Lloyd England exposed was involved in 9/11 false flag event

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

You seem to be deliberately ignoring what I have previously explained to you what the -223 actually means.

You are ignoring the actual aircraft performance data provided by Boeing?
Aswell as the other alternative sites I have provided confirming you are wrong in my earlier posts....

So you are plainly determined to use incorrect information to further your ridiculous theory...

Ignoring nothing.

Top speed could mean their extra power in the engines to go higher. You damage the engines when you go past the max speed.

The max speed is 493mph an hour. If was meant to be knots then the mph would be 570mph. Clearly, the info in the link is not an error.

banie01

The Nal wrote: »

Its great stuff to read though. Totally delusional.

Boeing must be in on it too.

It really is delusional of the highest order!
Medical intervention is likely needed....

Boeing, Pilot's associations and unions, Radar Tracks, Flight24, hobby/aviation enthusiasts...
All in on it!

I'll be quite honest there are many things I have more than a passing interest in, but 1 hobby that has consumed a vast amount of my time and money over the last 30yrs is aviation.
Both its technology and its iteratations and uses civil and military.

Having personal experience and knowledge dismissed on the back of an idiot googling a photo of a -223 and not actually even reading the performance table quoted by his "proof" which list a -200....

We have a word for that kind of delusional down here in Limerick! :pac:

The Nal

banie01 wrote: »

We have a word for that kind of delusional down here in Limerick! :pac:

A "gowl"?

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Ignoring nothing.

Top speed could mean their extra power in the engines to go higher. You damage the engines when you go past the max speed.

The max speed is 493mph an hour. If was meant to be knots then the mph would be 570mph. Clearly, the info in the link is not an error.

Again you are displaying your incompetence as a researcher and ignorance.

Civil aircraft generally operate on a cruising speed, maximum speed and a never exceed speed which is governed by the limiting Mach number.

The information you are pedalling in regards to the -200 is incorrect.

The aircraft is designed to cruise at Mach 0.8, with a maximimum Mach of 0.86 and a never exceed speed of @ Mach 0.91 due to the supercritical wing design.

You are espousing a level of bull**** that in any other forum would likely result in a ban!
Are you now seriously claiming that Boeing have falsified their specification data to fit in with the "conspiracy"?

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Again you are displaying your incompetence as a researcher and ignorance.

Civil aircraft generally operate on a cruising speed, maximum speed and a never exceed speed which is governed by the limiting Mach number.

The information you are pedalling in regards to the -200 is incorrect.

The aircraft is designed to cruise at Mach 0.8, with a maximimum Mach of 0.86 and a never exceed speed of @ Mach 0.91 due to the supercritical wing design.

You are espousing a level of bull**** that in any other forum would likely result in a ban!
Are you now seriously claiming that Boeing have falsified their specification data to fit in with the "conspiracy"?

Are you serious? You just claimed the website had false info with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. You even claimed it meant to be knots not miles? When the numbers don't match up you continue to ignore.confused:. Go away and find evidence then we can talk.

You provided a site that new updated to reflect changes after 9/11. Yes, I find it strange the speed matches the speed exactly in the 9/11 commission report. Not a mile below 530mph.

Yes NIST was hired by the US government to prove fire collapsed WTC7 and they clearly hide the real truth from the American public. I believe the cover-up is happening and I have solid reasons to believe it.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Are you serious? You just claimed the website had false info with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. You even claimed it meant to be knots not miles? When the numbers don't match up you continue to ignore.confused:. Go away and find evidence then we can talk.

You provided a site that new updated to reflect changes after 9/11. Yes, I find it strange the speed matches the speed exactly in the 9/11 commission report. Not a mile below 530mph.

Yes NIST was hired by the US government to find the truth and they clearly hide the truth from the American public. I believe the cover-up is happening and I have solid reasons to believe it.

I provided multiple links and a link to Boeing's specification itself.
You ignored that and claimed the information provided by airteamimages.com site you linked is correct!
Its not, indeed if you actually read the table you are relying on you would see that it doesn't relate to a -223.
Or are you confirming that you actually understand that a -223 and -200 are the same thing?

As for my claiming the speed in knots, that was my attempt to understand how your "proof" could be so far off the actual performance figure of the airframe!
Which is why I provided MPH and KPH figures for you.

The reference figure you have provided is wrong, it is @10% below the actual performance.
If you wish to refute that. please use the actual performance data from either the Manufacturer or from the CAA/FAA handbooks for the aircraft or another credible source.

Not a hobby site that people share photos of aircraft rather than performance data on.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes NIST was hired by the US government to prove fire collapsed WTC7 and they clearly hide the real truth from the American public. I believe the cover-up is happening and I have solid reasons to believe it.

Those reasons being that anything that contradicts your delusional fantasy is part of the cover up.
You need to avoid the possibility that you are just wrong so desperately, you invent entire wings of the conspiracy on a whim.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

I provided multiple links and a link to Boeing's specification itself.
You ignored that and claimed the information provided by airteamimages.com site you linked is correct!
Its not, indeed if you actually read the table you are relying on you would see that it doesn't relate to a -223.
Or are you confirming that you actually understand that a -223 and -200 are the same thing?

As for my claiming the speed in knots, that was my attempt to understand how your "proof" could be so far off the actual performance figure of the airframe!
Which is why I provided MPH and KPH figures for you.

The reference figure you have provided is wrong, it is @10% below the actual performance.
If you wish to refute that. please use the actual performance data from either the Manufacturer or from the CAA/FAA handbooks for the aircraft or another credible source.

Not a hobby site that people share photos of aircraft rather than performance data on.

Nice try lol

You wrote this
The site you are relying on seems to be again mistaking Knots for MPH.

The figure for KPH is also provided I guess they made another mistake there according to you?

If was meant to be 493 knots then it would end up being 570mph. Does this match t with your website number of 530mph.

Explain how the made the same mistake two times for MPH and KPH?

Flight 77 was a 757-223 model. Planes of this type use different engines. The
2 x Pratt & Whitney PW2000 (186 kN) or Rolls Royce RB211-535 Series. The reason I said we have to find the correct plane and type of engine used. Flight 77 had two Roll Royce engines.

Dohnjoe was posting info about newer planes with newer engines. And not specifying the plane he was looking at for the speed.

banie01

King Mob wrote: »

Those reasons being that anything that contradicts your delusional fantasy is part of the cover up.
You need to avoid the possibility that you are just wrong so desperately, you invent entire wings of the conspiracy on a whim.

I am honestly astounded that CS now believes that Boeing and every other credible aviation source, site andf even the FAA and CAA are lying about Aircraft performance to preserve the "conspiracy"

If Boeing's 757 was offering a performance of 10% less than either Airbus' or McDonnel Douglas' offerings at the time of its introduction, it would not have sold over a 1000 airframes!
Airline profitability is a function of seating capacity, journey time and fuel efficiency!
There is a reason 757s are still in service on high volume, quick turnaround routes!
And its not because they are cheap or slower than competing aircraft!


But now we can add Boeing to the list of Silverstein, FDNY, NeoCons, Nano-Thermite, Bush/Cheney, The House of Saud, NIST and all the other conspirators!

banie01 wrote: »

Are you now seriously claiming that Boeing have falsified their specification data to fit in with the "conspiracy"?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes NIST was hired by the US government to prove fire collapsed WTC7 and they clearly hide the real truth from the American public. I believe the cover-up is happening and I have solid reasons to believe it.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nice try lol

You wrote this
The site you are relying on seems to be again mistaking Knots for MPH.

I did write that, yes.
But once again your lack of actual comprehension seems to be shining through...
Do you see the word "seems"?

What do you think that might mean?

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If was meant to be 493 knots then it would end up being 570mph. Does this match t with your website number of 530mph.

Explain how the made the same mistake two times for MPH and KPH?

How would I know how the random photo sharing site you are basing your claims off actually made the mistake?
I gave you MPH/KPH speeds in my original reply.

What are you actually asking me?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Rubbish. The plane performance was 493mph an hour.

What is "plane performance" suddenly? We are referring to "maximum speed" (which is more of a threshold)

1. Type in "max speed 757-200" into google, what is the result?

2. What is the result of the first link in google?

3. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757, pay attention to the table with speeds, what is the max speed quoted there?

4. Why can anyone find multiple links that give the max speed of the 757 200 series as between approx 530 to 580 mph (or even higher)?

e.g.
https://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/boeing-757-200/101
https://www.topspeed.com/aviation/aviation-reviews/boeing/1982-boeing-757-200-ar91760.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757
http://www.flywestwind.com/hangar/aircraft_files/foms/B752FOM.pdf

King Mob

And big old whinge fit and attempt to change the subject in 5... 4... 3...

banie01

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What is "plane performance" suddenly? We are referring to "maximum speed" (which is more of a threshold)

1. Type in "max speed 757-200" into google, what is the result?

2. What is the result of the first link in google?

3. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757, pay attention to the table with speeds, what is the max speed quoted there?

4. Why can anyone find multiple links that give the max speed of the 757 200 series as between approx 530 to 580 mph (or even higher)?

e.g.
https://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/boeing-757-200/101
https://www.topspeed.com/aviation/aviation-reviews/boeing/1982-boeing-757-200-ar91760.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757
http://www.flywestwind.com/hangar/aircraft_files/foms/B752FOM.pdf

Because now Boeing are in on it too
Keep up Dohn Joe :P

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

I did write that, yes.
But once again your lack of actual comprehension seems to be shining through...
Do you see the word "seems"?

What do you think that might mean?

The 493mph is correct or it's not.

Seems? What actually gave you the impression the miles per hour needed to be changed to knots?

You just posted i was wrong and then claimed the website made a mistake ( or it seems)

You should have said the mph they gave was incorrect and it should be 530mph.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The 493mph is correct or it's not.

Seems? What actually gave you the impression the miles per hour needed to be changed to knots?

You just posted i was wrong and then claimed the website made a mistake ( or it seems)

You should have said the mph they gave was incorrect and it should be 530mph.

493mph is incorrect.
You claimed and have continued to claim that is the maximum speed.
Its Not!

You and your website are the ones making the claim it is!
You have even confirmed you believe Boeing doctored the performence figures to match the 9/11 crash data FFS!


I have provided the maximum speeds from Boeing in MPH and KPH I even went so far as to give you limiting Mach numbers(Although as Mach varies dependent upon air pressure, density and temperature it may not be useful to you.)

The website you are clinging to as evidence of the "correct" top speed is factually incorrect.
What part of that are you not understanding?

I then asked you to confirm

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

493mph is incorrect.
You claimed and have continued to claim that is the maximum speed.
Its Not!

You and your website are the ones making the claim it is!
You have even confirmed you believe Boeing doctored the performence figures to match the 9/11 crash data FFS!


I have provided the maximum speeds from Boeing in MPH and KPH I even went so far as to give you limiting Mach numbers(Although as Mach varies dependent upon air pressure, density and temperature it may not be useful to you.)

The website you are clinging to as evidence of the "correct" top speed is factually incorrect.
What part of that are you not understanding?

I then asked you to confirm

Newer planes are built with upgraded engines. 757-200 planes made in 1982 are not going to be going as fast as newer models today. This Dohnjoe does not understand.

Flight 77 engines were not powerful enough to go 580mph an hour.

I already said there would extra room to push the engines beyond the max in an earlier post but you destroy the engines doing it.

You claim the max speed is wrong but how do you know. How do know for sure top speed is not referring to engines pushed beyond their max?

The reason I say that is the 9/11 commission claimed Flight 77 flew 20 feet above ground above homes and was when reached the Pentagon it hit 530 mph exactly. I wonder did Boeing update their website to reflect this change and claims made about flight 77 achieving this threshold of speed at ground level. I just think it's weird the number matches exactly with the plane performance on 9/11 when it crashed.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Newer planes are built with upgraded engines. 757-200 planes made in 1982 are not going to be going as fast as newer models today. This Dohnjoe does not understand.

Flight 77 engines were not powerful enough to go 580mph an hour.

I already said there would extra room to push the engines beyond the max in an earlier post but you destroy the engines doing it.

You claim the max speed is wrong but how do you know. How do know for sure top speed is not referring to engines pushed beyond their max?

The reason I say that is the 9/11 commission claimed Flight 77 flew 20 feet above ground above homes and was when reached the Pentagon it hit 530 mph exactly. I wonder did Boeing update their website to reflect this change and claims made flight 77 reached this threshold of speed at ground level. I just think it's weird the number matches exactly with the plane performance on 9/11.

You have zero understanding of what increased engine power/thrust actually accomplishes and why Aircraft have a limiting Mach number.

I have already outlined to you the difference between cruising speed, max speed and never exceed speed!

Increased Engine thrust on an aircraft designed without Area Rule generally allows for increased climb performance and Hot and High performance along with improved acceleration.

Due to the aerodynamic factors that limit an airframes actual true airspeed, it would not increase airspeed attainable.
That is aerodynamically limited and barring strapping a saturn v booster to an airframe cannot safely be exceeded without causing airframe disintegration.

You have taken the viewpoint that the extra 3000lbs of thrust available to "newer" engines will have an effect on maximum speed.
It won't.

If it did, the aircraft would require recertification, and the issuance of a new model revision number and specific handbook.

You clung to the -223 as being somehow different from the -200.
Its not.

You have once again made a mountain out of a molehill that you dont understand!

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Newer planes are built with upgraded engines. 757-200 planes made in 1982 are not going to be going as fast as newer models today. This Dohnjoe does not understand.

Just one more point on this BTW.
You are now fixated on planes made in 1982....

Flight 77 was registered as N644AA.
This particular Aircraft first flew on 25/04/91 and flew with the Highest power RR available at the time the RB211-535E4B with 42540lbs thrust!

Versus the original 36600lbs thrust offered by the baseline Pratt & Whitney engined version.

So fairly definitive that you actually have not gotten a bulls notion of what you are speculating about!

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Newer planes are built with upgraded engines. 757-200 planes made in 1982 are not going to be going as fast as newer models today. This Dohnjoe does not understand.

Wow, just wow

These planes were produced from 1982 to 2004

The figures are for those planes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757

Look at the table, what does it say?

The engines on that particular plane were the RB211-535 series

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RB211

Produced from the late seventies. American Airlines made their order in 1988. Flight 77's first flight was in 1991

Care to explain how these engines suddenly became "more powerful" after 1991?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

757-200 planes made in 1982 are not going to be going as fast as newer models today.

Actually what am I doing

1. Provide sources for 757 200 series with that Boeing engine built before 1991 and their max stated speed

2. Provided sources for 757 200 series with the same Boeing engine built after 1991 and their max stated speed

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Just one more point on this BTW.
You are now fixated on planes made in 1982....

Flight 77 was registered as N644AA.
This particular Aircraft first flew on 25/04/91 and flew with the Highest power RR available at the time the RB211-535E4B with 42540lbs thrust!

Versus the original 36600lbs thrust offered by the baseline Pratt & Whitney engined version.

So fairly definitive that you actually have not gotten a bulls notion of what you are speculating about!

Still waiting for proof. Ok you found the trust of the engine?

42540lbs thrust ok explain it and we see how much you know about it? Work it out and please show how it ends up at 530mph an hour. max speed. This is your claim.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Newer planes are built with upgraded engines. 757-200 planes made in 1982 are not going to be going as fast as newer models today. This Dohnjoe does not understand.

Flight 77 engines were not powerful enough to go 580mph an hour.

I already said there would extra room to push the engines beyond the max in an earlier post but you destroy the engines doing it.

You claim the max speed is wrong but how do you know. How do know for sure top speed is not referring to engines pushed beyond their max?

The reason I say that is the 9/11 commission claimed Flight 77 flew 20 feet above ground above homes and was when reached the Pentagon it hit 530 mph exactly. I wonder did Boeing update their website to reflect this change and claims made about flight 77 achieving this threshold of speed at ground level. I just think it's weird the number matches exactly with the plane performance on 9/11 when it crashed.

Considering their end goal i dont think they cared about damaging the engines.

King Mob

Guys, obviously Boeing upgraded the engines in the 90s in preparation for 9/11.

It's simply not possible that Cheerful is a crank with no knowledge beyond what he can google.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Still waiting for proof. Ok you found the trust of the engine?

42540lbs thrust ok explain it and we see how much you know about it? Work it out and please show how it ends up at 530mph an hour. max speed. This is your claim.

Lol pathetic.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Still waiting for proof. Ok you found the trust of the engine?

42540lbs thrust ok explain it and we see how much you know about it? Work it out and please show how it ends up at 530mph an hour. max speed. This is your claim.

Are you actually retarded?
Go back a few posts and the Airframe Mach numbers are laid out for you.
You have not a single iota of credibility left and regarding this issue, the facts already bear you out to be clinging to a mistaken notion.

Toddle off and come back with answers to Dohnjoe's questions and lets see what you come up with.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

42540lbs thrust ok explain it and we see how much you know about it? Work it out and please show how it ends up at 530mph an hour. max speed. This is your claim.

You have been provided proof, in both the official specs of the Aircraft from the manufacturer and multiple corraoborating sites.
So its not "my" claim, its the manufacturers backed up the relevant FAA/CAA handbooks.

I even went so far as to tell you what would be needed to disprove my claim.
But you'd rather expose your lack of knowledge even further?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Actually what am I doing

1. Provide sources for 757 200 series with that Boeing engine built before 1991 and their max stated speed

2. Provided sources for 757 200 series with the same Boeing engine built after 1991 and their max stated speed

You funny guy when you wrote this only a while ago.

I quote you.
Why can anyone find multiple links that give the max speed of the 757 200 series as between approx 530 to 580 mph (or even higher)?

Flight 77 could fly 580mph or higher? Banie arguing for 530mph you are taking the position the plane could travel 580mph and higher.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You funny guy when you wrote this only a while ago.

I quote you.
Why can anyone find multiple links that give the max speed of the 757 200 series as between approx 530 to 580 mph (or even higher)?

Flight 77 could fly 580mph or higher? Banie arguing for 530mph you are taking the position the plane could travel 580mph and higher.

More pathetic dodging and deflecting.
This is sad.

You aren't fooling people cheerful. You are making yourself look like a total and abject idiot now.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You funny guy when you wrote this only a while ago.

I quote you.
Why can anyone find multiple links that give the max speed of the 757 200 series as between approx 530 to 580 mph (or even higher)?

Flight 77 could fly 580mph or higher? Banie arguing for 530mph you are taking the position the plane could travel 580mph and higher.

Ffs lets dumb it down for him

You buy a plane tomorrow and it has RR engines which are capable of X thrust that can reach Y speeds.

Next weel P&W bring out a new engine capable of X thrust x2 and Y speed x2 of the RR engines.

If the planes top speed was previously 550-580 MPH with the old engines, it's top speed with the new improved engines is still 550-580 MPH.

Do you understand why?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Flight 77 could fly 580mph or higher? Banie arguing for 530mph you are taking the position the plane could travel 580mph and higher.

Ah ah, nice try but you aren't going to weasel out of this with word and number games

You are claiming it was impossible for that plane to be going 530 mph

The manufacturer and sources corroborate that the plane could fly at this speed (and faster)

Show us the sources that give the max speed for a 757 200 series with those RR engines

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Flight 77 could fly 580mph or higher? Banie arguing for 530mph you are taking the position the plane could travel 580mph and higher.

It can fly higher than 530mph!

Lets go over this again, because you are seemingly incapable of grasping the 3 speed concept.

Civil aircraft operate with 3 maximums!
Cruising speed!
Maximum Speed!
Never Exceed Speed!

The cruising speed is the maximum economical speed for long range flight!
The maximum speed is the Maximum Speed attainable without inducing engine or airframe damage.
The Never Exceed speed is the speed at which aerodynamic forces will cause structural damage.

Fot the 757 thos speeds are a function of the Mach Number,
So cruise is Mach 0.8, with a maximimum Mach of 0.86 and a never exceed speed of @ Mach 0.91.

I somehow don't feel terrorists engaged in an act of terror are going to worry too much about the never exceed speed
Do you?

The Nal

banie01 wrote: »

being somehow different from the -200.
Its not.

You have once again made a mountain out of a molehill that you dont understand!

Thats just to deflect from the obvious stuff like ignoring the 104 eye witnesses who saw 77, the rescuers who saw bits of the plane, uniforms and body parts.

Countless people who have gone through years and years of counseling as a results so we must now assume the psychiatrists and support network are in on it a plot too as they know when someone is lying. Another few thousand people. Maybe more. All in on it.

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

Thats just to deflect from the obvious stuff like ignoring the 104 eye witnesses who saw 77, the rescuers who saw bits of the plane, uniforms and body parts.

Countless people who have gone through years and years of counseling as a results so we must now assume the psychiatrists and support network are in on it a plot too as they know when someone is lying. Another few thousand people. Maybe more. All in on it.

But that must be the explanation...
Otherwise we might have to consider the possibility that Cheerful is an idiot talking out of his ass...
Which as we all know, is completely impossible.

Dohnjoe

Olympic level mental gymnastics display we're seeing here

banie01

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Special Olympic level mental gymnastics display we're seeing here

Fixed that for ya

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

It can fly higher than 530mph!

Lets go over this again, because you are seemingly incapable of grasping the 3 speed concept.

Civil aircraft operate with 3 maximums!
Cruising speed!
Maximum Speed!
Never Exceed Speed!

The cruising speed is the maximum economical speed for long range flight!
The maximum speed is the Maximum Speed attainable without inducing engine or airframe damage.
The Never Exceed speed is the speed at which aerodynamic forces will cause structural damage.

Fot the 757 thos speeds are a function of the Mach Number,
So cruise is Mach 0.8, with a maximimum Mach of 0.86 and a never exceed speed of @ Mach 0.91.

I somehow don't feel terrorists engaged in an act of terror are going to worry too much about the never exceed speed
Do you?

You posted one site. Boeing saying the top speed was 530mph. 530mph the speed performance of the plane on 9/11 ( official account) I believe the changed and updated the performance-based off this event. It normal to update based on real-world performance. US government claimed the plane got to 530mph Boeing is going to change it to reflect real-world events.

Can you find the performance on Roll Royce engine site? Instead of claiming the site are in error provide proof. You have no proof 493mph max speed is wrong for this type of plane?

You babbling.three-speed maxmiums what you even talking about now? You supposed to be responding to my posts You are lost cause and wait for your math on the trust of the engine.

The Nal

Theyre all liars. All of the people who saw the plane hit and all of the hundreds of first responders, Pentagon staff, members of the public. Murderers. Every single one of them.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Theyre all liars. All of the people who saw the plane hit and all of the hundreds of first responders, Pentagon staff, members of the public. Murderers. Every single one of them.

You waffling now I said flight 77 hit the Pentagon. I said I disagree with the speed the plane hit the Pentagon at. Also the direction (official account is the plane came in at a turned angle from the southwest) It was sideways.

I believe it came straight in wings outs and lined up (like you saw when the plane hit the south tower) and hit the Pentagon coming from the Northeast direction.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You posted one site. Boeing saying the top speed was 530mph. 530mph the speed performance of the plane on 9/11 ( official account) I believe the changed and updated the performance-based off this event. It normal to update based on real-world performance. US government claimed the plane got to 530mph Boeing is going to change it to reflect real-world events.

Can you find the performance on Roll Royce engine site? Instead of claiming the site are in error provide proof. You have no proof 493mph max speed is wrong for this type of plane?

You babbling.three-speed maxmiums what you even talking about now? You supposed to be responding to my posts You are lost cause and wait for your math on the trust of the engine.

CS the only person here babbling is you.

Why would RR have data on the maximum speed?
The fact that you don't understand three speed maximums speaks a lot to your complete lack of competence regarding Aviation.


What math do you want? You have been referred to the airframe manufacturers website.

Speed of an aircraft is not a simple function of Thrust v Drag v Weight.
If you could elucidate what you want I'll explain it to you in words you can understand though?

The only actual "maximum" is the limiting Mach number. Exceeding that usually requires that an airframe is written off.

Hence the reason manufacturers lay down a maximum speed. To ensure the safety and serviceability of the airframe.
That Boeing lay out 530mph as the maximum means that it is the maximum "safe" speed.

If you wish to discuss Mach limits, compressibility and airframe limitations with regards to Vmax and math I'm happy to do that but you have already patently demonstrated that detail will be wasted on you.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You're waffling now. I said flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

You previously claimed otherwise using the exact same language and evidence.
You showed yourself up as utterly incompetent when you supported that theory.
You showed yourself up as completely intellectually bankrupt when you abandoned that position because you realised how stupid it was making you look.

smurfjed

Wow, just wow. None of you have the slightest understanding of aerodynamics and have just wasted the last 6 or so pages arguing over a totally irrelevant speed!

Absolutely unreal.

King Mob

smurfjed wrote: »

Wow, just wow. None of you have the slightest understanding of aerodynamics and have just wasted the last 6 or so pages arguing over a totally irrelevant speed!

Absolutely unreal.

Care to elaborate and inform?

smurfjed

Lets start with the basics, the Max Speed that any of you have shown in the last pages is based on a MACH SPEED at altitude, Boeing have then converted that speed into KNOTS / MPH / KMH.

In reality in low level flight the aircraft will be flown using KNOTS and not MACH, it will have a theoretical limiting speed called the VMO which in normal operations will have a lovely clacker sound if you exceed it (as does MMO). But these are theoretical speeds for airlines operating the aircraft in normal operations. Now you take in the advantages of gravity to aid your engines and those speeds are irrelevant. The aircraft will accelerate faster and faster and it will not give a crap about that nice maximum speed value that Mr Boeing issued.

So you are fighting over a speed value that is easily achievable and has nothing to do with the published maximum speed.

banie01

smurfjed wrote: »

Lets start with the basics, the Max Speed that any of you have shown in the last pages is based on a MACH SPEED at altitude, Boeing have then converted that speed into KNOTS / MPH / KMH.

In reality in low level flight the aircraft will be flown using KNOTS and not MACH, it will have a theoretical limiting speed called the VMO which in normal operations will have a lovely clacker sound if you exceed it (as does MMO). But these are theoretical speeds for airlines operating the aircraft in normal operations. Now you take in the advantages of gravity to aid your engines and those speeds are irrelevant. The aircraft will accelerate faster and faster and it will not give a crap about that nice maximum speed value that Mr Boeing issued.

So you are fighting over a speed value that is easily achievable and has nothing to do with the published maximum speed.

All very true, but the argument is in fact about CS claiming that as the maximum speed attainable by the 757-200 was 496mph that it could not possibly have been the aircraft that hit the Pentagon because the radar track was at 530mph

Whilst low level speed is rated on knots most non pilots would have no real grasp of it as a metric and tbh it's hard enough to get CS to settle on a "fact" in any case.

In normal terms I'd view speed at low level as knots and maximum speed as a function of Mach.

On this particular thread if it can't be "proven" by links and corroboration CS will take the view it never happened.

Given his math skills,I don't fancy explaining Mach as a function of air pressure and height above sea level and potential ground effect from low level flight to someone who has issues working out a free fall calculation

Cheerful Spring

smurfjed wrote: »

Lets start with the basics, the Max Speed that any of you have shown in the last pages is based on a MACH SPEED at altitude, Boeing have then converted that speed into KNOTS / MPH / KMH.

In reality in low level flight the aircraft will be flown using KNOTS and not MACH, it will have a theoretical limiting speed called the VMO which in normal operations will have a lovely clacker sound if you exceed it (as does MMO). But these are theoretical speeds for airlines operating the aircraft in normal operations. Now you take in the advantages of gravity to aid your engines and those speeds are irrelevant. The aircraft will accelerate faster and faster and it will not give a crap about that nice maximum speed value that Mr Boeing issued.

So you are fighting over a speed value that is easily achievable and has nothing to do with the published maximum speed.

You forgetting the claim is the plane was flying just twenty feet off the ground in Washington DC in build up residential city. It dropped to 3 to 4 feet seconds before hit the Pentagon.

A plane at these heights flying would experience the ground effect, downwash, compression and jet blast.

Remember also the story is Hani Hanjour could not control a Cessna light aircraft in the air a few weeks before 9/11.

Could by 9/11 fly the plane low to the ground and not crash, there something fishy there.

smurfjed

A plane at these heights flying would experience the ground effect, downwash, compression and jet blast

Ground effect - true
Downwash - what?
Compression - what?
Jet Blast - What?

Sorry you really have to expand on these items.

Have you ever flown an airliner?

And you comment about flying 400 knots/miles or whatever would destroy things on the ground, where did you get that idea from?

banie01

smurfjed wrote: »

Ground effect - true
Downwash - what?
Compression - what?
Jet Blast - What?

Sorry you really have to expand on these items.

Have you ever flown an airliner?

And you comment about flying 400 knots/miles or whatever would destroy things on the ground, where did you get that idea from?

Welcome to the Funhouse Smurfjed

Actually it would be very interesting to get some quality input from someone with a big amount of Aviation experience.

But be prepared for the crazy.

King Mob

smurfjed wrote: »

Sorry you really have to expand on these items.

(Pssst. He doesn't know what any of the terms mean. It's just something smart sounding he heard once and is repeating.)

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You forgetting the claim is the plane was flying just twenty feet off the ground in Washington DC in build up residential city. It dropped to 3 to 4 feet seconds before hit the Pentagon.

A plane at these heights flying would experience the ground effect, downwash, compression and jet blast.

Remember also the story is Hani Hanjour could not control a Cessna light aircraft in the air a few weeks before 9/11.

Could by 9/11 fly the plane low to the ground and not crash, there something fishy there.

Dozens and dozens of people saw it happen.