Flight 175 - Impossible speed?

[montag]

I posted this video in another thread which was moved to the conspiratainment section so I want to re post it here to get peoples thoughts on it.

Just to be clear I don't have a position either way on the planes or no planes theory so I have nothing to defend, I'm just looking for the truth.


YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[tb303]

Here's a 757 doing around 400 mph at 100 ft

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[montag]

Thanks tb303, that seems to contradict what they're saying in the vid..

Anyone else have any opinions?

[montag]

Heres another one that looks to be going even faster..

RNZAF 757 flypast at Avalon Airshow 2005 - YouTube

[montag]

It was mentioned in another thread how the plane dived just before hitting the building as shown here, the plane can be seen descending rapidly before pulling up 2 or 3 seconds at most before collision
9/11 CBS 175 Dive Bomber Full - YouTube

But this one from a different angle shows the plane flying directly at the south tower for around five seconds before collision, go figure..
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

This gets weirder and weirder the more I look in to it..:confused:

[montag]

Here's another one, and I'm being completely serious: the maneuvers in the 911 crash would be forbidden by the computer system aboard. I firmly believe that box-cutters intimidated the computer system as well!!

This is a site with info on aerodynamics:

tinyurl dotcom/3bhgqc
It says the air density at sea level is 4 times that at 30,000 feet therefore the drag on the airliner would be 4 times as great. The engines would need 4 times as much power to overcome the drag. It seems unlikely that a normal airliner would be that over powered.

so if it cant go that fast then whats that mean? its not a 767? some other kind of plane or something?

This is a great video. But one major factor has not been addressed. Banking an aircraft puts stress on the wings and airframe. This is known as wing loading. Banking a 767 at 500 mph/kts would create an enormous amount of wing loading, and the pilots would have to be condition to sustain a high G manuever. The first time I pulled 4 Gs I couldn't even see shit. Couldn't pick my arms up off my lap. But the terrorists were conditioned to fly high G manuevers?

This video is full of disinformation, which is probably why you seem to be confused about its message. It sets out to prove that the plane was not real, because it could not travel at the estimated speed. This is not true, it could travel at 575+ mph, and it did. Look at my video response, above. The issue of high Gs is pertinent: many people believe that the plane was remotely controlled, therefore this would not have been an issue, because there would have been no pilots on board.forces

One important fact is always ignored. These figures & estimations by spokesmen and enginners are based on normal flying modes recommended for pilots...NOT ONE THAT HAS A DEATH WISH!Does this mean that NO PLANE CAN CRASH TO THE GROUND WITHOUT DISINTERGRATING? HOGWASH!

.

[weston white]

I think those vids might be giving an optical allusion, the straight on view appears very close when banking down and the side angle only shows a straight flight path, horizontally, but if you watch the very left edge it appears to be possibly straighting out to horizontal just as it comes into camera view. I counted in both videos from time the plane is seen and I got to 6 1/2 seconds in the side view and 7 seconds in the straight view, so that is pretty close.

[montag]

I think those vids might be giving an optical allusion, the straight on view appears very close when banking down and the side angle only shows a straight flight path, horizontally, but if you watch the very left edge it appears to be possibly straighting out to horizontal just as it comes into camera view. I counted in both videos from time the plane is seen and I got to 6 1/2 seconds in the side view and 7 seconds in the straight view, so that is pretty close.
The first one is clearly banking down and seems to straiten up about 2 to 3 seconds max before colliding with the building whereas the second one is on a direct path for at least 5 seconds, or according to your timing 6 seconds. I don't see how that could be an optical illusion, according to official reports the plane banked sharply on approach which is evident in the first clip but not the second.
It's also interesting in the second clip how the plane just appears from behind the building, anyway I'll have another look to try to see what you're suggesting.
Thanks for your input anyway, I haven't had many responses, it's obviously a touchy subject, either that or people are no longer interested in it.

[montag]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF1zlguWMRY

Pause this clip at 3 seconds in and you can see the plane at a very high altitude above the smoke, then it disappears as it's obscured by the smoke, then reapears. It's coming down from a fair height.

[montag]

I think those vids might be giving an optical allusion, the straight on view appears very close when banking down and the side angle only shows a straight flight path, horizontally, but if you watch the very left edge it appears to be possibly straighting out to horizontal just as it comes into camera view. I counted in both videos from time the plane is seen and I got to 6 1/2 seconds in the side view and 7 seconds in the straight view, so that is pretty close.
I think I see what you mean now, it takes the plane in the first clip almost fifteen seconds to descend from when you first see it above the smoke until impact, so it's covered a fair distance in that time. I still think it's odd though how it just seems to appear in the second clip though, like out of nowhere.

[weston white]

In that side view clip you can see the plane coming into view, it is really hard to see. It fades into view, it sort of looks like it is moving downwards just before it levels out and disappears behind that first building on the far left.

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Hi:

I think this Site provides some interesting insights.

The participants seem to be pretty sober and utilise mature criteria.


http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/WTC2.html

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/WTC1.html

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/UAL93.html

[montag]

Thanks snoops, I'll have a look see..

[gribz]

Montag, thanks for putting this info up on this thread. Of all the reading and materials ive looked at on this Ive never came across that point before and once again im stunned.

That is truly confusing on this topic!! Im can really see where the people who says there was no planes are coming from.

[montag]

Montag, thanks for putting this info up on this thread. Of all the reading and materials ive looked at on this Ive never came across that point before and once again im stunned.

That is truly confusing on this topic!! Im can really see where the people who says there was no planes are coming from.
Thanks gribz, it is a very deep subject and I still believe we're a long way from the truth of what really happened on that fateful day, hopefully I shed a bit more light for you on the possibilities here.

It's pretty well accepted now that there was no plane at the pentagon, and I remember at the time 4 or 5 years back how those who put that information forth were shouted down as disinfo, maybe this could also be the case with the other supposed planes.

Anyway my minds far from made up, plenty more research to do before I do that. You know though it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this theory turns out to have legs, ever since I began researching these topics about five years ago it's been one shock after another finding out how deep the rabbit hole really goes..:eek:

montag

[gribz]

Thanks gribz, it is a very deep subject and I still believe we're a long way from the truth of what really happened on that fateful day, hopefully I shed a bit more light for you on the possibilities here.

It's pretty well accepted now that there was no plane at the pentagon, and I remember at the time 4 or 5 years back how those who put that information forth were shouted down as disinfo, maybe this could also be the case with the other supposed planes.

Anyway my minds far from made up, plenty more research to do before I do that. You know though it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this theory turns out to have legs, ever since I began researching these topics about five years ago it's been one shock after another finding out how deep the rabbit hole really goes..:eek:

montag

Yeah Im definatly in agreement that there was no plane at the pentagon - thats a no brainer and lots seem to agree, but yet still nothing gets done about it. I also believe there was no crash whatsoever in Shanksville but still havent made my mind up whether it was a plane shot down or something else.

As for the WTC towers, i think what is swinging people is WTC 7. 2 planes cant bring down 3 buildings plus the BBC made that error in reporting it prior to it even being brought down.

But seeing your video's of 1 plane coming in at an higher altitude then desending quickly, compared to the video of the one where you see it coming in on a straight line has really thrown a spanner in my head about what to think now.

I see what Weston says that there could be a time difference there but not nearly enough to conclude it was the same plane and clip.