On 9/11 The Reported airspeed of United flight 175 was 510 knots near sea level. At 22,000 ft the equivalent speed/stress is 722 knots or mach 1.19

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,817
25,391
1
2020evidence.org
IOW the airframe would receive the same amount of stress going an airspeed of 510 knots at sea level as it would going mach 1.2 at 22,000 feet. The plane would break apart before it would reach these speeds.

At sea level These planes would become incontrollable at around 380 knots airspeed and start to break apart after around 420ish knots (see below V-G diagram). Because of this fact commercial pilots with thousands of hrs say 510 knots at sea level is impossible especially with a mostly level flight path. Even the concord jet can’t go 510 knots at sea level. But some dudes who trained on a single engine cessna going 60 knots pulled this feat off hitting a 200 ft wide target going an impossible speed? It’s absurd.

I guess boeing built 757 and 767’s capable of supersonic flights at altitude and still controllable enough to hit a 208 ft wide target with a 25 foot margin of error on either side?? That’s amazing!!

If you don’t believe me you can do the EAS calculations yourself. Dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure and math doesn’t lie.

Either the speed data obtained by numerous sources is inaccurate and therefore flight safety is in jeopardy (major ramifications for the airline industry) or what actually hit those buildings isn’t what we were told. Either way the story told by the 9/11 commission is a lie.

For a real life comparison Egyptian air flight 990 went straight down and at 22,000 feet it achieved its maximum speed of 603 knots (425 knots equivalent at sea level) or mach .99 then broke apart shortly after that as commercial airliners aren’t designed for that stress and it hit denser air. These planes cant handle super sonic speeds. They break apart first.

OdgLtvU.png


H9CSkWi.png


K0k8uQP.png


Note the red failure zone starts at 420 knots at sea level:
wMoFVbr.png


Pilots for 9/11 truth:
In this video ^^^ at around the 25 min 40 second mark Ross “Rusty” Aimer who has 30,000 hours and has captained one of the actual planes used on 9/11 (United 175) said 510 knots at sea level is impossible due to air density and air frame integrity. Also The only way they would have the slightest chance of hitting their targets would be if they approached at landing speed which is around 130 knots. Otherwise it’d be like trying to park your car in your garage going 150 mph.
 
Last edited:

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,817
25,391
1
2020evidence.org
He has better things to do like put rockets up in the air. Seriously, NO ONE CARES.
Haha! Way to avoid the cognitive dissonance. If you don’t care then why are you in the thread? Thanks for the bumps!

If you don’t believe me you can do the EAS calculations yourself. Dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure and math doesn’t lie.
 

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,457
7,979
1
There is truth to this. Thicker air means the top speed of the plane declines.

That is of course true, but breaking apart at 420mph (air speed I'm presuming), even at low altitude? That made me chuckle a little.

And who cares how many knots of ground speed that translates to at 22k'? When you're talking about controlling an airplane and/or when it breaks apart, ground speed could not be more irrelevant (only air speed matters for that).
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,817
25,391
1
2020evidence.org
What part don’t you understand? The manufacturer set the max operating airspeed speed at ground level at 360 knots for a reason. After that the wings start to flop around and the plane becomes uncontrollable.
That is of course true, but breaking apart at 420mph (air speed I'm presuming), even at low altitude? That made me chuckle a little.

And who cares how many knots of ground speed that translates to at 22k'? When you're talking about controlling an airplane and/or when it breaks apart, ground speed could not be more irrelevant (only air speed matters for that).
I’m not talking about knots of ground speed. The title of the OP says airspeed of 510 knots at sea level. As you said, only airspeed matters. The OP is all about doing the equivalent airspeed calculations. At no point is anything but airspeed mentioned.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,817
25,391
1
2020evidence.org
I've never heard of this law before this, but after a reading a bit about it, I am on board.
I have no idea. It's Brandolini's law in action.
False. Brandolinis is all about debunking bullshit that takes a long time etc. and there’s not an ounce of bullshit in my post. Also It takes 5 seconds to find an online EAS calculator and punch in 510 knots of airspeed at sea level to see what the equivalent airspeed is at 22,000 feet. So none of the principals of the law apply to my OP. Try harder!
 

PSU87

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2001
13,016
7,646
1
Florida, where the weather suits my clothes
At sea level These planes would become incontrollable at around 380 knots and start to break apart after around 420ish knots. Because of this fact commercial pilots with thousands of hrs say 510 knots at sea level is impossible especially with a mostly level flight path. Even the concord jet can’t go 510 knots at sea level. But some dudes who trained on a single engine cessna going 60 knots pulled this feat off hitting a 200 ft wide target going an impossible speed? It’s absurd.

I guess boeing built 757 and 767’s capable of supersonic flights at altitude and still controllable enough to hit a 208 ft wide target with a 25 foot margin of error on either side?? That’s amazing!!

If you don’t believe me you can do the EAS calculations yourself. Dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure and math doesn’t lie.

Either the speed data obtained by numerous sources is inaccurate and therefore flight safety is in jeopardy (major ramifications for the airline industry) or what actually hit those buildings isn’t what we were told. Either way the story told by the 9/11 commission is a lie.

For a real life comparison Egyptian air flight 990 went straight down and at 22,000 feet it achieved its maximum speed of 603 knots (425 knots equivalent at sea level) or mach .99 then broke apart shortly after that as commercial airliners aren’t designed for that stress and it hit denser air. These planes cant handle super sonic speeds. They break apart first.

OdgLtvU.png


H9CSkWi.png


K0k8uQP.png


Pilots for 9/11 truth:

In this video ^^^ Ross “Rusty” Aimer who has 30,000 hours and has captained one of the actual planes used on 9/11 (United 175) said 510 knots at sea level is impossible due to air density. Also The only way they would have the slightest chance of hitting their targets would be if they approached at landing speed which is around 130 knots.
So lemme ask the question: what is the difference if the plane hit at 350 knots or 500 knots?

The video evidence is indisputable....the planes hit the buildings
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,817
25,391
1
2020evidence.org
In the videos of the planes I ha e see the planes are far slower than 510 knots. They look like they are going quite slow.
Take that up with the NTSB. Its their data that says 510 knots airspeed.
So lemme ask the question: what is the difference if the plane hit at 350 knots or 500 knots?

The video evidence is indisputable....the planes hit the buildings
Good question. The difference is 757/767 can’t fly 510 knots airspeed at sea level. It’s physically impossible. So why did they lie about what hit the buildings? Why not fully investigate?

IOW Either the speed data produced by numerous sources is inaccurate and therefore flight safety is in jeopardy (major ramifications for the airline industry) or what actually hit those buildings isn’t what we were told. Either way the story told by the 9/11 commission is a lie. Why did they lie? Who are they protecting?
 

SheldonJoe2215

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2015
4,311
4,534
1
Portland, OR
False. Brandolinis is all about debunking bullshit that takes a long time etc. and there’s not an ounce of bullshit in my post. Also It takes 5 seconds to find an online EAS calculator and punch in 510 knots of airspeed at sea level to see what the equivalent airspeed is at 22,000 feet. So none of the principals of the law apply to my OP. Try harder!
I was actually thinking about BL in general, not with respect to your post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

Vic Vaselino

Well-Known Member
Nov 14, 2009
3,057
2,167
1
At sea level These planes would become incontrollable at around 380 knots and start to break apart after around 420ish knots. Because of this fact commercial pilots with thousands of hrs say 510 knots at sea level is impossible especially with a mostly level flight path. Even the concord jet can’t go 510 knots at sea level. But some dudes who trained on a single engine cessna going 60 knots pulled this feat off hitting a 200 ft wide target going an impossible speed? It’s absurd.

I guess boeing built 757 and 767’s capable of supersonic flights at altitude and still controllable enough to hit a 208 ft wide target with a 25 foot margin of error on either side?? That’s amazing!!

If you don’t believe me you can do the EAS calculations yourself. Dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure and math doesn’t lie.

Either the speed data obtained by numerous sources is inaccurate and therefore flight safety is in jeopardy (major ramifications for the airline industry) or what actually hit those buildings isn’t what we were told. Either way the story told by the 9/11 commission is a lie.

For a real life comparison Egyptian air flight 990 went straight down and at 22,000 feet it achieved its maximum speed of 603 knots (425 knots equivalent at sea level) or mach .99 then broke apart shortly after that as commercial airliners aren’t designed for that stress and it hit denser air. These planes cant handle super sonic speeds. They break apart first.

OdgLtvU.png


H9CSkWi.png


K0k8uQP.png


Pilots for 9/11 truth:

In this video ^^^ Ross “Rusty” Aimer who has 30,000 hours and has captained one of the actual planes used on 9/11 (United 175) said 510 knots at sea level is impossible due to air density. Also The only way they would have the slightest chance of hitting their targets would be if they approached at landing speed which is around 130 knots.
Speaking of speed, how many tabs have you dropped today?
 

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
46,511
21,764
1
DFW, TX
The only people doing drugs are the folks who believe a commercial airliner can go 100+ knots over the maximum operating/controllable airspeed at sea level (510 vs 360).

Just so we can get back to your theory.

Your theory is that a tomahawk missile hit the pentagon.

Not an aircraft which 1000s of witnesses saw hit the pentagon.

This because Boeing has tight standards for operating their aircraft well below the limits and because of a video of an old 1950s era fighter jet hitting a 10 foot thick cement block.

Right?

How do you explain this?


LdN
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
25,348
29,814
1
An altered state

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
46,511
21,764
1
DFW, TX
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister

Vic Vaselino

Well-Known Member
Nov 14, 2009
3,057
2,167
1
Just so we can get back to your theory.

Your theory is that a tomahawk missile hit the pentagon.

Not an aircraft which 1000s of witnesses saw hit the pentagon.

This because Boeing has tight standards for operating their aircraft well below the limits and because of a video of an old 1950s era fighter jet hitting a 10 foot thick cement block.

Right?

How do you explain this?


LdN
"splaining?
He ain't got no 'splaining,
He don't need no 'splaining,
He don't have to show you any 'splaining.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LionDeNittany

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,817
25,391
1
2020evidence.org
MIT dude of the speed of the planes. Says 503 MPH at impact for one 429 for the other. MPH is slower than knots at 1.1507/1. And the terrorist/pilots likely accelerated as they approached and were ‘on target’.

Yes, his numbers corroborate what the NTSB provided but there’s one problem. It’s physically impossible for a 767 to go that speed at sea level. The air is too dense. Max operating speed at sea level is 360 knots. The plane becomes uncontrollable after that and the air frame starts to break apart. Egyptian airlines flight 990 broke apart at the sea level equivalent of 420 knots. Pilots with tens of thousands of hours say it’s impossible to get a 767 to an airspeed of 510 knots sea level and the terrorists would never be able to hit the towers at that speed (it’d be hard for a pro to do at landing speeds around 130 knots).

What does all this mean? Either the speed data obtained by numerous sources is inaccurate and therefore flight safety is in jeopardy (major ramifications for the airline industry) or what actually hit those buildings isn’t what we were told. Either way the story told by the 9/11 commission is a lie.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jimarnp

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,817
25,391
1
2020evidence.org

Flight data shows aircraft converging, flying in formation, then diverging which coincides with Operation Northwoods (swapping commercial airliners with remote controlled drones after they take off as part of a false flag operation). To protect DC after the towers were hit the few fighters that weren’t tied up in war games were told to circle over the Atlantic ocean nowhere near DC after the DC sector was told to watch out for flight 77 which disappeared from radar sporadically and turned off its transponder.

Any plane approaching Washington class bravo airspace with no transponder and no comms with ATC would have been blown out of the sky by air defense systems on a normal day. Right as an unknown target coming from the west (flight 77) and after flight 11 had already been reported to hit the tower, someone at Boston military (based on what DC told them) sent word that AA flight 11 was still in the air and was heading south over NJ towards DC thus diverting all attention away from the unknown object approaching DC from the west. The Langely fighters that were over the Atlantic didn’t turn back towards DC until after the object disappeared from radar/pentagon hit.

Flight data also shows united flight 93 still being airborne after its alleged crash in Pennsylvania. ACARS data shows UA Flight 175 near Pittsburgh at 9:23am almost 20 mins after its reported crash into WTC South tower.
 

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,457
7,979
1
What part don’t you understand? The manufacturer set the max operating airspeed speed at ground level at 360 knots for a reason. After that the wings start to flop around and the plane becomes uncontrollable.

I’m not talking about knots of ground speed. The title of the OP says airspeed of 510 knots at sea level. As you said, only airspeed matters. The OP is all about doing the equivalent airspeed calculations. At no point is anything but airspeed mentioned.

Fair enough. To me, because using knots instead of MPH, and the "equivalence" conversion is about right for ground speed also, "...510 knots near sea level. At 22,000 ft the equivalent speed is 722 knots or mach 1.19" reads like it is in reference to ground speed. If that wasn't the point (and I believe you that it wasn't), my bad there.

With that said, while I wouldn't be surprised if if a commercial jetliner becomes reasonably susceptible to damage due to turbulence (air flow difference, and/or sudden change in air density/pressure) at 420 knots near sea level, no freaking way does it necessarily just start to break apart at 420 knots near sea level.
 

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
46,511
21,764
1
DFW, TX
Yes, his numbers corroborate what the NTSB provided but there’s one problem. It’s physically impossible for a 767 to go that speed at sea level. The air is too dense. Max operating speed at sea level is 360 knots. The plane becomes uncontrollable after that and the air frame starts to break apart. Egyptian airlines flight 990 broke apart at the sea level equivalent of 420 knots. Pilots with tens of thousands of hours say it’s impossible to get a 767 to an airspeed of 510 knots sea level and the terrorists would never be able to hit the towers at that speed (it’d be hard for a pro to do at landing speeds around 130 knots).

What does all this mean? Either the speed data obtained by numerous sources is inaccurate and therefore flight safety is in jeopardy (major ramifications for the airline industry) or what actually hit those buildings isn’t what we were told. Either way the story told by the 9/11 commission is a lie.

You really need to read up on aircraft.

A 767 and a 757 are two different aircraft.

Flight 77 was a 757.

Get a clue.

LdN
 

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,457
7,979
1
In the videos of the planes I ha e see the planes are far slower than 510 knots. They look like they are going quite slow.

I don't know.

When I watch the video, as they approach, with not much frame of reference, they might not seem like they're going all that fast (but if you focus and think about it, they actually seem like they're moving quite fast on the approach too).

But when they impact, and you have that immediate frame of reference, they seem like they're going pretty freaking fast to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206 and PSU87

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,457
7,979
1
Good question. The difference is 757/767 can’t fly 510 knots airspeed at sea level. It’s physically impossible. So why did they lie about what hit the buildings? Why not fully investigate?

IOW Either the speed data produced by numerous sources is inaccurate and therefore flight safety is in jeopardy (major ramifications for the airline industry) or what actually hit those buildings isn’t what we were told. Either way the story told by the 9/11 commission is a lie. Why did they lie? Who are they protecting?

Come on, now. It's ridiculous to claim that a 757/767 can't fly 510 knots near sea level.
 

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
46,511
21,764
1
DFW, TX
I don't know.

When I watch the video, as they approach, with not much frame of reference, they might not seem like they're going all that fast (but if you focus and think about it, they actually seem like they're moving quite fast on the approach too).

But when they impact, and you have that immediate frame of reference, they seem like they're going pretty freaking fast to me.

They were going the reported speed.
Plenty of witnesses attest to the sound, noise of engines at full throttle at a low flight level.

WeRs entire stupid theory, which is wrong, has no legs.

Yes, of course a 757 can go fast at low altitudes. It is not safe, but they were not trying to be safe.

Boeing aircraft can do considerably more than WeR is pretending the can.

LdN
 

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,457
7,979
1
Yes, his numbers corroborate what the NTSB provided but there’s one problem. It’s physically impossible for a 767 to go that speed at sea level. The air is too dense. Max operating speed at sea level is 360 knots. The plane becomes uncontrollable after that and the air frame starts to break apart. Egyptian airlines flight 990 broke apart at the sea level equivalent of 420 knots. Pilots with tens of thousands of hours say it’s impossible to get a 767 to an airspeed of 510 knots sea level and the terrorists would never be able to hit the towers at that speed (it’d be hard for a pro to do at landing speeds around 130 knots).

What does all this mean? Either the speed data obtained by numerous sources is inaccurate and therefore flight safety is in jeopardy (major ramifications for the airline industry) or what actually hit those buildings isn’t what we were told. Either way the story told by the 9/11 commission is a lie.

FYI: Some published "Max operating speed at sea level" is not the same as actual "Maximum possible speed at sea level."

You have to know this, WeR.
 

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,457
7,979
1
You know that a 747 can do a barrel roll?

It can. But i also know it isn't in the user guide.

LdN

A little off topic, but this post reminded me of a story my dad likes to tell.

He was in the Navy (Norfolk, VA) some time around when stuff was still warm with Cuba (during or shortly after the Cuban missile crisis). He was an airplane mechanic, primarily working on the F4.

For whatever reason, they got a sudden request for a few F4s to be over Cuba "ASAP." He said flight time wheels up in Norfolk, VA to air space over Cuba was right around 30 minutes. MUCH faster than the published "max speed" of the F4 says should have been possible.
 

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
46,511
21,764
1
DFW, TX
A little off topic, but this post reminded me of a story my dad likes to tell.

He was in the Navy (Norfolk, VA) some time around when stuff was still warm with Cuba (during or shortly after the Cuban missile crisis). He was an airplane mechanic, primarily working on the F4.

For whatever reason, they got a sudden request for a few F4s to be over Cuba "ASAP." He said flight time wheels up in Norfolk, VA to air space over Cuba was right around 30 minutes. MUCH faster than the published "max speed" of the F4 says should have been possible.

WeR reminds me of when I was in the Flat Earth Society of Jacksonville.

We would sit around and talk about how the earth was flat.

Then we would throw out random stupid theories, and try to defend them.

I'm pretty sure WeR isn't as stupod as he seems. He is gearing up for his next podcast and is testing his make believe conspiracy here first to see what holes we find.

The debris field is a big one he has conveniently forgotten about.
 

PSU87

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2001
13,016
7,646
1
Florida, where the weather suits my clothes
I don't know.

When I watch the video, as they approach, with not much frame of reference, they might not seem like they're going all that fast (but if you focus and think about it, they actually seem like they're moving quite fast on the approach too).

But when they impact, and you have that immediate frame of reference, they seem like they're going pretty freaking fast to me.
I would imagine someone with the right software could get the speed of the plane from the video rather easily. We have the length of the plane and width of the building as frames of reference
 

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
46,511
21,764
1
DFW, TX
I would imagine someone with the right software could get the speed of the plane from the video rather easily. We have the length of the plane and width of the building as frames of reference

Many people have. And they all say WeR is wrong.

He still has not explained the 757 debris from the crash.

And the 1000s of witnesses who saw a plane not a tomahawk missile

And the woman who called from the plane before it crashed.

I could go on.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,817
25,391
1
2020evidence.org
Fair enough. To me, because using knots instead of MPH, and the "equivalence" conversion is about right for ground speed also, "...510 knots near sea level. At 22,000 ft the equivalent speed is 722 knots or mach 1.19" reads like it is in reference to ground speed. If that wasn't the point (and I believe you that it wasn't), my bad there.

With that said, while I wouldn't be surprised if if a commercial jetliner becomes reasonably susceptible to damage due to turbulence (air flow difference, and/or sudden change in air density/pressure) at 420 knots near sea level, no freaking way does it necessarily just start to break apart at 420 knots near sea level.
Egyptian air 990 started breaking up once it hit the equivalent of around 420 knots at sea level. You might get a little faster than that before airframe failure but nowhere close to 510. The airframe simply can’t handle the stress/pressure. Again even the concord jet can’t go 510 knots airspeed at sea level.

No offense but watch the OP video @25 min mark. I’ll take the word of pilots that have 30,000+ hrs in 757/67 over your speculation when they say it’s physically impossible for one of those planes to go 510 knots airspeed at sea level. It’s so preposterous they laugh at the notion.
Come on, now. It's ridiculous to claim that a 757/767 can't fly 510 knots near sea level.
It’s ridiculous to claim that it can fly 150 knots over its max operating speed and be still controllable and not breaking apart. The engines aren’t powerful enough and the airframe/wings not strong enough. It certainly wouldn’t be controllable even if you somehow got it that fast via a dive of some sort. Too much dutch rolling, tail wagging, etc..an amateur who trained on a cessna wouldn’t have a chance of hitting anything.

FYI: Some published "Max operating speed at sea level" is not the same as actual "Maximum possible speed at sea level."

You have to know this, WeR.
Yes I know this. They set the limit for operating speed (ie the max speed the plane can be safely operated) bc once you cross it the wings start wobbling like spaghetti and the plane isn’t controllable. They do bake in a bit of a buffer though so thats why I said around 380 it’d start to wobble uncontrollably then at 420 is airframe failure etc.

Note the red line that starts at 420 knots in below chart:
wMoFVbr.png


Note the only way Egyptian air 990 was able to get to sea level equivalent of 420 knots was by doing a steep dive at altitude not by flying mainly horizontal.
I would imagine someone with the right software could get the speed of the plane from the video rather easily. We have the length of the plane and width of the building as frames of reference
People have done the calcs by looking at reference points and the speeds pretty much match what the NTSB provided.
 
Last edited:

DJ Spanky

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2001
1,269
2,062
1
Many people have. And they all say WeR is wrong.

He still has not explained the 757 debris from the crash.

And the 1000s of witnesses who saw a plane not a tomahawk missile

And the woman who called from the plane before it crashed.

I could go on.

It's like playing a game of Whack-A-Mole