Loading...

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

42,652 views

Loading...

Loading...

Transcript

The interactive transcript could not be loaded.

Loading...

Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Dec 11, 2007

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_Gui......

For an explanation of why the speed was possible look for:
"Flight 175 speed absolutely possible" http://forums.randi.org/showthread.ph...

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/rev...
search for: "faulty physics" and http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/re...
search for "wingtips".

For those who are influenced by such phrasing as "aluminium slicing through steel" please watch the following video: WTC PLANES THRU STEEL — 911TRUTHINATOR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrir...
No steel was sliced, it was dislodged.

Additional Expert Opinion
9/11 — Possible or Impossible Speed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUpKL4...

Friends of Israel — Enemies Inside the Gates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Untixe...

Loading...

When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next


to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...