There is No Evidence a 7x7 Can Fly Level over 500mph

Does anyone have any test data proving a 7x7 can fly faster than 500mph in 'near' level flight?

If so please post the full abstract and test results.

Thanks.

 

I had heard about there being some sort of conspiracy associated with 911 and thought sfa about it. Then I watched Loose Change. Version 2 I believe it was.

There are several sticking points that stick, irrefutably.

WTC 7 being the most obvious. 1 & 2 pretty much the same. And then we have the Pentagon hit obviously with a cruise missile.

The defense of the lie is simply that folks seem to believe there is no way Darth Cheney kept this under wraps.

The power of being too big to fail is upon US again, sadly....

 

Yeh, countless problems with the official 'story'.

I looked all over to find near level flight speed tests at sea level where the air is roughly 6 times more dense than at 33,000 feet.

I'd be very surprised if the planes can do 500+ sea level, 300 maybe.

500 has never been shown to be possible.

 

Those speeds would be above the safety thresholds for that altitude, so they never would have been test flown at that speed. So no test data. But you probably knew that...

 

No because a 7x7 is not an aircraft.

 

I divide analysis of the events of 11 September into 2 broad categories, the aviation related problems, and the structural engineering problems at WTC and the Pentagon.

Both categories as treated by the Official Conspiracy Theory are full of holes. Understanding the aviation aspects show the official narrative to be utterly impossible.

 

Me too. My two categories are what happened and the crap "911 truthers" say happened. The latter has several sub categories:

• No planes
• Just two real planes.
• Three planes and one fake.
• Planes and nukes.
• Planes and space weapons.
• No planes and nukes.
• No planes and space weapons.
• Planes but not the real ones!
• The Jews did it(meh!)
• The Saudis did it.
• Al Qaeda did it but the US let it happen.
• A herd of wildebeest were somehow involved (forgive me for making one up - they all are anyway!).

The irony. See big list above each one has holes in all the alternatives.

But you're not qualified to make such a crappy bare assertion.

 

These are the best categories you can come up with?

You seem to assert that you argue your position with greater knowledge of the facts than those who argue theirs.

What qualifications do you possess regarding the specific example of some random dudes from the KSA abilities to fly a Boeing 7x7 on a flight path less than ten meters above the surface of the Earth to nail the one and only fortified section of the Pentagon? Dudes that had, according to all official accounts, zero hours experience even in a Boeing 7x7 flight simulator, much less in a real one.

What is your structural engineering expertise? Did you not pay attention when you studied statics and dynamics? Your education provides that diesel fires in the basement can bring down a steel structure in the manner WTC 7 is clearly seen to collapse? Awesome! You should open your own demolition company! Just pour some diesel in the basement, light it on fire, and walah! A perfectly symmetrical implosion without a single section of the structure maintaining sufficient integrity to even delay the collapse before the weight from above even has a chance to impact it.

Seems at best, willfully ignorant to me.

 

They're "911 truther" categories, it's hardly my fault. What's wrong with them apart from how ridiculous they are?

I'm fairly sure all debates work that way.

What qualifications do I need? He crashed the plane, by all accounts he made a mess of it, got a bit lucky in the end. Big target though. Hit a few things on the way in, lost a wing.

Since when do you believe official anything? How do you know what he did when not in the US?
What qualifications do you have to determine what someone needs to point a plane at a target and crash it? The hard bit is take off and landing. Are you sure you haven't just read this somewhere?

Irrelevant, I'm not the one disputing the expert structural engineers who analyzed 911.

Curious. Why would that be relevant? I'm fairly sure I covered these.

You're very late to the party. We've all had this dance a few times already. My education is none of your business.

Why?

Well add fairly substantial chunks of building impacting, followed by many hours of out of control fire.

False. The penthouse section collapsed down through the entire building,

Luckily, your opinion on this doesn't bother me.

 

meh, I'm not even going to bother reading you're sliced & diced response. buh bye...

 

It's "your". Bye, I'm sure you did read it though.

 

Thanks do you have a link for that? I'd like to see how fast they were able to fly it at sea level.

 

There are stress test data for the aircraft and standalone engine testing data, but certainly you are perfectly correct that there is no need to push the aircraft beyond dangerous levels for normal flight testing. One reason is that it gives the testing pilot(s) no time to make potential corrective steps.

 

You turn up a week later and you don't even read my post before answering?

See ya!

 

Well yes, they wouldn't fly the planes at sea level until they break apart at sea level to test how fast they can go.

Truth be told I'm not that interested in the topic - or patient enough to deal with conspiracy theorists.

 

Im not a PF employee I show up when I feel like it.

this is aerodynamics and physics, I said nothing about conspiracies, but if you want to use that as a get out of jail free card without providing data of any kind thats fine with me.

Boeing engineers on the other hand claim it cant be done, unless you can show otherwise to demonstrate that a test was 'decided' against by boeing.

Otherwise based on boeing engineering it simply 'cant' be done iow the plane simply does not have enough mice running on the tread wheels to do it and the alleged planes were not in a nose dive.

I have no reason to believe based upon the boeing engineers claim that speed simply cant be reached due to not enough power.

Since this is physics I think its fair to conclude theres no patience to deal with engineering/ physics either.

 

There is No Evidence a 7x7 Can Fly Level over 500mph?

Yes there is. We have video evidence from 911 and from Pentagon AA77 black box data.

 

Meh. Labelling folks like me as a conspiracy theorist regarding 9/11 is a bit ridiculous. The applied science simply doesn't support the video evidence of WTC 1, 2 & 7's free fall mostly symmetric complete collapse. Nor does it support the claim that the Pentagon was crashed into by a 757-223.

On the other hand there is only skepticism that such an op could be kept under wraps. And, I don't particularly discount the incredulity that stems from such opinions. Neither do the MIC f'r's that must have participated knowingly with this bold trojan op. It's actually brilliant, and daf simultaneously.


The “9/11 was an inside job” guy has some regrets

 

Applies science supports the collapse perfectly

And it supportds the fact that a 757 hit the pentagon

 

False claim none of the 3 collapses were freefall. WT1/2 were around 66% and WTC7 had a considerable time where the Penthouse collapsed and dropped straight through the building.

 

Yep I hear you! In order for buildings to fall straight down they have to lose support globally at very near the same time and by the very near I mean to the tune of microseconds in some cases and that can only be done with explosives because fire will melt of beams here and then 10 minutes later it'll melt the beam over there so scientifically what we saw times three that day is physically impossible if we want to blame it on to fire/heat / column failure. That and column failure as a result of overheating is not instantaneous, it's actually an isotropic curve.



Above is a good example of the penthouse falling through the building faster than free fall, I get a chuckle every time I see that. Pure disinformation.

I wasn't aware that a plane flying 550 mph at sea level would break apart but if you say so that would be a good reason not to fly them that fast I suppose except on 911 but then we have to ask the question why they didn't break apart?

The interesting thing is is because it requires cross discipline skills that 99% of the people in this country don't have it's all out in plain sight.

I'm taking notice that no one has provided any evidence that any 7x7 can even fly nearly level at 550 miles an hour at sea level.

 

Gibberish.

Above is an example of arm-waving when the presented evidence doesn't fit with a personally related narrative. To avoid any future "chuckle" just remember this is an animated gif from actual footage and as such has no set frame speed determined against that footage. It is also a really good example of evasion. You quoted just the gif and ignored this:

Kindly address it, as nobody has so far.

Should you need verification on this matter, I suggest you contact Boeing. Planes have VNE speeds for the simple reason that they can damage the aircraft and the engines. I've read the quote you replied to and nowhere does it say a plane would break apart at 550mph at sea-level. Perhaps you should reread it. It says no aircraft manufacturer would max out their aircraft UNTIL they break apart. I'm fairly sure he is talking about "testing the aircraft to see when that would occur at sea-level" is not a great idea.
Also, remember, the terrorists hijacking the plane were not concerned about breaking or damaging the airplane as they were subsequently going to crash it.

It's not interesting at all. It's actually ludicrous that the only people with your "cross discipline skills" are supposedly the ones who claim the official story is wrong.

I'm taking notice that you have ignored the video evidence and the black box data from AA77.

 

Hey @Scott,

Thanks for that video and timestamp man!

I wasn't aware there were so many Boeing engineers that pointed out it's "impossible" so thanks for answering the OP with proof.

I got another chuckle when the one engineer burst out laughing when the interviewer asked her if a 757 can fly 500 miles per hour nearly level at sea level!

I consider the OP sufficiently addressed, good find! Thanks to everybody who contributed the thread.

 

Aerodynamics and physics are not allowed here at PF, at least in the CT section. Some of the controlling interests are averse to aerodynamics, physics, recorded facts, and of course the truth.

 

In between all these "chuckles", did you consider checking what was presented? The deceptive video you refer to is riddled with inaccuracies, cherry picked examples and poor assumptions. That should matter to anyone who was seeking the "truth".

The film incorrectly highlights an aviation term VMO, and states that beyond this speed wings and fuselage flutter - false. It states this as though it must always occur. It then cites Air China 106 and again refers to this "VMO"! Nowhere is the speed of that flight attributed as the cause of the tail damage! In fact most of the evidence points to the excessive g-forces incurred as they pulled out of the dive, being the cause. This is most deceptive but typical of this garbage movie. They then show us one of those "plane disaster" TV shows as their "proof"!

BUT, how long did they exceed it for? The point being, they were STILL able to land it quite comfortably and had they wished, could have slammed it into a building at top speed far easier!

VMO is the maximum OPERATING speed recommended for an aircraft. The real SAFETY LIMIT for an aircraft is when it exceeds VNE - THIS is the point where all the suggested problems could start occurring. Boeings have significant differences between VMO and what their VNE would be at low altitude, mainly due to the windshield ratings for bird strikes!

The VNE denotes a point where the KNOWN safety limits of the airplane are not to be exceeded. It is not the point where suddenly all hell breaks loose, it is the point where safety testing concluded problems may occur.

Everyone here is aware of the pilot forums answers to Boeing speeds, where these 911 conspiracies are laughed at. I don't see any real value in quoting them, but I am going to anyway!
How STRONG is a 757 ? - PPRuNe Forums
"1. If you are planning on totalizing your aeroplane at the end of the high speed low pass, there is no point in worrying about long term effects of busting maximum demonstrated speed.

2. this was discussed many times at length here by folks who know a lot about certification testing. Conclusion was it was quite possible for 757 to reach 500 kt practically undamaged. That didn't deter conspiracy theorists, though and it would be even worse if some Buck Rogers wannabe imagines that means he can go through Vmo without consequences."
---------------------
Boeing 767 Max speed at sea level? - PPRuNe Forums
"If you take the power levers and shove them full forward at or near sea level (up to 2,000' for this discussion) your 767/757 will in fact fly at a greater speed than 360 knots indicated airspeed in level flight and/or descent. It will keep accelerating until total drag equals total thrust or until something fails structurally and the jet comes apart (or runs into something solid). Each individual airplane will likely fail at a different speed as they each wear and fatigue differently over their operational lives. Could the 767/757 reach > 500 knots under the stated conditions I'd be comfortable betting a month's wages on "yes"."

Then there is the implication to consider of what is being claimed. This ridiculous line of questioning claims there were no planes on 911, because "when they faked it" (meh!) they foolishly chose a speed that would not be achievable or would cause catastrophic failure before target was reached! I don't recall anyone at Boeing being the least bit concerned at any of this, so now in addition to the premise that they didn't do their homework on what speeds to "fake all the footage", "fake all the reports", "fake the AA77 black box data", we now have to include Boeing as being complicit.

What a crock! And STILL, nobody has addressed all the subsequent problems (meh!) I created a thread on it and nobody has bothered to address anything on it with anything other than deflection:
The absurdly unfeasible problems with "no-planes" on 911 | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics

This post details the issues with the Pentagon and still nobody has addressed it!