Flight 175 flew at 693mph in the final 52 miles.

[luciferhorus]

Flight 175 flew at 693mph in the final 52 miles.


This was originally posted on the No Planer thread by "ellis_deatrip" but before it got lost in the numerous posts regarding the impact of flight 175 into the south tower, I thought I would post it in a new thread as it would appear to be quite significant.

There are numerous posts alleging that it would not be possible for the Boeing to fly much faster than 400mph at ground level and still have the alleged hijacker (whose only alleged experience was in flying small Cessna planes) keep control of the plane sufficiently to target the centre of the tower.

It seems that according to the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board ) that the last 52 miles with the Boeing 767 travelled was at an average speed of just under 700 mph, breaking the sound barrier in the process.

Thus far discussions have been raging about whether it was possible for the 767 to fly at over 500mph, as has been commonly reported.

Was this a miracle from Allah?

Lux

Cut n' Pasted from another site.
Source pdf here. (http://www.ntsb.gov/Info/foia_fri.htm#highway)




"Definitive calculations on United Airlines Flight 175 average speed for the final 52 miles are:

52 miles in 270 seconds = 693.2 mph

Speed of Sound (Mach 1) at that height is 692.8 mph.

An average speed of 692.8 mph on a descent from 25,000 feet to below 1,000 feet, covering a distance of 52 miles directly towards target in just over 4.5 minutes, represents a totally impossible achievement for a mid-size wide-body twinjet airliner.

ANOTHER FIRST TIME IN HISTORY FOR A 911 EVENT:
A Boeing 767-200 matched the SPEED OF SOUND during 4 minutes and didn´t DESINTEGRATE in the Process.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Info/foia_fri.htm
In August 2006 the NTSB, in response to a NSA FOI request, finally released details of the 9/11 flights.

The report includes a flight profile, a ground track, A pressure altitude graph derived from radar mode C returns, and a transcript of radio communications.

The following is a "blow by blow" of the alleged plane's astonishing flight, taken from the report:

United Airlines Flight 175 departed Boston Logan at 8:14AM

It reached 31,000 feet at 8:33AM

The final radio transmission was at 8:42AM

Beacon Codes were changed twice within one minute at 8:47AM

UA 175 started into a climbing turn to the South East at 8:51AM

It reached 33,500 feet at 8:53AM

UA 175 began its descent while continuing its turn

It turned towards North East while its descent continued

The "plane" was now headed towards WTC2 in a direction of North east (45 degrees)
at what is termed point (G)

Its altitude at this point was 25,000 feet at 8:58 AM

It was at 24,000 feet at 8:59AM

18,500 feet at 9:00AM

15,000 feet at 9:01AM

9,000 feet at 9:02AM

The "plane" is presumed to have struck its target at a height under 1000 feet at 9:02 40 AM. Mission Accomplished.

This is incredible target acquisitioning, but just as incredible is the fact that according to the NTSB report, which was founded on three sets of radar data ( FAA, JFK Approach and USAF) the alleged plane covered the sixty mile distance in approximately 4 minutes and 40 seconds. That works out to an average of 700 mph; this is above Mach 1!, a totally impossible achievement, on multiple levels, for a mid-size wide-body twinjet airliner."

[aviatorexp]

Another piece of ‘Definitive Analysis’ which has been fabricated to suit the arguments of the author.

Below shows how the speed of sound increases as altitude decreases. It is dependent on temperature. The ICAO standard for the adiabatic lapse rate of temperature with an increase in altitude is deemed to be a drop of 1.98deg C per 1000ft increase in altitude. With a sea level temp of 20 deg C.

At 25,000 ft speed of sound is 699mph
At 20,000 ft speed of sound is 713mph
At 15,000 ft speed of sound is 727mph
At 10,000 ft speed of sound is 741mph
At 5,000 ft speed of sound is 754mph
At 4,000 ft speed of sound is 757mph
At 3,000 ft speed of sound is 759mph
At 2,000ft speed of sound is 762mph
At 1,000ft speed of sound is 765mph
At sea level speed of sound is 767mph

So as the aircraft descended so the speed of sound increased for each drop in altitude.

We can see that within 5000ft the speed of sound increased beyond the speed at which the aircraft was going, so even if the aircraft speed was 700mph the lower it went the further away from the speed of sound it got. It never did break the sound barrier.

To use the one speed of sound at 25,000 for the whole descent is misleading and dishonest.

[luciferhorus]

Another piece of ‘Definitive Analysis’ which has been fabricated to suit the arguments of the author.

Below shows how the speed of sound increases as altitude decreases. It is dependent on temperature. The ICAO standard for the adiabatic lapse rate of temperature with an increase in altitude is deemed to be a drop of 1.98deg C per 1000ft increase in altitude. With a sea level temp of 20 deg C.

At 25,000 ft speed of sound is 699mph
At 20,000 ft speed of sound is 713mph
At 15,000 ft speed of sound is 727mph
At 10,000 ft speed of sound is 741mph
At 5,000 ft speed of sound is 754mph
At 4,000 ft speed of sound is 757mph
At 3,000 ft speed of sound is 759mph
At 2,000ft speed of sound is 762mph
At 1,000ft speed of sound is 765mph
At sea level speed of sound is 767mph

So as the aircraft descended so the speed of sound increased for each drop in altitude.

We can see that within 5000ft the speed of sound increased beyond the speed at which the aircraft was going, so even if the aircraft speed was 700mph the lower it went the further away from the speed of sound it got. It never did break the sound barrier.

To use the one speed of sound at 25,000 for the whole descent is misleading and dishonest.

Well while I assume that you are correct, the point still remains that this passenger aircraft flew at an average speed of 700 mph; whether it broke the sound barrier is entirely a red herring and an irrelevancy.

Lux

[firstlook]

Well while I assume that you are correct, the point still remains that this passenger aircraft flew at an average speed of 700 mph; whether it broke the sound barrier is entirely a red herring and an irrelevancy.

Lux

agreed.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Well while I assume that you are correct, the point still remains that this passenger aircraft flew at an average speed of 700 mph; whether it broke the sound barrier is entirely a red herring and an irrelevancy.

Lux

So what if it did?

[aviatorexp]

Well while I assume that you are correct, the point still remains that this passenger aircraft flew at an average speed of 700 mph; whether it broke the sound barrier is entirely a red herring and an irrelevancy.

Lux

Thanks for admitting the article you posted was an irrelevant red hearing.

I don't have any problem with an airliner hitting 700mph in a sustained dive at full power. In fact I still don't have a problem with an airliner recovering from greater than mach 1 speeds, it happened before and indeed there was a DC 8 that achieved supersonic flight on purpose.www.dc8.org/library/supersonic/index.php (http://www.dc8.org/library/supersonic/index.php)

[luciferhorus]

I should point out that this thread hass also running on the "Pilots for 911" truth since 1997 which is full of pilots and engineers and where one poster has estimated the speed of the 767 at up to 774 mph.

The thread is on: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9179

I quote from one of the posts there:

This is incredible target acquisitioning, but just as incredible is the fact that according to the NTSB report, which was founded on three sets of radar data ( FAA, JFK Approach and USAF) the alleged plane covered the sixty mile distance in approximately 4 minutes and 40 seconds. That works out to an average of 774 mph; this is above Mach 1! (The altitude ascent and descent are worthy of interest too, I might add)

Now a Boeing 767's cruising speed is Mach 0.8 at 35,000 feet which is 530 mph. Its Maximum cruising speed is Mach 0.86 which is 568 mph.

An average speed of 774 mph on a descent from 25,000 feet to below 1,000 feet, covering a distance of sixty miles directly towards target in just over 4.5 minutes, represents a totally impossible achievement, on multiple levels, for a mid-size wide-body twinjet airliner.

The posters responding make various recalculations however they still appear to come up with the "impossible" speed and piloting argument.

2Magellan = 50 miles

Google = 42.5 miles

At this point I would say that the correct distance of point (G) to WTC2, as per Google, is approximately: 52 miles, i.e. 45 nautical miles or 84 kilometers for our German friends

Just for thoroughness' sake though, on the basis that Magellan's trumps Google (an underdog's chance here?) we are talking:

60 miles in 280 seconds = 771 mph

60 miles in 270 seconds = 799.8 mph


However, on the perhaps more likely basis that Google is correct, we have:

52 miles in 280 seconds = 668.2 mph (i.e. as per NTSB flight profile: conservative estimate)

52 miles in 270 seconds = 693.2 mph (i.e. as per m-v-b's read of the NTSB graphic)

In other words a speed of roughly 670 - 690 mph, i.e. too darn fast!"

Also other inconsistencies with the video have been pointed out in this thread

2The RADES data of Flight 175 shows it dropping 6400 feet in the last minute
of radar coverage. The last 12 seconds it drops 2400 feet.
That seems awfully fast to me.
RADES data ends at 13.02.23 am so at this point some of the videos should show a steep dive happening but most of the video I have seen only shows a shallow dive as it flies over the city. 2400 feet is ten fuselage lengths in 12 seconds so it ought to be visible in some of the footage.
Also the transponder was still on so the altitude data should be more accurate for Flight 175 than for the other planes which had to be estimated"

and

"Some things I would expect to see with aluminum aircraft operated over the "safe limit" for extended periods of time: popped rivets, metal fatigue in the wing structure and engine pylon, possible wingtip shearing, jet engine "flame out" due to excessive airflow velocity, control surface failure or damage, flight instability, possible wing root fatigue/cracking/shearing.

Unfortunately, engineering is increasingly about economics, and the primary function of a passenger aircraft is to move as many passengers as possible to generate revenue- this puts light weight as a higher priority than durability, since aluminum and JP4 don't purchase boarding passes. In military aircraft, aircraft survivability and combat effectiveness are nearly the ONLY priorities.

Weakened, cracked, or shorn wing structure or control surfaces would make it exceedingly unlikely to complete "aerobatics-like" maneuvers, especially in a loaded 767 IMHO...


and


"Airframes may exceed speed limits to a degree, but not enough to make sense WRT the NTSB data presented. If indeed that NTSB data can be relied upon. At airspeeds near the limits then aircraft are restricted as to what maneuvers can be carried out without over-stressing. Thus a dive at increasing AS followed buy a sharp pull out at under 1000ft would be destructive for a 757 or 767.

Whatever, the engines are even more subject to airspeed limitations. The large diameter turbofans of these aircraft are ill suited to transonic or above flight by there very design and structure. Furthermore any gas turbine engine requires air intake at subsonic speeds, well considerably less at about 0.5M, else they will surge with potentially destructive consequences and at the very least the chance of a flame out.

Aircraft designed for supersonic flight have special arrangements to reduce the velocity of air entering the engine compressor. The shock waves that build up at these speed are controlled so that the line of the wave extends from the origin point and across the lip of the intake. As air passes through the shock wave it is slowed down.

The Phantom F4 had a variable ramp system with a double plate system attached at the rear of the splitter plate and vertically hinged fore and aft and at their junction so that a variable wedge could be controlled by a system sensitive to airspeed, the air being fed from one of the probes on the fin leading edge, and thus control the speed of air into the engine's compressor.

The English Electric Lightning achieved similar engine intake airspeed control by moving the radome for and aft to adjust the angle of the shockwave as a/c airspeed changed.

Concorde (note the 'e', something we Brit's were not that happy about at the time) had a more complex arrangement, some of this was to do with ensuring enough thrust from the engine system as a whole – intake, gas-turbine and nozzle – to ensure maintenance of supersonic flight without afterburner (re-heat).

For a diagram and explanation see:

http://www.concordesst.com/powerplant.html

You see there is no way that a large fan engine can go supersonic.

and

"O892 brings up a very good point- the angular momentum of the fan blades would likely cause the 2 jet engines to "grenade" in a gross overspeed condition. This would possibly break up the engines themselves, and it would most probably cause further engine operation/acceleration to be exceedingly improbable."

and

"And what is more the tips, at designed max rpm not far short of sonic velocities would go supersonic with all the problems of HF vibration and loading that this would entail.

Also compressor, and turbine blades, are designed for optimum resistance to bending with air flow from a particular direction, in a surge condition airflow is reversed and can cause catastrophic damage.

We had many early problems with our Phantom Spey engines and in those early days as engines at various Mod standards came through (we became used to doing engine changes blindfold and I figure I could still do one without looking at the book, throttle rigging excepted which was another whole can of worms) we test run using external control test sets.

The guy in the cockpit was there simply to start up, monitor TGT etc and shut down, in an emergency if necessary. Those using the test set were highly knowledgeable and experienced on the design operating parameters of all aspects of the gas turbine system and AB.

Inappropriate use of the test set could set up conflicting conditions in the gas stream with potentially destructive result and violent at that"

and


"To summ up the progress: for now we've found there at least 10 anomalies:

1. the beggining of the record 9200ft in mid air
2. the chute 1600ft immediately afterwards
3. the speed 325mph measured immediately afterwards
4. that skyrocket 4000 ft with angle 50°
5. that chute 3600 ft with angle 34°
6. that very sharp turn right at least 80° at one mile
7. that very sharp turn left at least 75° at one mile
8. the 739.45mph @33600 aka. 1.107Mach
9. the 660mph @ 24800ft aka. 0.951Mach
10. the 570mph @ 2800ft

which all suggest the missile and most of them would fully disqualify a civil B767"

Just to restate, the point is not whether the Boeing767 broke the actual sound barrier, but that it appears to have performed impossible maneuvers and speeds.

Thanks for admitting the article you posted was an irrelevant red hearing.

I was referring to whether the Boeing broke the sound barrier or not being a Red Herring.


I don't have any problem with an airliner hitting 700mph in a sustained dive at full power. In fact I still don't have a problem with an airliner recovering from greater than mach 1 speeds, it happened before and indeed there was a DC 8 that achieved supersonic flight on purpose.www.dc8.org/library/supersonic/index.php (http://www.dc8.org/library/supersonic/index.php)


I don't personally claim to be an expert in aviation, I merely read the opinions of others who claim to be experts in that field and there appears to be an entire forum of experts who do not believe that a 767 could make the maneuvers and speeds that it did, and that even were it possible that it would sustain damage and become uncontrollable. Of course for the US state terrorist collaborators, anything is possible and all US military propaganda is always true.

When you start from the position that state terrorism is a good thing and that terrorist propaganda must be defended, and then work backwards, you can probably convince yourself of anything and everything, however if you start from a more honest, historical and objective position and understand that the US military has a long history of terrorism, black operations, deception, narco-terrorism, military coups and overt warfare, then it becomes obvious that all their propaganda should be questionable, and that all who attempt to defend them are simply terrorist collaborators, and that "independent (i.e, non terrorist collaborators)" experts have a much greater credibility than the defenders of a bunch of drugs dealers such as the US military.

Lux

[aviatorexp]

I myself am an aeronautical engineer, and in my career I have heard reports of aircraft doing some very ‘impossible’ things, just because an aircraft cruises at a particular speed does not mean that is all it can do, full power dives achieve ridiculously high speeds without destroying the airframe and whilst sudden manoeuvres at high speed are likely to cause failure, it does not mean that this would happen each and every time. In flight 175s particular case because many of the variables have been estimated,
the only thing one can conclude is that:

a) The aircraft may or may not have reached the reported very high speeds,
b) The starting point of the descent is ambiguous so the actual ground covered in the time frame is not known.

Like I said before though, I have no problem with a 767 pulling out of a 700mph dive, if the variables allow. By my own admission though the belief in the existence of those variables are compromised to a certain degree because I think the aircraft hit the towers. So in other words my statement would be on the lines of; the criteria which allowed the aircraft to recover from such a descent must have been present due to the fact that the aircraft did not fall apart before it hit the building.

Lux,

I understand the general lack of trust towards the US government and departments, and I have stated many times that I equal that lack of trust. I am no lover of governments anywhere period. However, in this particular case, I have examined alot of the information that has been presented and I still find the original physical aspects of the events that took place far more plausible than the conspiracy theories. My back ground is Engineering and I specialise in aeronautics, I am also a light aircraft pilot for recreation, which does not make me an expert on flying a 767, but the engineering side gives me a better insight into what an aircraft can or can't do, especially on the structural side. So from an engineering point of view I don't find anything out of the ordinary about an airliner performing the said manouvre, I am not saying that in all cases the out come would have been the same, but in this particular case the way everything was assembled, riveted, bolted, glued, welded, held together long enough for even the inexperienced pilot to make it to the building. It does just happen sometimes.

[frenat]

How exact are the reference points used in the calculations? They are based on radar data correct? How big of a resolution cell was there on the radars measuring the positions? For those not up on radar theory, every radar has a resolution cell. Vertical, angular, and depth dimensions in which they can resolve individual aircraft. Within that cell an aircraft could be at any point. Depending on the radar the dpth part of the res cel could be half a mile, a mile or more. Angular, again depending on the radar, the res cell is expressed in degrees related to the beam width. A decent air surveillance radar has a beam width of around 1 degree which equates to about a mile uncertainty at 60 miles from the radar. The beam continues to spread and around 120 miles is about 2 degrees wide. Also, are the altitudes from Mode C IFF reported or radar reported? Radar reported altitudes can be 5 thousand feet off.

All of the above taken together means the position may not be very accurate. That is why they require at least 10 miles separation horizontally for co-altitude air traffic.

[ultima1]

I myself am an aeronautical engineer, and in my career I have heard reports of aircraft doing some very ‘impossible’ things, .

But as a engineer you should also be aware of certain conditions in flight, such as.

1. Ground effect.
http://www.faatest.com/books/FLT/Chapter17/GroundEffect.htm

2. Compressablity.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/instruments/q0251.shtml

[luciferhorus]

I myself am an aeronautical engineer, and in my career I have heard reports of aircraft doing some very ‘impossible’ things, just because an aircraft cruises at a particular speed does not mean that is all it can do, full power dives achieve ridiculously high speeds without destroying the airframe and whilst sudden manoeuvres at high speed are likely to cause failure, it does not mean that this would happen each and every time. In flight 175s particular case because many of the variables have been estimated,
the only thing one can conclude is that:

a) The aircraft may or may not have reached the reported very high speeds,
b) The starting point of the descent is ambiguous so the actual ground covered in the time frame is not known.

Like I said before though, I have no problem with a 767 pulling out of a 700mph dive, if the variables allow. By my own admission though the belief in the existence of those variables are compromised to a certain degree because I think the aircraft hit the towers. So in other words my statement would be on the lines of; the criteria which allowed the aircraft to recover from such a descent must have been present due to the fact that the aircraft did not fall apart before it hit the building.

The Devil in the Details

Personally I am not qualified to comment on this as I am not an aeronautical engineer, however obviously my suspicions are aroused by the fact that there are aeronautical engineers and pilots on the Pilots for 911 Truth forum who have a great difficulty believing the US state terrorist propaganda on this matter.

Indeed if you look at http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/ there are almost 100,000 posts on that forum where I think you will find others in your own area of expertise some of whom may probably agree with you, but my obsevation is that most will disagree with you.

Frankly as I am more of a "historian" athan a scientist, I can only observe the "expert" debates on what is possible and impossible in aviation from a rather amateur perspective.

The case for 911 being a black US military operation however does not depend on this single issue or on the "WTC No Plane issue" which is debated a length here; in fact most of the major documentaries on this subject do not even consider these issues (regardless of the merits or non merits of the arguments).

I understand the general lack of trust towards the US government and departments, and I have stated many times that I equal that lack of trust. I am no lover of governments anywhere period. However, in this particular case, I have examined alot of the information that has been presented and I still find the original physical aspects of the events that took place far more plausible than the conspiracy theories.

My Judgement.

Well it is the US government's position and the position of other terrorist collaborators here which is a "conspiracy theory" about a group of Muslims.

To restate, since the US state terrorists / narco-terrorists have a long history of terrorism, black operations, deception, narcotics trafficking, etc., their terrorist propaganda is automatically suspect.

My attention was originally diverted to this matter back in late 2001 when an aquaintance of mine who is ex military intellience and an investment banker convinced me that 911 was a black military operation, simply due to trades in the multi-trillion dollar derivatives market; frankly the major Capitalists of the City of London were all too well aware of this matter long before the political Left and the conspiracy theory crowd got on board.

However prior to 2001 as a Communist and a political activist, I had already reached my judgement on American state terrorism by studying their long history of terrorism, narco-terrorism murder, genocide, narco-terrorism, military coups, covert and overt wars; 911 is totally irrelevant to my judgement since it was formed prior.

Since 2001, a vast array of evidence has been produced by pilots, scientists and academics which I believe, taken as a whole, proves the case against the US military state terrorists far beyond any reasonable doubt. Frankly I simply don't accept the position of anyone who claims to support the state terrorist position, any more than I would accept the testimony of a mafia don like John Gotti if he produced his own "experts" to claim that he was not involved in narcotics trafficking; similarly with the CIA; I simply consider those who swallow their propaganda to be either gullible idots, or if they are sufficiently educated to be simply terrorist collaborators and guilty by default and by association.

Unfortunately the "jury is out" and they have already long since passed judgement on the 911 state terrorist black operation. Outside the protective shell of US media propaganda there is a world population including a billion Muslims who are convinced that 911 and numerous other terrorist actions, wars, genocides and military coups have been the work of the US state terrorists. Since the US is certainly the world's leading terrorist state their defenders and collaborators have simply no credibility.

I have travelled widely throughout the Islamic world and in my last recent visit it seemed to me that anyone who actually believed that 911 was "not" the work of the American state terrorists would not only be subjected to mockery and ridicule, but would be in danger of being considered a "terrorist collaborator" themselves and would be in fact risking their life, so great is the wrath against the world's leading terrorist state (The USA) and her allies.

There are a billion angry militant Muslims who will simply not accept US military propaganda and who now "automatically" consider almost any statement by US terrorist collaborators to be suspect; it is simply the case of the "boy who cried wolf" and it does not appear to me that on 911 that the US terrorists have chosen on this one occasion to break the mould and tell the truth.

The Forthcoming Execution of Judgement. The Sentance of War & Genocide. Death & Hell.

Ultimately this matter cannot be solved by debate; it can only be resolved by war, and since the US terrorists have weapons of mass destruction, it is a common opinion among the enemies of the American terrorists that they can only be defeated by the same methods and by taking the war to their homelands.

As far as I am concerned this is ultimately a military matter, and my judgement has long since been cast; those defending US propaganda are simply unworthy of life and are morally subhuman. I will not be satisfied until the last American Capitalist is exterminated from the face of the earth, and fortunately behind be are myraids who think likewise.

Lux
Apocalyptic Guerilla War, Fire, Plague and Poisoned Waters.
No Mercy on they who deserve none.

[ellis_deatrip]

Perhaps it is time to figure out what type of craft are capable of traveling at 700+ mph at that altitude. Eliminate the "impossible" variable.
such as this(probably posted elsewhere in this forum):
AGM-158 JASSM Cruise Missile - YouTube

[frenat]

But as a engineer you should also be aware of certain conditions in flight, such as.

1. Ground effect.
http://www.faatest.com/books/FLT/Chapter17/GroundEffect.htm

2. Compressablity.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/instruments/q0251.shtml
Ground effect is greatest at low speeds. It decreases as speed increases and at high speeds is negligible

[ultima1]

Ground effect is greatest at low speeds. It decreases as speed increases and at high speeds is negligible

But it still effects that way the plane flys.

A military witness at the Pentagon stated that it looked like the pilot was fighting to control the plane.