9/11: Possible or Impossible Speed?

This video is based on James Fetzer's discussion with Field McConnell and John Lear on the "Dynamic Duo" programme, broadcast in July or August, 2008, regarding the possibility of a Boeing 767 travelling at a speed of around 575 mph, as depicted in several of the 9/11 videos. The video was made especially to accompany a critique of Dr. Fetzer's approach to the issue of whether or not planes hit the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center.

If you would like a copy of the text article: "Anthony Lawson's Last Words on James Fetzer's Last Words about no planes", please send an e-mail to lawson911@gmail.com

Category:

Education

Tags:

• 911
• no
• planes
• john
• lear
• field
• mcconnell
• possible
• speed
• impossible
• orange
• misinformation
• disinformation

[ChristopherMarlowe]

I disagree with your reasoning at 4:20. Lear says the FAA approved a "one-off" for test purposes only. That doesn't mean it is safe to fly faster than 250 knots.There is a job called "test pilot" and it is recognized as a dangerous job.

The Code ref apparently has been digitized to 14 CFR 91.117:

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.)

That is well below 550 mph.

[alawson911]

@ChristopherMarlowe

Gosh, the people who organized crashing two Boeing 767 lookalikes into the WTC exceeded the FAA set speed limits below 10,000 ft !

The FAA is not going to approve a dangerous speed, even for testing, but Lear was deliberately mixing up FAA speed regulations with the plane's aerodynamic capabilities, which have never been revealed by Boeing.

FAA regulations were exceeded, but the videos prove that the speed the South Tower aircraft reached was possible.

[ChristopherMarlowe]

@alawson911 If someone is questioning whether the videos are real or CGI, then the videos can't really prove that the speed was possible: that would be circular reasoning.

If the FAA is not going to approve a dangerous speed, then are we to assume that the speed limit, set more than 200 mph slower than what is seen on the video, reflects some concern that the Boeing might shake apart at higher speed?

[alawson911]

@ChristopherMarlowe

No one has ever been able to prove that the most relevant videos are fake. As a cameraman, I do not think they are fake, and eyewitnesses confirm my conclusions.

There are now those, and Simon Shack is one of them, claiming there were no victims on 9/11. Do you believe that?

I repeat: The FAA's speed limits do not determine the capabilities of an aircraft or its engines.

At least one non-proven-to-be-fake video puts the plane's speed at about 575 mph.

[4ezMoney]

All this video is about is character assassinations. There is zero substance on behalf of the host/producer (as expected, as usual).

There were no planes on 9/11 - regardless of how hard this shill channel attempts to purport.

[alawson911]

@ithacacoz Thank you. My area of experience is film, video and image related. Since no videos showing anything but a greyish smudge and an explosion have ever been released, like everyone else, I am limited to conjecture. The photos of the damaged area, before the upper floors collapsed, do not show a mark that should have been made by the tail fin of a fast-moving aircraft, and such a fin does not show up in other photos, so there is no visual evidence for a plane impact.

[alawson911]

@dominic150

No one knows exactly what happened to Egypt Air 990, so Balsamo's video is speculative on many issues, including the estimated speed of its final descent and break-up. Disinformation?

In any event the effects, on an airframe, of trying to recover control of a plane that was quite possibly already in a steep dive at 0.9 Mach, would be quite different from a deliberate 6-minute descent from over 20,000 ft., levelling off to a 3.5 degree approach toward the Towers ending at 800 ft.

[dominic150]

@alawson911 speed carries a lot of weight. as any pilot knows, the faster you go the more the nose wants to pull upward. past a certain point, it is impossible to keep the nose of the plane down with the given controll surfaces, which speaks volumes about flight 77. with maxed out control surfaces even a slight wind gust could cause a crash. The speed also had a precident. Egypt Air 990 broke up in flight at a speed of .99 Mach at 22k feet, the equivalent dynamic effects =425 kts near sea level.

[alawson911]

@dominic150

Yes, they set maximums for a reason, but the speeds set for testing aircraft are NOT that type's falling-apart performance limits, and it is absurd to consider that they might be even close. Boeing's wind-tunnel data is kept secret, but it has been suggested by many knowledgeable people that Boeing's speed margins could be as great as 50% over those agreed with the FAA for the Vd test, for example, and you have also denied the possibility that Dwain Deets might be right. Who are you?

[alawson911]

@dominic150

You did start off one of your other post with

"KCAS is the key there genius"

implying a lack of research or knowledge on my part. But you are wrong, with regard to CAS relating to the differential in airspeed at low and high altitudes, so what am I, according to you "reading into it"?

Have I ever suggested that the plane was a standard 767? No, I have not, but I do think that Vd +21% of the speed for a standard 767 may have been possible, and so it seems does Dwain Deets (... cont/)

[dominic150]

@alawson911 Im NOT a no plane guy. They set maximums for a reason. You are reading into it what you want to, that doesnt make it correct. A commercial grade 767-200 can not manage those speeds. Funny thing though, the military have many 767-200's as cargo and tanker aircraft. Im sure it wouldnt be too hard to modify it for that kind of mission.

[alawson911]

@dominic150

Please consider the following statement from Dwain Deets, former NASA Flight Director:

(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, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target.

The plane has never been forensically identified, so I'll leave you to work out whether your inference that the speed was impossible should carry any weight.