to 'bite' into dense air at low altitudes and compress it to generate thrust/power.This is why temperature is an important factor in take offs. hot air = 'thinner air' and longer take off roll.the PW4062 turbofan engine is not designed to take enormous quantities of dense air at high speed, low altitude flight.
Alex has brought us much info,but he is wrong about much.
Attacking "no planers" atheists, and Judy Wood, a scientist who knows what she is talking about and has done extensive research.Have you seen the photos on her site? Amazing! What could do that to the toasted cars and bldg 6?
You're missing the point, that's the whole idea, the whole reaosn he is telling you the speed, he is telling you it is impossible for planes to do what we saw on 911. We can calculate the speed from the video footage, and yet, it is impossible for a plane to do that. Understand? It means only one thing, the planes were added to the video to cover missiles.
Nice work! Though can you slow the video down a bit, it changes too quickly.
Also, dont forget the Pentagon, they claim that the plane was doing 500mph just 10's of feet off the ground,that's even more ridiculous than the WTC ''planes''.
Does it really make any difference that they couldn't go 580MPH...when just about any speed will get the job done?
As a matter of fact, do you think they (hijackers) really needed to worry about exceeding the aircraft's structural integrity ....when they are about to bash the airplane and themselves into the side of abuilding?....LOL
AOXOMOXO 3 weeks ago
@AOXOMOXO Yes they do have to worry about the integrity of the plane if they want to hit their target. If the integrity is compromised then the wings break & the plane shakes so violently that it basically falls apart. Plus those speeds r listed in the official story so it does matter if they're impossible to accomplish b/c that means ur being lied to. Most people would rather believe a comfortable lie then face an uncomfortable truth. The implications r so dire that few question it.
uppercutter21 3 weeks ago
Alex Jones may be wrong but not by much. many different agencies have measured the speed using frame by frame speed and it comes in at a minimum of 525 mph. Very unusual. There are many videos from which to measure the speed. So what was it? It looks like a Boeing but looks aren't everything.
IExposeMormonism 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HOW CAN I PLANE WHO IST BUILD ONLY ON ALUMINIUM,GO ALL THE WAY TRTUH A STEEL STRKTURE?? IF U WANNA GO TRHUGH STEEL YOU MUS HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS HEAVIER AND STRONGER THAN STEEL,LIKE URAN938,,OR OR WOLFRAM,,also u need 3 times 1000 km fast to break trhu steeel structure,,
wtc was build that no plane can fly into,,theplane would falling down without entering,,lol,,,don belave that bullshit
MrDrumclown 3 months ago
idiots
onebadgs400 4 months ago
Alex Jones was mentioning those speeds and saying that they were impossible. He's not actually saying that the planes went that fast, he's saying that the official story says that they went that fast. Anyone who knows that the air below 10,000 ft is much thicker then the air above (y clouds have flat bottoms) would also know that planes that big can't fly that fast without totally breaking apart. The official story is a lie for so many reasons, this being one.
uppercutter21 5 months ago
@uppercutter21 "Anyone who knows that the air below 10,000 ft is much thicker then the air above (y clouds have flat bottoms) would also know that planes that big can't fly that fast without totally breaking apart." Ever hear of the Bonneville salt flats or Blackrock? A jet powered land vehicle has gone Mach1...... at sea level. On the ground.
So...all this is horse shit!
AOXOMOXO 3 weeks ago
@AOXOMOXO That's true but the vehicle they used was designed to do that. For the commercial plane that supposedly hit the pentagon those speeds would b impossible. Many commercial and military pilots know this. There r vehicles that can hit those speeds at low altitudes but they're designed to do so. Don't believe the official, b/s story they try to feed u on 9/11 because most of it is lies. The average person doesn't know this because the average person is poorly educated.
uppercutter21 3 weeks ago
Beachcomber . Blocked. spam removed.
skyarcher 5 months ago
@skyarcher : Totally taking what he said out of context, but whatever, it's your strawman video. If you want to actually give people information learn basic video editing. When you put text up you should be able to read it 2 times fast before removing it.
BadBoriBoy 4 months ago
@BadBoriBoy Alex jones is a shill . Hysteria merchant. If you have given him or his show personal details congratulations you are now on some data base. He pushes the official story of planes and pushes the speed (impossible speed) of those planes to cement the idea of planes hitting the buildings. This is a media hoax. Media + Govt as a unit = fascism.
I like your point about my text) They are indeed too fast. Its ridiculous. Exactly like the speed of the planes at sea level. Thanks
skyarcher 4 months ago
@skyarcher I totally agree with you about the speed of the planes. however, why use alex jones out of context like that? it will put off more people than it will bring to your cause. you may not like him, but you could find some total shill saying the exact same thing or even the "Official Story".
dominic150 3 months ago
@beachcomber2008 DID THEY REALLY?? Wow that's amazing the y picked out a body but the plane disappeared, and i have no doubt the engines went through, my concern is the did not leave marks or visible entrance holes, you must admit the hole is very small, you could be right about everything and I could be wrong no conspiracy everything was terrorist based, but In my opinion a plane does not appear to have hit the pentagon.
pearcey03 5 months ago
@pearcey03 There is surveillance footage of the pentagon plane. OH! That's right . It doesn't fit your story, storyteller. I guess you are the smartest dude on the planet. Smarter than the WHOLE of the world. You guys being so smart and all, you should be world leaders. I mean you do have all the answers, don't you? DON'T YOU? That's what I thought. You know, you can use computers for GOOD, too. Whatever BUZZ your on, take a break for a couple of wweks. Clear your brain.
420hillbilly420 4 months ago
@420hillbilly420 lol where did you come from?? Yes I am the smartest person on earth, don't blame me because your shit country and its leaders are rotten to the core, lions masquerading as lambs!!! Yes, there is surveillance footage of the planes, we just not allowed to see them and to be honest it happened in America a place that if it exploded tomorrow I couldn't give a shit so keep your knickers on pal, If I were you I would just concentrate on how your country is going down the toilet.
pearcey03 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 Would bomb proof windows not smash when a plane travelling that speed crashes into it? I wonder because the WTC buildings had an obvious plane shape in it with the wings, but the pentagon had almost no indication a plane went into it. They apparently picked up a piece of the nose of the plane I find that astonishing, the plane might be durable but the nose isn't surely? Especially considering what it had to go through and what about the holes from the engines???
pearcey03 5 months ago
@pearcey03 I heard that nonsense too, that they found the nose of the plane at the pentagon. Even though the plane totally broke into a million tiny pieces, according to the official story. It's such a lie.
uppercutter21 5 months ago
@beachcomber2008 that's another thing, hitting all those lamp poles, tree massive generator still hit that building perfectly that plane must of been made of steel lol, actually it must of been to punch through all those other walls after its wings disintegrated before it hit the pentagon then the rest followed when it came to a stop. ;)
pearcey03 5 months ago
@beachcomber2008 Also, sorry one more thing, I was not trying to dispel your knowledge on how fast planes can go at certain hights, all I am saying is.....If a plane hit the pentagon could it of travelled taking into account pilot skill, that fast that low to the ground? Honest question no malice involved!!!
pearcey03 5 months ago
@beachcomber2008 Also you can call me a liar I couldn't care less all I do is state facts not opinions I wouldn't dare make something up because there are people who have the knowledge to pick up on false facts. I have looked and looked and I have never seen a steel building that has fallen due to fire if there is I can't find it.
pearcey03 5 months ago
@beachcomber2008 Ok show me another steel framed building that has fallen due to fire?? A plane hit the empire state building it was quite small compared to modern planes but the fire was incredible and it never fell and certainly did not free fall, the fire in madrid raged for 72 hours consuming 30 stories proper fire as well not just smoke and never fell.
pearcey03 5 months ago
@beachcomber2008 yeeeaahhhh I would go back and have a look at the definition again I don't think any of those define the word liar. You have not said anything useful so why would I acknowledge your reasoning? I am a fair person and I often watch debunking videos to get to grips with both sides of the argument some things I say ok fair enough that makes sense, I don't often agree with the truthers points some seem far fetched but I think there is definitely something wrong with that day!!!
pearcey03 5 months ago
@beachcomber2008 Ha ha ha your a sweaty jock, knew it inferiority complex it all makes sense now. Don't remember calling you a retard but would rather be called all the obscene names under the sun than be called a liar without reason. Did you check the definition of a liar by the way?
pearcey03 5 months ago
@beachcomber2008 Oh and the reason I thought you were American is because they are not the most intelligent race on the planet, such a disappointment that you are in fact English.
pearcey03 5 months ago
@beachcomber2008 Anger management I think not and I have been a lot more courteous than you, every time you reply you can see the bitterness in your comments and you still have not answered my question. I can see you do not believe in the official story every comment you have made indicates to me how much of an idiot you are, certainly dumb enough to have to wool pulled over your eyes. Its simple physics, steel buildings do free fall by fire and planes do not glide through steel.
pearcey03 5 months ago
@beachcomber2008 He is a motor mouth agreed but it was strange that someone who did not believe in the official story would be having a go at him considering he does not believe in the official story either!!!
pearcey03 5 months ago
@beachcomber2008 I think your confused with the definition of a liar!! But let me ask you this, In your expert knowledge of aeroplane engineering, are you saying that a plane can travel between 200-500 mph at sea level or perhaps a few feet off the ground and can a plane glide through a steel building as it did in the trade towers but when it hits the pentagon it simply disintegrates? So glides through the towers like butter disintegrates in the pentagon!!!! Tell me oh knowledgeable one!!!!
pearcey03 5 months ago
@beachcomber2008 Your a fucking Idiot please stop labelling yourself anything other than this. I am not sure when you ever saw me write about "tampered radar plots" I have no idea what you are talking about. I also wonder whilst you do not wish to list the "Truther" lies, you are not listing any of the so called consistencies of the official story, JK Rowling couldn't of made a better story than this. The facts against the U.S.A government and their involvement in the attacks is astonishing.
pearcey03 5 months ago
@beachcomber2008 I'm a Brit? I rather much doubt it, as we do not call ourselves that, you must be a complete jack ass rather than a "BRIT". How can you call someone who reveals absolute physical facts to be a liar? Whilst believing the official story which give no evidence to what they say? It is you sir who is the liar. For someone who is an "ex-aeroengineer" to disprove all the evidence from people who do not believe the official story is baffling!! Pot Kettle Black!!!!!...LIAR!!!!!
pearcey03 5 months ago
@beachcomber2008 Go usa, I wonder, is it your ignorant American pride that your government in all Its American glory bla bla could not simply do an act this heinous, which I personally believe it is, or are you just a complete and utter retard who does not accept facts because you live in a country that is so far up its own ass and so completely cut off from the rest of the world that you can't see past your home comforts because you have never seen in real life such atrocities????
pearcey03 5 months ago
Comment removed
beachcomber2008 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hang on I think I have got my wires crossed, I thought you were trying to say the plane that hit the pentagon especially could fly at over 500mph that close to the ground, what are you having a go at alex jones? He is on your side surely? Thats why I wrote my comment.
pearcey03 5 months ago
Comment removed
pearcey03 5 months ago
Who is S#!TTING who?
Concrete Into Dust, 9/11 The Demolition Job.
onedollarwill 6 months ago
Warning, shill below...
zly81 6 months ago
Skyarcher, are you a No Planer?
Skyarcher, in VD at 420 Knots, the stress on the airframe is higher than it was during any of the maneuvers performed by the planes on 911.
We know those planes can go that speed at Sea Level without breaking up because we have video of them doing just that 911.
flanksteak2 7 months ago
@flanksteak2 Vd is set out BEFORE an aircraft even is assembled...
It is a specific speed ONLY for flight testing purposes and .. as you (may)know.. many aircraft fail to make this speed at and are given a 'demonstrated design speed' ...
390 knots is the top speed the 767 ACTUALLY had to demonstrate in flight testing..
If Flansteak2 you know of any place were any 767 is documented as flying at over 420knots,still way less than 911, pls direct us to it .
We await patiently.
skyarcher 7 months ago
@skyarcher "Vd is set before an aircraft is even assembled"
LOL. Where on earth are you coming up with this crap?
We know a 767 can fly at 540 MPH at near sea-level because we have video of one doing that on 911.
Your claims about certain safety limits are retarded because you have no idea how they are established nor do you have any numbers as far as the actual stress on the airframe at different times.
Stop pretending to know things.
flanksteak2 7 months ago
@flanksteak2 Ring up Boeing...Go on ... I dare u)
skyarcher 7 months ago
@skyarcher "Ring up Boeing"
I live down the street and I have a private pilot certificate.
None of that matters. We know the aircraft can go that speed at that altitude because we have one on film doing just that on 911.
Get it?
flanksteak2 7 months ago
@flanksteak2 I dont get it at all...the footage is fake. Its that easy my friend. Get over it.
skyarcher 7 months ago
@skyarcher You have no evidence for your claim making it pure fantasy. Kinda pathetic that a grown man like yourself would still engage in "Make-Believe" isn't it?
Yes it is.
flanksteak2 7 months ago
@flanksteak2 COntact Boeing and ask them about the performance of the aircraft they designed and tested you fool.
When you have done that come back here and tell us all what they say.
Come back here with more rubbish and personal remarks I will ban you from this channel.
Contact Boeing or go back to your TV life.
skyarcher 7 months ago
@skyarcher "Contact Boeing"
I live right down the street and am a Pilot myself plus I can just look at the FAR/AIM to learn how VD is determined.
Using those resources it's fairly easy to see that you just make it up as you go along.
flanksteak2 7 months ago
@flanksteak2 Screw you Flank blocked.
I am a pilot.No.You are Troll. You have lost your ability to think critically.VD is set out before the plane even is designed you idiot. The last speed which must be demonstrated or very nearly demonstrated is 390- demonstrated design speed.You are not aware of this. Again Contact Boeing the maker of a 767 and ask them.
390 is still miles below the alleged speeds of the 911 aircraft. You dont care about the real details you just want to believe the story.
skyarcher 7 months ago
@skyarcher I am looking at the FAA booklet FAR/AIM right now.
VD is a high performance manuever in which high stress is placed on the wings. It's to simulate an emergency dive from altitude down to a safe breathing altitude with a rapid pull-up at the end.
flanksteak2 7 months ago 2
@skyarcher VD must be a at least X so when the plane is designed that is a minimum as with all aircraft. This does not mean that is the fastest the plane go, but merely that the plane has to at least be able to go that fast in order to comply with FAA regs. You can figure the plane can go 150% of VD without structural failure or loss of control.
flanksteak2 7 months ago 2
@skyarcher But back to my original and more simple point.
We know the plane can go 540 MPH at near Sea-Level because we have one on video doing just that on 911.
Have a nice day!
flanksteak2 7 months ago
@skyarcher Hey Arch, Still giving them hell I see. Keep up the great work. izzy
izzysykopth 7 months ago
Notice how the debunker stay the hell away from this. You can argue with those who believe that 911 was an inside job all day but you can't tell Boeing who designs commercial airliners how fast their plans can go. This can't be debunked. Case closed.
Daddyo930 7 months ago
@Daddyo930 Super comment Daddyo.
skyarcher 7 months ago
@skyarcher I was correct. Looks like the only traffic in the last 5 months is me. The truth is more important than god.
Daddyo930 7 months ago
@Daddyo930
The truth is a 767 broke the sound barrier in 1999.
It seems the truth is something you ignore when it isn't convenient for you.
Alaskaslim 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skyarcher I was correct. Looks like the only traffic in the last month is me. The truth is more important than god.
Daddyo930 7 months ago
the best evidence to the no plane theory is the question no one can answer which is why are we shown a 3ft diameter engine in the street under some scaffolding when a boeing 767 engine is 9ft in diameter ? Some one please answer , if you can't then tell me what the towers and the pentagon were hit by . No debunker can answer this question , nobody except the no planers can . No abuse please .
stevengreen775 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stevengreen775
"the best evidence to the no plane theory is the question no one can answer which is why are we shown a 3ft diameter engine in the street under some scaffolding when a boeing 767 engine is 9ft in diameter ?Some one please answer"
Because, you fucking ignorant luddite, the 9ft diameter portion is the width of the compressor blades at the front, which I wouldn't expect to survive a collision.
llanbo 8 months ago
What music is it that's playing?
Galv140577 1 year ago
The planes were not going that fast to begin with, and it's not true that they would have broken up at low altitude if they had been going 580mph.
The idea that the planes were "added" is dumb, thousands of people on the ground saw the jets hit the towers! There are amateur videos that show people looking up at the jets as they hit the North tower.
Besides, you have to account for all the passengers that were killed. Do you think the gov, has them hidden somewhere?
Bullettube 1 year ago
@Bullettube The planes wouldnt have broken up if they had been going 580 mph? I have shown the data from Boeing... where did you get your info from..O you just made it up? Well that makes sense thanks. Thanks for that intelligent contribution.
Lets start with this point. Please direct us to data published which states a 767 can reach those speeds as sea level.
Any BS answer and i will block you. Please point us to official data.
skyarcher 1 year ago
@skyarcher Boeing specified 360 as a safe, recommended speed, the jets can certainly go 580, especially in descending toward the towers. Video evidence was used to calculate relative speed, not airspeed. Since the black box info hasn't been released for "security reasons", the actual air speed is guessed at.
Regardless, the facts remain: they were passenger jets that were hi-jacked and crashed into the twin towers.
There were no missiles!
Bullettube 1 year ago
@Bullettube released? when did they ever find them? I thought all they found was a hijackers passport? Security reasons? They released the black box data from flight 77, because of the Freedom of Information Act. There are no facts from 9/11 except that people died inside the WTC buildings, the buildings came down at free fall speed, defying the laws of physics, theres a crater in the ground in PA, more people died at the Pentagon, and a lot of bodies were never found.
15kemper 8 months ago
@skyarcher Boeing's own website is a good place to start. Info I have seen indicates that above a safe speed of 360knots, there will be increased drag at the engines because air will dam up in front of the opening. The dammed air will spill over the wings causing vibrations which can damage the wings and at the very least, shorten the life of the airframe and cause discomfort to the passengers and crew.
The terrorists of course wouldn't have cared even if they had known about it.
Bullettube 1 year ago
@Bullettube Look at the boeing website? Are you for real? talk about digging a hole for yourself...I will ask you one more time... I am presenting here the official boeing data on these aircraft.. you are presenting different data.. where do you get it from...pls post link...or I will block you.
skyarcher 1 year ago
@skyarcher Nevermind...you're another foreigner who knows absolutely nothing about Airplanes....yes we know you think you do so you don't need to "challenge" my statement.
flanksteak2 7 months ago
@skyarcher I don't think this "plane" is a Boeing. It looks like one. Thats all. It's a one off and very high tech. Aluminum would react differently on impact. This thing just "powdered up". Real wing tips and edges would shred on impact, not glide seamlessly and completely into the WTC, proceed 3 frames more and then explode. Explosion should be on impact. No Yaw on impact. And all video gives a speed of 500+mph. This "plane" used some nano technology. Like the nano thermite found in the dust.
IExposeMormonism 11 months ago
@IExposeMormonism Nano tech' is on Youtube. Breathtaking at the public realm. Nano Thermite uses nano aluminum. the WTC plane is made of aluminum. I say it's constructed of something special, "Unobtainium", and the real surprise was inside the fuselage.That's why we see the"nose out" event. Regardless, no aluminum plane of 140 tons is going to bring down 500,000+tons steel and steel reinforced concrete. All the concrete and office contents are pulverized. All of it. nano thermite is in the dust
IExposeMormonism 11 months ago
@Bullettube
You are assuming that the terrorists would have cared about not damaging the aircraft or causing discomfort to the passengers?
You are assuming that there is some kind of device that physically prevents the pilot from going faster?
You assume that the planes were not tracked on radar and that their speed wasn't above the recommended limit?
You should not assume everyone at Boeing agrees with the "expert" you quoted, in fact the limits I have seen vary plus or minus by 60knots!
Bullettube 1 year ago
@Bullettube thousand people didn t see the jets hit the twin towers, by some strange chance the only people on the ground that saw these planes hit the building were employees of major TV networks.
EvilWarlock666 9 months ago
Jones is saying this because it was the official numbers given...he's agreeing with you. this video is a fail.
mouldsjr87 1 year ago
Please tell us the name of this marvelous music? is it by John Adams or Philip Glass?
billyguns2 1 year ago
I wasn't in the military, can't fly a plane, and love the ideals of this country, but overwhelming evidence is just that. The european structural engineer or scientist, whoever he was publicly stated no sensible evidence. History consistently shows U.S. govt. using catastrophic events as a tool to motivate war effort. consider WW II, Vietnam, and others. Thanks
khh1964 2 years ago
fast video. had 2 pause some parts ffs.
Dynamicdj 2 years ago
"Please point out to the viewers ANY deformation of the plane you can see while it is penetrating the wall??"
Don't be absurd. The velocity was 840 feet per second: 14 feet per video field, that is a lot of motion blur and it swamped any chance of being able to identify even the slightest distortion of the airframe. Only a super hi-speed camera, perfectly positioned, could have separated out any frames for you to pause on to make a valid point about the apparent absence of such distortion.
alawson911 2 years ago
alawson911:
I applaud your efforts to use REAL science to convince a group of people who I've come to compare with Holocaust deniers. It doesn't matter what kinds of real arguments you make, they will just continue to scream conspiracy at the top of their lungs begging for attention and justification of their paranoia. In addition, hurricane force winds can drive a straw though a turtle shell. For a better example of this, there is a technique to put a straw through a potato with out a break
Gunny467 2 years ago
Quote "hurricane force winds can drive a straw though a turtle shell."
I love when people like you come here with this kind of thing )
Youtube has videos of every other concievable thing ... please direct us all to a video of straw passing through a turtle shell!!
The word fool is not adequate for the likes of you!!
Straw gets stuck in small gaps in wood etc. you goon!
ok ... lets see you direct us to a video of straw passing through a turtle shell!!
this should be good
skyarcher 2 years ago
That particular example is clearly hyperbole to emphasize my point. However, the previous, much more real world example of a straw through a potato is easy to find. And in terms of scale is actually far more accurate. And your ideas are far crazier than what I presented The best part about your theories is that anyone with credibility is involved in the conspiracy, thus making any real scientific evidence invalid based on your criteria, making it impossible to prove you wrong.
Gunny467 2 years ago
Quote :"In addition, hurricane force winds can drive a straw though a turtle shell." GRUNNY 467
QUOTE:"That particular example is clearly hyperbole to emphasize my point." GRUNNY467
The only you are emphasizing is that you are a complete fool.. no this word is not good enough... a complete eejit!
Straw through a potato... here you are ...
/watch?v=j4EIrvVhbLM
skyarcher 2 years ago
It's Gunny by the way. As in Gunnery Sergeant. You inepitued at spelling it makes you look rather foolish. I would also like to point out you rather blatant dodging of my point that not only are most of your theories untestable, if anyone of repute were to find them incorrect you'd simply scream that they are in on the conspiracy. As such I see no further point entertaining any sort of discussion with you. Have fun in crazy town.
Gunny467 2 years ago
Gunny. sorry. I still think you are an idiot. You talk about my 'theories' when in actuality in this video i present the speeds a large can travel as tested and certified by the manufacture Boeing. The speeds of the 911 story are 40% above these figures. You simply ignore this. The official 911 story is the real 'conspiracy'. 360 mph is the Vmax of a large jet at sea level not 560 mph. Pls direct us to any evidence you have a which states otherwise. We await your response.
skyarcher 2 years ago
*ineptitude
9IIFCS 2 years ago
Ha ha, I didnt notice that!!
birllaint thnaks!!
skyarcher 2 years ago
@skyarcher good link! the whole straw potato/ plane building comparison is moot though. It all comes down to density and the molecular numbers of the elements. Iron is more dense than aluminum therefore.....
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@skyarcher I have seen pictures of straw driven thru a palm tree. And a long fine splinter thru a tree. But a Flying beer can, no, It can't do anything proportional like that. Many of us have seen the Lockheed plane test where 2 phone poles are used and they do quite a number on the wing. We can conclude steel poles would be very devastating. Especially every few feet! (And I haven't seen any turtle shells pierced with straw either).Oh,wait, there is video of Steel shafts ripping wings. ugly
IExposeMormonism 2 years ago
AND.. the software for manual flight in a 767 would have prevented it from making that 270 degree turn at 400-500 mph to hit the pentagon!
gtonehimself 2 years ago
Nano-thermite has been found at twin towers. Something hit the pentagon and it wasn't a 767, and planes don't evaporate like water when they crash... So at this point i almost don't give a shit about plane speeds because it wasn't planes that made the hits...
Good day....
wearechangebako 2 years ago
FAA approved Vd (design dive speed) for the Boeing 767 is 420 knots: 483.3 mph. Increase that by 19% and you get the speed estimated for the South Tower plane, by the Royal Aircraft Establishment: 575 mph.
Questions:
1. Would the RAE have given that speed, knowing it was impossible at that altitude?
2. Who would fly in aircraft which could not handle an emergency increase of only 19% on an FAA approved TEST speed, at which the plane must not start falling apart?
No me!
alawson911 2 years ago
Vd is set out BEFORE an aircraft even is assembled...
It is a specific speed ONLY for flight testing purposes and .. as you know.. many aircraft fail to make this speed at and are given a 'demonstrated design speed' ...
390 knots is the top speed the 767 ACTUALLY had to demonstrate in flight testing..
If ALan you know of any place were any 767 is documented as flying at over 420knots,way less than 911, pls direct us to it .
We await patiently.
skyarcher 2 years ago
lmfecher: People who claim knowledge of Newton's laws should know this. If a car or a plane crashes at 50 mph, into a wall, damage will certainly be done, and the vehicle may crumple and perhaps recoil. However, if the same car or plane crashed at ten times the original speed: 500 mph, the energy and the damage would not be simply 10 times that of the slower crash, it would be the square of the increase in speed. That is 100 times the force of the slower speed, with quite different results.
alawson911 2 years ago
The answer to your attempted avoidance of Newtons laws.. lies in the following example.
If the wall was travelling at '500 mph' and hit the stationary plane.. would the plane hold its shape and come out the other side intact??
Pls answer this one ALan...
demonstrate to out viewers your lack of understanding on this subject...
skyarcher 2 years ago
An absurd analogy, because the plane did not come out of the other side of the wall intact. You are as ignorant of the kinetic energy involved as anyone who has ever made such a comment. The formula, in case you did not know it is: EK in Joules = (1/2) X (Mass in Kg) X (Velocity in metres per second, squared). For a plane of mass: 145,150 kilograms moving at a velocity of 128 metres per second the kinetic energy was a massive 1,189,068,800 Joules, which made the hole and shredded the plane.
alawson911 2 years ago
Please point out to the viewers ANY deformation of the plane you can see while it is penetrating the wall??
Tell us where to pause the video??
If there is not deformation of the aircraft as it penetrates the building it must be intact on the other side as none of the plane breaks off or falls to the ground below the building.
again.. the video is here... pls point out any 'shredding' of the plane you can see... pause the video where you see this.
we await.
skyarcher 2 years ago
How come an engine section fell out of the South Tower, opposite to the impact area; hit a building on the way down and ended up at the corner of Murray and Church streets? This video leaves so many things unexplained that it is not worth spending much time criticizing. None of the alleged planes were properly identified by the NTSB or the FAA using serial numbers from the debris, including that engine, which was dumped in a landfill on Staten Island.
Now that would be worth looking into.
alawson911 2 years ago
the tiniest bit of research into that 'engine' shows it is not a 767 'engine' at all...
Pls dont be lazy Alan and follow up the info which has emerged about this 'engine'
skyarcher 2 years ago
Yes, but the engine did come from a 767 lookalike, probably a KC 767 tanker. The parameters on the A1NM sheet for the 767-200 are probably close to those for the tanker versions, but military aircraft do not come under the FAA's airworthiness standards. You should also know that civil airliners cannot fail ANY of the FAA's speed tests, and be passed as airworthy. If there is an exception, give me your source.
alawson911 2 years ago
again... there is evidence of this engine being planted there.. would you like me to point me to a video dealing with this??
A 767 engine is huge. This is the 1/3 the size of a 767 engine. looks more like missile engine.
no surprise there.
skyarcher 2 years ago
There is NO evidence of the engine section been planted. It can be seen in many of the videos, exiting the South Tower and arcing its way down to towards Murray & Church streets, when it hit a building on the way down. And your point about size is absurd, as well. This is a part of an engine, the core; the by-pass fan section having been stripped away during its passage through the building. But we'll never know it's provenance, because it was dumped in a landfill on Staten Island.
alawson911 2 years ago
Impossible tail penetration
watch?v=w1gzsnnqrrA
kidwave1 2 years ago
hoaxtards are not worth arguing with. They are the same retards as the ones that believe that the Earth is flat.
ZhangyXD 2 years ago
Vne of a 767 anyone?
larsjake 2 years ago
the flight was straight and level moron, it can reach close to 600 with bad consequences if it were going to do more than fly into a building. Du har faen meg klikka min venn!!!
larsjake 2 years ago
It was a hologram. THere were no planes at WTC
michelangeli23 2 years ago
This is specious logic. Like saying, Because a VW can't go 200 mph it can't win a race. Since the same people who said burning jet fuel heated the steel superstructure to 1800 F also said the aircraft impacted above 500 knots, why would anyone believe them? The speed of the airtcraft may be at doubt, but not the fact of impact which has been abundantly, irrefutably established by film, video and hundreds of witnesses. The no plane theory is a disinfo distraction to discredit 911 Truth. QED.
starmanskye 2 years ago
I'm glad you brought up IMPACT. Upon IMPACT of tower 2, several things should have occurred.
1. An explosion.
2. Deceleration.
3. Crumpling of the nose and fuselage.
4. Wings/tail section destroyed.
An airliner is mostly aluminum and the fuselage is a HOLLOW tube. Yet, the videos all show an airliner passing through a steel and concrete wall unimpeded and THEN exploding once inside the tower. This is impossible as per Newton's 3rd Law and basic crash physics.
lmfecher 2 years ago
Quote:"the fact of impact "...
Quote:"impact"
What impact?
Please have a look at imfecher comment and post a reply.
there is no 'impact'.
Can u put your hand through your skull and scratch your brain?
skyarcher 2 years ago
Most useless video ever.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Did you notice that you were flying a 747 in your simulator?
A 747 is not a 767, Nice try.
NEXT
Bluetooht 2 years ago
Here is a question for you smart ass..
Have you ever heard of Vspeeds? and what is the difference percentage wise between the max vspeeds for a 747 and 767?
lets hear you
smart ass
skyarcher 2 years ago
Nice comment.
Aircraft body shapes have different effects on flight control and speed.
Again a 747 is not a 767.
Bluetooht 2 years ago
I asked you a question which i note you have not answered. What is the % difference between the max speed of 747 and a 767??
....any answer coming??? no
2.5 % in favour of the 747.
You have completely missed the point of this video.
The max speeds I outline for different altitudes are almost exactly the same for 747 and 767.
youtube is full of smartasses like you who think they know everything but end up completely missing the point and sounding stupid in the process.
Well done.
skyarcher 2 years ago
I think you are really grasping at straws with YOUR rather childish video and comment.
You assume that the highjackers care that the plane "might" be damaged by going faster than the "supposed" plane destroying speed as you claim. And how do you know for a fact that these speeds would destroy the plane? Because the manfacture's say to not go over this speed do you think that it's the max?
So according to you the aircraft manufacturers build aircraft with no safety for over speed or over stress
Bluetooht 2 years ago
grasping at straws?? u come totally ignorant of the issues involved, then fail to respond in any way when asked for actual facts regarding aircraft, and now you leave petulant comments here..
go share your lack of knowledge on some other channel. blocked.
skyarcher 2 years ago
A question I hope you can answer.
Can a passenger jetliner do a barrel roll?
If not, why?
If so, why?
Bluetooht 2 years ago
707 barrel roll. Youtube it.
It performed this within its max speed.
skyarcher 2 years ago
totally agree.i think somethin gonna happen september
SuperBigmac1974 2 years ago
BULLSHIT! 1*
CleetzI337 2 years ago
Spot on. The 911 story is complete bullshit.
skyarcher 2 years ago
great!
congratulations
¡muy bueno! felicidades.
jesudel 2 years ago
Fantastic video, Skyarcher ...
All the aviation professionals I've been in touch with have confirmed the facts presented in this video.
There were no airplanes hijacked on 9/11. Only airwaves...
simonshack 2 years ago
Yes man, people will do anything to protect their computers from viruses etc. and yet allow anyone with any kind of agenda access to their grey matter.
media successfully hacked into our brains and placed this load of crap there on 911(
Only firewall against this sort of attack is to turn off TV.
"television the drug of the nation, breeding ignorance and feeding radiation, ..."
skyarcher 2 years ago
So, what you are saying is, the story you would like us to believe, is that the aircraft were actually piloted by professional pilots with thousands of hours under their belts. Makes me wonder what happened in the lives of these pilots that would make their lives as well-paid commercial airline pilots so miserable that they would agree to fly their planes, full of people, into to of the tallest buildings on the East coast. Were they on psychotropic drugs?
TemporalBouncer 2 years ago
The wording is going a little to quick so i guessed u missed it....4:32
skyarcher 2 years ago
I guess I missed it. What is 4:32 supposed to tell me?
TemporalBouncer 2 years ago
No planes were used. Digital images of aircraft were superimposed over footage of the buildings exploding.
skyarcher 2 years ago
In fact most if not all of the images shown on TV are complete composites of different layers.
skyarcher 2 years ago
Really? Well, they must have had some pretty fast animators, since I was watching live when the plane hit. Next, you'll tell me they had it all cued up and ready to go ahead of time and not only that, but that they predicted precisely where the plane (or, what was it if not an aircraft?) was going to hit, with 100% accuracy. Were the eyewitnesses under some kind of hypnotic spell, too, to make them believe they were seeing an aircraft (with their own eyes)?
TemporalBouncer 2 years ago
You got it. Watch 'September Clues' to find out how it all worked.
Thanks.
skyarcher 2 years ago
Google: "When TV brings you the news as it didn't happen"
"Broadcasters are using virtual imaging technology to alter live broadcasts - and not even the news is safe from tampering
"a number of companies have developed new ways of commercially exploiting their military navigation and tracking expertise.
None of the companies will publicly discuss how their's works. But the principle is common: each alters the live video image in the split second before it is broadcast."
WearechangeN 2 years ago
Google:
"INFORMATION WARFARE Prof George J. Stein, AWC"
"When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing" washington post
"When TV brings you the news as it didn't happen" - independent
"Lying With Pixels" - MIT
WearechangeN 2 years ago
"It is perfectly possible now to insert sets of pixels into satellite imagery data that interpreters would view as battalions of tanks, or war planes...
Im amazed that we have not seen phony video, he says, before backpedaling a bit: Maybe we have. Who would know?
...a government, terrorist or advocacy group could set geopolitical events in motion on the strength of a few hours worth of credibility achieved by distributing a snippet of well-doctored video."
WearechangeN 2 years ago 2
nice one but let us more time to read without pausing the video everytime :D
sigurd83 2 years ago
Yep i tried to fit to much in here and something needs changing.. am going to re do this.
skyarcher 2 years ago
yeah! another good one!!! GREAT VID
the same i can say about your kind and brillant answers to some... uh... "strange" comments! hehehe
yohrdzayr 2 years ago
You're not a pilot, are you?
'V' speeds are NOT facts; they are RULES.
Vne (or Vmo) does NOT mean the aircraft can't exceed the speed. It's an instruction to the pilot that he MUST NOT, because it's the point at which he would START to put his plane in danger ('CAN pose a THREAT...')
A plane that's doing over 500mph in a steep dive from altitude isn't going to care about V speeds and won't slow down just because YOU think it should.
TimReed22222 2 years ago
Tim where is your reply to the other video? The CNN fakes video. Could you pause it where you see any deformation happening?
I dont claim in this video that it is impossible to go above the mentioned v speeds. Pls look at the video again because you have missed the point of it.
You have not come back either on the 'area rule' - a fundamental difference between high speed aircraft design and commercial aircraft design.
skyarcher 2 years ago
"I dont claim in this video that it is impossible to go above the mentioned v speeds."
??? Dude, the TITLE of your film is "The 911 aircraft speed lie." At the beginning you say anyone who believes a 767 could do that speed at that altitude is either a fool or a shill, at 0:34 you say it's as believable as Santa Claus.
If you're not saying 550mph is impossible, then what's the lie?
TimReed22222 2 years ago
test
skyarcher 2 years ago
Tim I cant reply to this for some reason so have put comment at top
skyarcher 2 years ago
"Vne (or Vmo) does NOT mean the aircraft can't exceed the speed."
vne and vmo is not the same.
vne is velocity NEVER exceed to not destroy the aircraft.
vmo is not a physical limitation like vne, it can be a limitation by laws in different countrys.
all planes can exceed vmo without getting serious problems but exceeding vne can result in a destruction of the plane.
the vne of flight 767 was exceeded by 40% while a modern airbus gets destroyed by exceeding its vne just about 3%.
horror11 2 years ago
"vne is velocity NEVER exceed to not destroy the aircraft."
That does NOT mean you will definitely destroy your plane, just that you're beginning to run the risk. BTW Vne is 90% of emergency dive speed (Vd) which test pilots achieve during testing.
"the vne of flight 767 was exceeded by 40%"
550mph is only about 15% above Vd (emergency dive speed). Crazy dangerous, yes, but POSSIBLE.
TimReed22222 2 years ago 2
Brilliant,Skyarcher.Brilliant.Analysis would also prove that the maneuver shown in the fake Foreman video is impossible.
machfron 2 years ago 2
good clip.. nice and pacey... thank god we can pause these clips lol
smoketweed09 2 years ago
re the dive speed discussion ("TO 17,854 feet" 2:20)
Um, I think there's a little misunderstanding here. Did you really think the engineers are so stupid that they set a speed limit for diving UP??
The phrase "VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854ft" does NOT mean "diving down TO", it means the 420 kts (483mph) speed limit applies at altitudes FROM sea level UP TO 17,854ft!
Maybe you should consult with a pilot - and a native English speaker - on your next film lol.
TimReed22222 2 years ago 2
Changed with new annotation . Thanks for clarification (and nice pepper of sarcasms,)
Up down issue aside... Vd is not a certified speed like Vmo etc. but a maximum speed involved in flight testing and so may not be achieved. Vfc is a certified speed which is the maximum speed at which stability characteristics must be demonstrated (14 CFR 25.253(b)). This is 390 knots or 115 knots short of the speed needed to hit the tower at 580 mph.
Ok?
skyarcher 2 years ago
"Changed with new annotation . Thanks for clarification (and nice pepper of sarcasms,)"
Well, your movie is all about the sarcasm; I was just going with the flow : )
Anyway, the bottom line is this: While it's certainly a BAD IDEA to exceed the V speeds, it's POSSIBLE. Vd does NOT mean "your plane will definitely break apart if you exceed it" only that you're beginning to run the risk. Flt 175 was only doing ~15% over Vd.
550mph is not impossible.
TimReed22222 2 years ago 2
"550mph is not impossible." I do respect that you know about these things.
But...
1. Explain how 'hijakers' had the knowledge and training to precisely 'trim' a 767 to fly at 150 knots above it's 'never exceed speed' and fly inch perfect into the target? Pls explain this one ? Pls shed some light on this?
2.The speed issue is just one side of the story.
Explain how a plane can hit a solid steel wall and expdrience no deceleration? This is what was shown on tv...? pls address this.
skyarcher 2 years ago
"1. Explain how 'hijakers' had the knowledge and training to precisely 'trim' a 767 to fly at 150 knots above it's 'never exceed speed'?"
Um, maybe it was the months of flight training he received while earning his commercial pilot license, including dozens of hours in Boeing flight simulators?
The trim question is a non-issue, anyway. Take a 767 up to 29,000 feet, then point the nose down & pin the throttles and you could probably hit the speed of sound no problem, V speeds be damned.
TimReed22222 2 years ago 3
"2.Explain how a plane can hit a solid steel wall and expdrience no deceleration? This is what was shown on tv...? pls address this."
The plane DID experience deceleration, MASSIVE deceleration. The proof of this is that very little of it came out the other side.
TimReed22222 2 years ago 5
I gave you credit as someone who seemed to know what they were talking about.
I retract that now.
Pls pause my video 'RAW FOOTAGE 747 breaks up' at the point where you can see any deformation of the structure of the boeing. The plane passes through the exterior load bearing steel wall INTACT!
You have been duped - this is faked footage, get over it.
skyarcher 2 years ago
'Pls pause my video 'RAW FOOTAGE 747 breaks up' at the point where you can see any deformation of the structure of the boeing.'
I don't get it; what does a broken plane on a runway have to do with anything?
TimReed22222 2 years ago
This video is just 44 seconds long and actually involves 2 planes. We are here talking about the 911 'aircraft' so i presumed you might have guessed i was talking about the latter aircraft.
The Kalita footage is real and the 911 footage is faked.
pls take another look. This clip is famous and was shown on Cnn. This is called 'ghost plane' as it disappears unharmed through the steel wall and thus breaks Newtons laws of motions.
skyarcher 2 years ago
@TimReed22222 the deceleration would have happened on impact , and no aluminium plane can penetrate a building designed to withstand multiple strikes . applying newtons 3rd law of motion but instead we have a stationary plane and the tower(s) travelling at whatever speed , the faster the better , would the plane when struck by the tower be swallowed up inside the building , no , there would be minimal damage to the tower and major damage to the plane . newtons laws took the day off that day .
stevengreen775 8 months ago
Dec 2000 Atta and Alshehhi issued with temporary 120-day licenses allowing them to fly small, twin-engine planes
Dec 29 and 30 at the SimCenter flight school at Opa-Locka Airport, near Miami, they each pay $1,500 in cash and spend six hours, split over the two days, training in the schools Boeing 727 simulator.
Henry George, the schools owner who trains them, describes their training as a mini, mini introduction,
6 hours in 727 old style guage cockpit and they become experts.
skyarcher 2 years ago
"V speeds be damned."
how about this one " laws of physics be damned"
skyarcher 2 years ago
Me: 'Take a 767 up to 29,000 feet, then point the nose down & pin the throttles and you could probably hit the speed of sound no problem, V speeds be damned. '
skyarcher: 'how about this one " laws of physics be damned" '
Which law(s) of physics would that be? Please be specific, and show some math if you're able (in the context of the current discussion on V speeds, please).
TimReed22222 2 years ago
Thrust to weight ratio of 1 to 3.25 (767)compared to 1 to 1.5 typical of fighter aircraft capable of high speed low altitude flight.
"point the nose down & pin the throttles " totally ignores parasite drag and parasite power.
Military aircraft need need Dr. Richard T. Whitcombs 'area rule' which the 767 lacks and which allows it meet 14 CFR 25.253 in which the airplane is placed in a dive and may not exceed 420 kts (VD) by preventing it from exceeding that airspeed by specific design.
skyarcher 2 years ago
Air at 700 feet is 3 times denser than at high altitude.
The engines of a 767 are designed to 'bite' into dense air at low altitudes and compress it to generate thrust/power.This is why temperature is an important factor in take offs. hot air = 'thinner air' and longer take off roll.the PW4062 turbofan engine is not designed to take enormous quantities of dense air at high speed, low altitude flight.
Elephants foot into a ballerina's pom poms.
skyarcher 2 years ago
Good job, skyarcher. Important lessons from the cockpit. Thanks.
911conspiracyTV 2 years ago
Very nice clip!!!!!!!!
Alastor1993 2 years ago 2
Alex has brought us much info,but he is wrong about much.
Attacking "no planers" atheists, and Judy Wood, a scientist who knows what she is talking about and has done extensive research.Have you seen the photos on her site? Amazing! What could do that to the toasted cars and bldg 6?
Exotic weapons to be sure.
roscogre 2 years ago
great vid thanks!!!
thatsshit 2 years ago
great vid
staticagenda 2 years ago 2
excellent video
mysticalgroove 2 years ago
You're missing the point, that's the whole idea, the whole reaosn he is telling you the speed, he is telling you it is impossible for planes to do what we saw on 911. We can calculate the speed from the video footage, and yet, it is impossible for a plane to do that. Understand? It means only one thing, the planes were added to the video to cover missiles.
See Youtube video:
WTC No Plane Theory (Part 4)
WTC No Plane Theory (Part 5)
WTC No Plane Theory (Part 18)
PhuqueU 2 years ago 5
Nice work! Though can you slow the video down a bit, it changes too quickly.
Also, dont forget the Pentagon, they claim that the plane was doing 500mph just 10's of feet off the ground,that's even more ridiculous than the WTC ''planes''.
breando1 2 years ago
5***** from me
dermot2222 2 years ago 2
This about my fifth watch ... great clip Sky.
TodMcInerney 2 years ago 2
you have probably spotted then ...'some uniformed people'...it should have been... 'some uninformed people'!
dont want to cast aspersions on people who wear uniforms lol
skyarcher 2 years ago
bravo!! nobody speaks of this anymore!!
dizolve13 2 years ago 2
Brilliant!!
PollenB 2 years ago 3
@5:01 "Can you walk through water as fast as through air?? The same principle applies to aircraft."
Excellent analogy. Excellent video. Thank you. 5*s
nameofthepen 2 years ago 2