29-06-2011, 09:50 PM
James H. Fetzer Wrote:The impossible speed has been established on multiple grounds: No Boeing 767 could have flown that fast at that altitude, as Pilots for 9/11 Truth and John Lear, among others, have confirmed.The problem is, when I look at what you point to as confirmation, I don't find anything which even comes close. To start with, here is what you quoted from Pilots For 9/11 Truth:
Quote:Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.The haphazard mixing of units and lack of citations for claims of fact aside, I've yet to find anything in the articles you linked our otherwise to support the notion that EA990 is a valid benchmark for the maximum equivalent airspeed for 767s. Rather, left to search for the circumstance of EA990 on my own, I've found competing hypothesizes on the details of why it went down, but none which contradict the general sequence of events recounted in this diagram. Specifically, plane went into a dive and the engines were throttled down before peak speed was achieved in what was essentially a free fall, which is a vastly different situation than planes being accelerated in controlled flight into targets as can be seen in the many videos of the WTC attacks and as recounted by many witnesses. So, on what basis can one justify using EA990 as a benchmark here?