9/11: Impossible Speed & Impact -- Busted! Updated

This video demonstrates that the speed of the aircraft which hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center, on 9/11, did not exceed the design limitations of its airframe or engines, and that the way in which the aircraft breached the wall of the building was feasible.

The video has been updated (from an earlier U-Tube version) to correct a mistake in the kinetic energy formula, and to include previously unavailable clips of low-flying aircraft, rather than the supersonic jet car ThrustSSC.

The picture of Carmen Taylor with her Sony Mavica camera has also been replaced, because I was informed that Associated Press had altered the image in its viewfinder to one which Ms Taylor could not have taken. The picture is now the one originally released by AP (or so I am told). I would add that, as far as I know, Ms Taylor had nothing to do with these changes, and that the veracity of her story remains unchanged.

For details on FAA permissible airspeeds: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMake...

For an explanation of why the speed was possible look for:
"Flight 175 speed absolutely possible" http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3041916#post3041916

Additional expert advice and opinion: The F4 Phantom is being flown by Captain Field McConnell, in the refuelling shot, and in the following shot he is almost at ground level at a speed in excess of 600 knots—over 690 mph. As he has since remarked in an e-mail to me: "Engines don't choke." Following some critical comments from the usual armchair aviation experts, I e-mailed this formally-phrased question to him: Could a Boeing 767-200 have dived from, say 30,000 feet, then levelled off to hit the South Tower moving at 586 mph (509 K)? His answer was: "Yes."

The Buccaneer's turbofan engines, while of a lower bypass ratio than a 767's engines, also show that this engine type does not "choke" at sea level. The Boeing 767-200 is approved for flights where it is 120 minutes from an alternative airport. This means that it can fly safely, virtually fully loaded, on one engine for two hours, indicating that these engines had the power to sustain the plane's speed, following its dive, until the moment it crashed.

Not one no-plane theorist has ever been able to explain how images of the plane in question (it may not have been the plane designated by Air Traffic Control as "UA Flight 175") got into a number of private video and stills camera, or onto the retinas of the many eyewitnesses to the tragedy, therefore the majority of the video and photographic evidence can be regarded as being genuine.

The Impacts: People are continually disputing the physics of what the videos show, commenting that "flimsy aluminium planes cannot penetrate steel and concrete walls." At speeds of around 575 mph, 840 feet per second, they can and they did, with the exception of their wingtips. For further information on this look at the following websites: http://questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html
search for: "faulty physics" and http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/
search for "wingtips".

Category:

Education

Tags:

• This
• is
• an
• Orange
• 9/11
• pumpitout
• September
• Clues
• webfairy
• No
• More
• Games
• Scholars
• for
• Truth
• killtown

[alanbstard4]

the max speed you mean is " VNE " { velocity never exceed } It's part of the A/C performance envelope

[alawson911]

@alanbstard4

VNE is an FAA imposed limitation, not an airframe or engine limitation; it is NOT a part of a plane's performance envelope, which, as far as I know, Boeing has never released for the 767 series

If you can get hold of Boeing's actual wind-tunnel test data that would shed some light on this issue, until then, the speed calculated from the videos are good enough for me, because they appear to be genuine, to my experienced cameraman's eye.

[alanbstard4]

Anthony. What about the employed pilots of 767s that say they could not perform these manouvres and the people whom allegedly did this did not qualify to land, never mind navigate cross country?

[alawson911]

@alanbstard4

To be fair, hitting a building is not exactly landing, in the accepted sense of the word. But it is true that many pilots have claimed that amateur pilots probably could not have hit the buildings the even experienced pilots think would have been almost impossible for them. Which leaves computer assisted remote, real-time visual control, such as is used in the Predator system, to iron out sudden wind changes.

[sunguard27]

Oh just 12% . Is that all? Try driving your car as fast as it will go and then go 12% faster. Now try that with a plane that you don't even know how to fly in a country that you don't even live in or read the language. Now try hitting your target dead on at 700ft. TWICE in one day. Top that off by having NORAD stand down 5 times in one day and for the finish; collapse 3 buildings at free fall speed and a third at free fall speed without even hitting the third building. WOW that's some day.

[alawson911]

@ChristopherMarlowe

You are a fool. The fact you keep ignoring is that the South Tower plane has never been forensically identified.

The depleted uranium suggestion was made because it is not fanciful to suggest that the perpetrators would not have known exactly what would happen if an unreinforced plane was used. It has nothing to do with speed capabilities; you are just moving the goalposts. The videos of the impact are real, the issue is what kind of plane was it.

[alanbstard4]

@alawson911 there is still the matter of check captains and other pilots who fly the 767 series who publicly claim it cant be done

That is the problem I have. No one is challenging them that I know of and how can anyone fly any plane cross country, or locally when turning and banking required and they have not been taught? These offenders allegedly were not taught to land after a circuit as students, never mind pilotage or navigation. A mystery

[ChristopherMarlowe]

@alawson911 Well at least you have stopped calling me names.

I'm sorry that you couldn't find the plane in the video I sent. I was trying to verify your claim about the plane being visible in the long shot.

Deets' comments can be taken to mean that the measured speed proves that the video contradicts the official story: it was not a standard 767 because it was going well beyond what that plane was capable. The video was of a 767 so this would tend to support video fakery.

[alawson911]

@ChristopherMarlowe

I am no longer interested in answering your complaints or questions, because you clearly do not understand the issues.

[alawson911]

@ChristopherMarlowe

One further point.

I don't much care whether or not you take any notice of my responses to your comments; I am now making them only in case some genuine truth seekers read some of your nonsense.

You are one of those types who refuses to look at the body of evidence, choosing to select small details like: Was the plane in the Fox 5 wide shot? which is not a big issue, because the plane is in about 50 other videos; the crash clearly captured in at least 5 of them.

[ChristopherMarlowe]

@alawson911 You are now just stubbornly repeating yourself about how I'm supposed to magically fit extra characters into one box; None of Deets' points contradict what I said. I've said that several times. You even tried to contradict my use of the term "flight envelope".

Where did you get your clip? I showed the source for the one I provided.

You call people names when your safe at home. You wouldn't talk to me like that if I was in the same room as you.

[alawson911]

@ChristopherMarlowe

Liars don't change; they rarely admit their lies or they move the goalposts.

Deets gave 4 alternatives:

(1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope... But In your comment on September Clues -- Busted! you chose to quote him ONLY on the speed issue for a STANDARD 767.

No steel was cut, Google: WTC PLANES THRU STEEL CONSTRUCTION