9/11 Truth for Dummies: Why Near-Free Fall Speed Was Impossible Without Explosives

Not at the speed the airliner hit

 

so raw velocity takes care of everything
is that what you think?
all the aircraft bits just get sucked into the PENTAGON
like there was a giant vacuum cleaner inside and that was that.

sad really .......

 

Velocity didn't hurt


Momentum did that,no need to be silly..

 

however, the question of focus comes again.
Stuff broken off the aircraft by the impact, would
be following a course that was governed both by
the initial vector of the aircraft movement, but also
the action of dislodging it from its initial location and
whatever spin or change in direction happened, it would
change the trajectory of the bits and in a random manner.
So exactly how probable is it that 99% of said aircraft would
enter the Pentagon?

 

Probability would be high

 

So you state that the probability would be high
and I say its very low, so how to sort this out?

I would encourage the observer here to look at
all precedent pix of airliner crashes and ask yourself
how much stuff follows an nice neat linear path, and
how much stuff is scattered all over, because of chaotic forces.

Not rocket science people .......

 

These were unique crashes, all four of them. Examine the physics of the event.

 

This is the crash site of valuejet flight 592.



Where's the plane?

 

and total loss of an airliner happens exactly how often?
we are talking about a very rare event, that just happened
to occur 4 times on the same day.

 

And terrorists flying commercial aircraft at top speed into targets happens exactly how often?

 

Excuses & incredulity, You seem to believe that a valid reason for total loss of the aircraft is the fact that terrorist allegedly flew the aircraft into buildings, however there is no proof one way or another, however, total destruction of anything is an indication of human intervention.

 

Indeed: the terrorists were humans.

 

and did they specifically craft a plan to completely destroy the aircraft?

 

Yes: They planned to fly them at top speed into buildings.

 

and though you may wish it so, that "top speed" isn't 590 mph,
+ the fact that total destruction 4X is statistically in a class all by itself.

 

Indeed, top speed is a bit higher than 590 mph, and the terrorists failed to reach one of their targets, due to passenger intervention.

 

You don't have to take my word for it, there are various aviation experts who have stated that its impossible to fly an airliner at 590 mph @ < 1000 ft altitude.

 

Provide a link to any three aviation experts stating categorically that it is "impossible to fly an airliner at 590 mph @ < 1000 ft altitude". Since there are 'various' ones, three should be easy, yes?

Claim made, let's see you support it, please.

 

not the point,it has happened,so it's NOT an impossibility

 

Found this on an aviation board

Airliners.net

Jetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2543 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted Wed Feb 26 2014 11:29:42 your local time (5 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1266 times:

Vd is the maximum demonstrated airspeed. The aircraft will be structurally safe at that speed. Exceeding that speed does not mean the aircraft will breakup. There will be quite a margin between this safe speed and one where the structure starts to break up.

471 kts represents about 25% more dynamic pressure than 420 kts and therefore 25% higher forces. The civil aircraft structural limit factor is 1.5, representing a 50% excess load before ultimate failure. Therefore it's quite likely the 767 structure would be intact at 471 kts. The conspiracy theorists cannot say with any certainty that this is impossibly high for a 767.

 

and the opposition can not state with any certainty that the aircraft would be controllable at such speed. Not to mention how does the aircraft achieve & maintain this extreme speed? 3 deg "dive" & full throttle?
The incredulity abounds here and just WHO is "Jetlagged "
when the authority figures of the TRUTH movement have something to say they publish under their own names .... David Ray Griffin, Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Bowman, David Chandler ( etc....)

 

Do you dispute what he posted?

Then by all means prove him wrong,despite your incredulity

 

Again, your question is MOOT, IRRELEVANT, USELESS...because we all saw it happen, it was recorded by the networks, as well as, dozens of people on the ground in NYC...from different angles, distances ...all using different equipment.

 

So an airliner can be expected to travel at 420 knots at <1000 ft altitude,
is that what you think? How about more like 370 knots as a max at that altitude and use that for the starting point, also the speed alleged by the official report is 590 mph or 510 knots, much larger difference & I submit to this forum that the stress to the aircraft would far exceed that 1.5 figure. Now we could sit here and play games with numbers till the cows come home, but what is especially relevant here, is the factor of it being a total unknown, that is will the aircraft be controllable at gross overspeed? This question alone makes it a moot point, would a terrorist risk the mission, and potentially have the aircraft fall in the river next to the towers, rather than complete the mission and strike the tower, and all because of a gamble with attempting to fly the aircraft as fast as possible, and really the debate rages on as to was it possible at all to achieve that sort of speed. Most certainly the factor of control is an issue and the aircraft may not be controllable at all.

So its a gamble, the conditions prevailing at >500 knots
flying a Boeing 757/767 may or may NOT make it possible
for a pilot to actually control the aircraft, and of course in the
case of causing damage, if a control surface succumbed to
damage from this stunt, then all bets are off, the aircraft would
NOT be controllable, a novice pilot is NOT going to be able to
compensate for control problems caused by damage to the aircraft.
in short, the whole hijacked airliners fiasco is a non-starter ......

 

Lots and lots of speculation and incredulity in your post, but no citations to back it up.

You were going to link to your experts who state what the top speed of the aircraft would be?