Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Watch the camera shutter as this Boeing 757 does a high speed pass 40 feet of the ground. Then it goes completely vertical like a rocket-ship up into the clouds.
[YouTube]Uiv6UvYnf3s[/YouTube]
That actually says it was designed for a single 707, but the speaker believes it could survive multiple impacts.
The speaker was one of the designers..
Watch the camera shutter as this Boeing 757 does a high speed pass 40 feet of the ground. Then it goes completely vertical like a rocket-ship up into the clouds.
[YouTube]Uiv6UvYnf3s[/YouTube]
lol are you claiming its going 500 mph..are you claiming Boeing is wrong on its flight specs ?...its a video of a plane flying big deal
Watch the camera shutter as this Boeing 757 does a high speed pass 40 feet of the ground. Then it goes completely vertical like a rocket-ship up into the clouds.
[YouTube]Uiv6UvYnf3s[/YouTube]
lol are you claiming its going 500 mph..are you claiming Boeing is wrong on its flight specs ?...its a video of a plane flying big deal
That 757 is exceeding 400/mph 40ft above the ground because I can see vapor above & coming off it's wings when it turns up. Planes go faster than engines will push them after descending. There are everyday use design specs & then what a plane can actually do. You can dive a plane well beyond it's air-frame design capacity until it explodes in mid-air.
A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow
The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasnt 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. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA wont publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?
NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"
a responsibility to explain an aeronautical improbability
dwain deets
nasa dryden flight research center (senior executive service - retired)
aiaa associate fellow
the airplane was ua175, a boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into world trade center tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the national transportation and safety board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as i see them are: (1) this wasnt 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. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The ntsb, nasa, boeing, or the aiaa? Have engineers authored papers, but the aiaa or nasa wont publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?
nasa flight director confirms 9/11 aircraft speed as the "elephant in the room"
based on analysis of radar data, the national transportation and safety board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots.
operating velocity. Obviously you couldn't fly a plane faster than the maximum operating velocity for a minute or two because.......well......it's easier to wire tons of explosives or thermite into a building without detection.
Egyptair 990 broke the sound barrier for a brief time before it crashed and still lasted a few more minutes.
a responsibility to explain an aeronautical improbability
dwain deets
nasa dryden flight research center (senior executive service - retired)
aiaa associate fellow
the airplane was ua175, a boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into world trade center tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the national transportation and safety board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as i see them are: (1) this wasnt 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. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The ntsb, nasa, boeing, or the aiaa? Have engineers authored papers, but the aiaa or nasa wont publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?
nasa flight director confirms 9/11 aircraft speed as the "elephant in the room"
based on analysis of radar data, the national transportation and safety board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots.
operating velocity. Obviously you couldn't fly a plane faster than the maximum operating velocity for a minute or two because.......well......it's easier to wire tons of explosives or thermite into a building without detection.
Egyptair 990 broke the sound barrier for a brief time before it crashed and still lasted a few more minutes.
lol are you claiming its going 500 mph..are you claiming Boeing is wrong on its flight specs ?...its a video of a plane flying big deal
That 757 is exceeding 400/mph 40ft above the ground because I can see vapor above & coming off it's wings when it turns up. Planes go faster than engines will push them after descending. There are everyday use design specs & then what a plane can actually do. You can dive a plane well beyond it's air-frame design capacity until it explodes in mid-air.
Right you can tell the Air speed from a video
That 757 is exceeding 400/mph 40ft above the ground because I can see vapor above & coming off it's wings when it turns up. Planes go faster than engines will push them after descending. There are everyday use design specs & then what a plane can actually do. You can dive a plane well beyond it's air-frame design capacity until it explodes in mid-air.
Right you can tell the Air speed from a video
Note the vapor fog above the wings of this B1-B when it turns after it makes a 500/mph pass. It takes high speeds to separate the air like that & create vapor.
[YouTube]13JGsr95wFo[/YouTube]
a responsibility to explain an aeronautical improbability
dwain deets
nasa dryden flight research center (senior executive service - retired)
aiaa associate fellow
the airplane was ua175, a boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into world trade center tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the national transportation and safety board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as i see them are: (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. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The ntsb, nasa, boeing, or the aiaa? Have engineers authored papers, but the aiaa or nasa won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?
nasa flight director confirms 9/11 aircraft speed as the "elephant in the room"
based on analysis of radar data, the national transportation and safety board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots.
operating velocity. Obviously you couldn't fly a plane faster than the maximum operating velocity for a minute or two because.......well......it's easier to wire tons of explosives or thermite into a building without detection.
Egyptair 990 broke the sound barrier for a brief time before it crashed and still lasted a few more minutes.
it was not in a straight down uncontrolled dive it was making near impossible flight maneuvers...
nonsense they did not build a building that could not withstand one floor falling onto another..you think building engineers never thought of this ?
actually they were designed to take multiple air craft strikes
.
link?..you are claiming they built a building of this magnitude but it did not build in the structural integrity to withstand 1 hour of relatively small fires compared to other historical building fires that all remained standing ? ?
Yes, exactlly..this is why the building is built to withstand fire Einstien
The only person using the words vaporized or levitated is you..it is clear in the video that a sec after collpase imitation much of the top section is reduced to pulverized concrete and outside the perimeter of the building...I see nothing in this statement that would imply there was anything magical about this fact
Are you, eots, suggesting that the laws of physics changed because the lower section of that building was weakened? Remember what TakeAStepBack says:
Even though the "lower section" was weakened, it's still somewhat intact and needs a force to finish the job and completely shear the "lower section". So based on what TakeAStepBack says above, this isn't possible. How did that "upper section" section in the video have enough energy to shear the rest of the "lower section" AND shear itself into debris?
Why do you keep avoiding this?
You're contradicting TakeAStepBack's "understanding" of the laws of physics.
Also, what happened to the fact that buildings are designed to support MANY times their designed load capacity? Even though the "lower section" was weakened, it still supported the "upper section"just fine until that upper section was released. Why didn't the "lower section" stop the "upper section"?
What turned the "upper section" into debris?
Better yet, address the above eots.
What are you afraid of?
C'mon eots. Explain please. Teach TakeAStepBack how to properly apply the "laws of physics".
My father was the largest permanent installation window washing manufacturer in the nation. We actually did work for the architect that designed the World Trade Center. My father described the man as an absolute genius in his field. One of the biggest concerns when manufacturing equipment that will hold men's lives is structural failure. As a rigger and installer, I understood breaking strengths for the materials I worked with and things like torque and sheer and how to analyze the forces acting upon my rigging. So, when I listened to the government explanation of how and why the WTC towers collapsed, I had to scratch my head in disbelief. Mostly, the only explanation put forth was the pancake theory... but when it was pointed out that pancaked floors would have left behind the core, the official story went blurry and sort of settled in this idea that the core was somehow pulverized by the weight of the tops bearing down upon them... as if the weight of the tops weren't always bearing down upon them, as if that isn't exactly what the core holds up.
Mostly, it is a taboo subject with the government, mostly they just don't want to talk about it. They put out contracts with NIST for them to work up some kind of explanation, actually paying for it with our taxes. The NIST contractors that won the contracts did their best to toss out real engineering studies that were somehow concluding what the government wanted to hear, without bothering to make any logical sense, but that wasn't the true goal as everyone involved understood it, a cover up doesn't need to make sense it just papers over the crime and walks away. So it was mission accomplished by NIST, and still we have no clear explanation of structural failure, no congruent story that shows exactly what happened, and yes, that's exactly what engineers normally provide.
So, let me ask you... how did those towers collapse?
I get all kinds of whacky answers, like the office fires super heated the steel; and other ridiculous nonsense that has no bearing in the real world, but when it comes right down to it, the bottom line is the government explanation for structural failure relies on the weight of the structure collapsing itself. The structure is designed to hold its own weight + a lot of people (that had already left the tower when it collapsed) + class four hurricane winds. Since the structural integrity of the lower floors were 100% intact, this idea that the weight of the upper portions of the towers somehow collapsed the lower portions makes absolutely no sense... not to anyone with any understanding of structural failure.
But just for the fun of it, let me ask the question anyway. Could you please point out the big heavy object that is crushing the floors below it? Because when I look at pictures of the collapse at their halfway point in their free fall speeds, drop to the pavement below; I can't see any top portion of tower doing this herculean crushing of the entire structure below it. That's because the demolition wave began at points of impact and went in both directions; down and up, and since the towers were struck in the upper portions, the tops were blown to pieces by the time the bottoms were still only half blown to pieces. So, there was no upper tower portion left bearing down upon the lower portions of the tower. Which is why I scratched my head in disbelief at all those explanations that relied on this nonexistent weight to do all this crushing downward against the vertical core. The upper portions would have been pathetically incapable of performing that crushing had they existed to do so. But they didn't exist to do so. They were already gone by the halfway point of the demolition wave in the lower portions.
Okay school children, Could you please point out the big heavy object that is crushing the floors below it?
