What About The Claim Of Impossible Speed? Options

[dMz]

These links are more notes to myself, but they are related to post #6 above:

Cosmographic Values
http://www.jqjacobs.net/astro/cosmo.html

Geodesy Page of above
http://www.jqjacobs.net/astro/geodesy.html

NASA Planet Distance Calculator (lat/lon)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/special/MileageGuide.jsp

[SKYDRIFTER]

OK here's an open challenge to anyone- be they a pilot, engineer, aviation technician, ATC, or just Joe Q. Public:

Please bring documented, independently-verifiable, sourced evidence that a commercial Boeing transport (specifically B767 and B757 in the 9/11 contexts) can operate and survive in the flight envelope "officially" claimed for UA175 and post it here for independent review and analysis.

I'm ideally hoping for Boeing, Pratt-Whitney, Rolls-Royce, or General Electric engineers' or test pilots' input here, but they and the "supporting documentation" have been strangely silent for the last 7-ish years...

I have already seen the clip where Joe Keith? considered it laughable. Please include NCSTAR, section, and page number if you are going to cite NIST or ASCE/FEMA.

***********************************

I'm type-rated on the 757-767 - (disreagarding my age).

1. The speed is unimportant, as the building damage, fire and debris certify at least the strike of the second plane. The imagery of the first is certified by the building damage photos - and reveal the impossibility of the 'fire' being the cause of the collapse (Where did the Pulizer Prize 'blonde' come from - from the intact core column area, with the stairs intact.)

2. At the video camera(s) range & angle, it's not reasonable to anticipate a high quality image - the damage & debris are the final metric.

3. While there is a WTC "no-planes' debate still raging - based upon the videotapes - the simple fact is that all the videotapes can't have been faked. They all identically certify the same event(s), backed by the images of the fire, damage and debris.

4. The WTC "no-planes' debate argues that the planes could not possibly have entered the building per newton's laws of motion. (WRONG!). So, if the 8,000 pound exited the second building, being videotaped and well photographed on the street, it must be accepted that the proof of exit is proof of entry. It's that simple.

5. As to the 'speed' debate, the maximum dive speed is a function of demonstrated flight testing; that's a hard figure; 420 knots. Above that speed, the aircraft becomes unstable, to put it mildly. Look to the airborne breakup of EA-990 - two different debris fields, approximately 1/4 mile apart. Again, the speed is unimportant, as the damage and fire is so well chronicled.

As to the Pentagon & Shanksville, I've never seen viable evidence of an aircraft impact at either site. The major question goes to why two "illusion" sites would be prepped for 9-11. I argue that they were to account for the last two aircraft, being back-ups for the first two. If they were not used, there had to be some accounting, via unadulterated media propaganda. Think about that one.

[dMz]

Actually with all due respect SKYDRIFTER, the maximum survivable speed for the entire airframe (and its sub-components) in this atmospheric envelope is extremely important- it establishes the validity [or invalidity] of the "stock, commercial B767-200 transport" portion of the official story for "B767-222 #N612UA B# 21873, PW JT9D-7R4D, Mode 3A 1470 > 3020 > 3321."

And still I wait for someone to:

Please bring documented, independently-verifiable, sourced evidence that a commercial Boeing transport (specifically B767 and B757 in the 9/11 contexts) can operate and survive in the flight envelope "officially" claimed for UA175 and post it here for independent review and analysis.

Let's add "stock, unmodified and of comparable production vintage" to my quote, in the interests of specificity and relevance.

As far as building damage, there are sub-forums here for each of the towers as well as the WTC Plaza complex. I was/am discussing the alleged "UA175" aircraft only on this thread, which no one has yet proven will survive the speeds claimed. Perhaps you should take a look at some of my analysis of the "UA175" USAF 84 RADES data in this forum (post #6 of this thread actually). I don't think many have even noticed the "interesting" velocities yet- no one has explained those yet either.