The B25 could be considered a scaled down model of the B767

If the B25 lost it's wings hitting a building with 57,000 tons of
structural steel,it can be safely concluded that the B767 would lose at least part of its
wings hitting a building with 100,000 tons of steel including an unusual steel facade with
massive closely spaced steel columns.

It could only have been produced by explosives.

Originally posted by petera at 2009-11-6 21:07
500 mph
Estimates actually vary between 500 and 600 mph..

Originally posted by petera at 2009-11-6 21:07
Thus  at very low altitude,the achievable speed is constrained by high drag and low thrust..  ...

Originally posted by petera at 2009-11-6 21:07
As far as I know,no high bypass turbofan driven airliner has ever done 500 mph at 1000 feet. ...

Originally posted by petera at 2009-11-6 21:07
The behavior of the engines ...is unknown
,but it is likely that there will be ...
....This would restrict maneuverability..
...

Originally posted by harmless at 2009-11-6 18:19
EMU these people here are so disgusting I would not even shake hands with any of them.

They would never change their minds,  since they have to believe, what they want to believe.

I would not ...

Originally posted by brobostigon at 2009-11-6 18:44
It's funny that you ask me to google "exploding transformers" to find examples of transformers that don't sound like they're exploding.  I did find a 3 man acoustic band called "Expl ...
If a witness used the word "explosion" is proof of a bombs in the building and all the witnesses outside the buildings with eyeballs, cameras and video-cameras saw the planes were in on a grand conspiracy, then why did the "mysterious conspiracy overminds" forget to tell those witnesses inside the buildings not use the word "explosion?"

Originally posted by petera at 2009-11-6 22:10
Arthur Weingarten who wrote the book "The Sky is Falling" said both wings were sheared off.One reached
34th street.I have a photograph of it. ...

The Blob has wisely retreated,head bloodied and  bowed,but Birdbrain unabashedly keeps up his
barrage of excreta.

Originally posted by petera at 2009-11-7 16:09
He doesn't know of a single instance of a high bypass turbofan powered airliner
flying close to sea level at 500 mph in level flight.

Originally posted by petera at 2009-11-7 16:09
In fact on another thread he retreated and brought the speed down to 400.....

The F4 Phantom is being flown by Captain Field McConnell, in the refuelling shot, and in the following shot he is almost at ground level at a speed in excess of 600 knots—over 690 mph. As he has since remarked in an e-mail to me: "Engines don't choke." Following some critical comments from the usual armchair aviation experts, I e-mailed this formally-phrased question to him: Could a Boeing 767-200 have dived from, say 30,000 feet, then levelled off to hit the South Tower moving at 586 mph (509 K)? His answer was: "Yes."

The Buccaneer's turbofan engines, while of a lower bypass ratio than a 767's engines, also show that this engine type does not "choke" at sea level. The Boeing 767-200 is approved for flights where it is 120 minutes from an alternative airport. This means that it can fly safely, virtually fully loaded, on one engine for two hours, indicating that these engines had the power to sustain the plane's speed, following its dive, until the moment it crashed.

Not one no-plane theorist has ever been able to explain how images of the plane in question (it may not have been the plane designated by Air Traffic Control as "UA Flight 175") got into a number of private video and stills camera, or onto the retinas of the many eyewitnesses to the tragedy, therefore the majority of the video and photographic evidence can be regarded as being genuine.

The F4 Phantom is being flown by Captain Field McConnell, in the refuelling shot, and in the following shot he is almost at ground level at a speed in excess of 600 knots—over 690 mph. As he has since remarked in an e-mail to me: "Engines don't choke." Following some critical comments from the usual armchair aviation experts, I e-mailed this formally-phrased question to him: Could a Boeing 767-200 have dived from, say 30,000 feet, then levelled off to hit the South Tower moving at 586 mph (509 K)? His answer was: "Yes."

The Buccaneer's turbofan engines, while of a lower bypass ratio than a 767's engines, also show that this engine type does not "choke" at sea level. The Boeing 767-200 is approved for flights where it is 120 minutes from an alternative airport. This means that it can fly safely, virtually fully loaded, on one engine for two hours, indicating that these engines had the power to sustain the plane's speed, following its dive, until the moment it crashed.

Not one no-plane theorist has ever been able to explain how images of the plane in question (it may not have been the plane designated by Air Traffic Control as "UA Flight 175") got into a number of private video and stills camera, or onto the retinas of the many eyewitnesses to the tragedy, therefore the majority of the video and photographic evidence can be regarded as being genuine.

The flight simulator in which I carried out this test is considered to be an exact representation of the real aircraft. It takes into account all of the test data gathered during the initial flight testing of the 767-200/300 and ongoing data gathered from Flight Data Recorders and observed performance. The instrumentation is exactly the same as the actual aircraft and can be put into service in a real aircraft. The performance of the aircraft engines and the aircraft’s structure are modelled so that a pilot can remain current without doing as many actual flight hours. Basically it is fair to say that what you can do in the simulator can be done in real life, especially as relates to thrust, lift and drag.

After doing this test I then spent a few days on the flight line checking whether the average 767 pilot thought that the engines could achieve .86 Mach at sea level considering what I found in the sim. Mostly they agreed--due to the exceptional power to weight ratio of the 767 series, and its low drag airframe, it was probable it could do just that. I also asked the older pilots that flew in the Pratt and Whitney (JT9-7R4) powered 767-200 series aircraft if those aircraft were similar to fly to the 767-300 General Electric (CF6) powered aircraft they now fly (current simulator configuration). They said they were very similar, having a little less power but being a little shorter and lighter, thus giving them nearly exactly the same power to weight ratio. Once again this was no surprise to me as this is what the manufacturer does--matches the airframe to the power plant to meet the performance specifications which are basically the same for 200 and the 300 series Boeing 767.

Conclusion: Is it probable that the 767-200 can make 560mph at sea level?

It is highly probable that AA11 and UA175 could easily make the airspeeds quoted in the official reports and as seen in the video footage. Here is a summation of the facts;

1. The aircraft were seen to make those airspeeds on September 11, 2001. This has never been questioned by any peer reviewed paper or team of experts, so it stands as fact.
2. The aircraft were well within their structural limit of .86 Mach by a margin of .12 Mach or approximately 14%; flying at maximum of reported speed of .74 Mach.
3. The simulator test carried out on an actual certified Full Flight Simulator (the best available), in a fully accredited pilot certification facility, showed that the 767 aircraft can reach an airspeed of .86 Mach in a flat trajectory at approximate sea level. It was also shown that .89 Mach could be achieved in a similar shallow dive as seen made by AA11 and UA175 on 9/11. These results show far greater speeds possible than the required official airspeed of 560mph or .74 Mach by some 16% at the minimum and 20% if the actual flight conditions were simulated in a shallow dive.
4. Considering the large margins demonstrated here, we can now conclude that the “Impossible Airspeed” stated by John Lear et al. is false.

The WTC was destroyed by space based orbiting weapons platforms operated by the U.S. Navy using molecular disassociation technology."

For the same reason they forgot that the hijacker's passport they conveniently  "found" in the rubble should have been incinerated (just as the purported person carrying it was).

Originally posted by brobostigon at 2009-11-7 19:16
Unfortunate for the "truth seekers" There was no mistake here. It was not found in the rubble - it was found before the building collapsed,..... ...

Originally posted by brobostigon at 2009-11-7 17:16


Unfortunate for the "truth seekers" There was no mistake here. It was not found in the rubble - it was found before the building collapsed, amongst the thousands of other papers, airc ...

Originally posted by brobostigon at 2009-11-7 17:16


Unfortunate for the "truth seekers" There was no mistake here. It was not found in the rubble - it was found before the building collapsed, amongst the thousands of other papers, airc ...