Creative Speculation

Make7

(8,546 posts)

76. Didn't a turbofan powered plane go over 750 mph at less than 1000 feet back in the 1950's?

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 08:33 AM

Feb 2013

So surely it is physically possible for aircraft to achieve such speeds at low altitudes - are you saying that a 757-200 is not aerodynamic enough and/or does not have adequate engine power to reach 500 mph at low altitude? If that is the case, do you have anything substantial to base that opinion on?
[font style="font-size:0.8462em; color:#ffffff; background-color:#ffffff;"]http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/afd-080123-063.pdf#page=3[/font]

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

103 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Martin Sheen: 9/11 Questions 'Unanswered,' Building 7 'Very Suspicious' [View all] Little Star Nov 2012 OP

Those are the questions that dare not be asked in public. gtar100 Jan 2013 #1

"No parts of an airplane found at the Pentagon crash?" William Seger Jan 2013 #3

Yeah, right the titanium in the engines just vaporized. RoccoR5955 Feb 2013 #6

Um... who is asking you to believe that "engines just vaporized?" William Seger Feb 2013 #7

There seems to be quite an obvious discrepancy... ocpagu Feb 2013 #8

There seems to be quite an obvious discrepancy between "no-planer" claims and reality William Seger Feb 2013 #14

No trouble at all. ocpagu Feb 2013 #15

So, a plane crashed into that wall William Seger Feb 2013 #25

Yes, I do need an explanation for that. ocpagu Feb 2013 #30

No, not the "entire plane" William Seger Feb 2013 #32

Your own picture proves my point. ocpagu Feb 2013 #33

Yeah, where are the wings and tail and body!?! William Seger Feb 2013 #34

You're the one not answering my question, so... ocpagu Feb 2013 #35

I'm not sure you are qualified to make those assertions. AZCat Feb 2013 #38

I have eyes and a brain. ocpagu Feb 2013 #39

No, you're not. AZCat Feb 2013 #40

I don't need an expert to tell me that a Boeing 757 can't convert into a 20 in alluminium piece. ocpagu Feb 2013 #41

Apparently, you do need an expert William Seger Feb 2013 #42

That wouldn't change the fact that planes can't evaporate ocpagu Feb 2013 #48

They didn't evaporate, as photos already posted have demonstrated cpwm17 Feb 2013 #51

Oh, I see... it "disintegrated"... ocpagu Feb 2013 #54

Given your response in post #41 cpwm17 Feb 2013 #55

This message was self-deleted by its author Prog_gun_owner Feb 2013 #75

Didn't a turbofan powered plane go over 750 mph at less than 1000 feet back in the 1950's? Make7 Feb 2013 #76

Cruising speed of a 757 is Mach 0.8... SidDithers Feb 2013 #77

are you sure? Prog_gun_owner Feb 2013 #79

We know precisely how fast AA77 was flying William Seger Feb 2013 #80

It seems honesty is valued here so I'll be honest. Prog_gun_owner Feb 2013 #86

a little dated...? tomk52 May 2013 #99

Of course a 757 is capable of 500 mph at sea level tomk52 Feb 2013 #78

That you think a handful of photos is sufficient... AZCat Feb 2013 #46

Don't be ridiculous. ocpagu Feb 2013 #49

That's quite amusing. AZCat Feb 2013 #60

"Please understand that you're not the first person to have raised this poorly-supported claim" ocpagu Feb 2013 #70

You have no idea how much debris there was William Seger Feb 2013 #43

Your pictures prove my point... ocpagu Feb 2013 #50

Your inability to figure out what happened to the plane doesn't prove anything William Seger Feb 2013 #63

The same can be said about your inability to explain what happened to the plane. ocpagu Feb 2013 #69

Have you ever seen the remains of a NASCAR vehicle after hitting a wall at 1/3 the speed of this AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #100

Other reason why there's so little debris... tomk52 Jun 2013 #103

That rotor is NOT from a 747 RoccoR5955 Feb 2013 #18

Of course it wasn't. AZCat Feb 2013 #19

Okay, then it was even bigger! n/t RoccoR5955 Feb 2013 #44

Sigh. Codeine Feb 2013 #73

Bullshit William Seger Feb 2013 #21

Back it up RoccoR5955 Feb 2013 #45

No problem William Seger Feb 2013 #47

Turbine disk hubs, not withstanding, RoccoR5955 Feb 2013 #57

Um, did you happen to notice William Seger Feb 2013 #64

Right, strike three for you. n/t RoccoR5955 Feb 2013 #67

Good snappy comeback!!! zappaman Feb 2013 #68

Not only did the engines vaporize, but so did the black boxes. RoccoR5955 Feb 2013 #81

No they didn't. zappaman Feb 2013 #82

Funny that we have heard, anything about the data RoccoR5955 Feb 2013 #84

What's that have to do with your assertion that the black boxes were not found? zappaman Feb 2013 #85

Well if I heard something that they were found, RoccoR5955 Mar 2013 #87

AA77 and UA93 flight data recorders WERE found William Seger Feb 2013 #83

No more questions? William Seger Jan 2013 #5

Even if the film is made.... Frank_Norris_Lives Jan 2013 #2

There are literally thousands of buildings in the country... William Seger Jan 2013 #4

And yet, WTC remains as the only known example... ocpagu Feb 2013 #16

"the only known example" William Seger Feb 2013 #22

There's nothing in common between Tacoma Bridge and WTC events. ocpagu Feb 2013 #24

But I said, "the only known example of a bridge collapsing in a 40 mph wind" William Seger Feb 2013 #36

You have no answers. ocpagu Feb 2013 #52

You don't know what you're talking about William Seger Feb 2013 #66

Still nothing. ocpagu Feb 2013 #71

Nothing that you can admit, obviously, but that's hardly the issue William Seger Feb 2013 #72

Untrue. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #101

Slight correction... tomk52 Jun 2013 #102

What impresses me the most about this... ocpagu Feb 2013 #9

You seem to think it's a matter of subjective opinion William Seger Feb 2013 #23

I see no reason... ocpagu Feb 2013 #27

"when there are thousands and thousands of experts who disagree." zappaman Feb 2013 #10

Who's the "structural engineering community"? ocpagu Feb 2013 #11

Read the link and you get your answer. zappaman Feb 2013 #12

Nope. No answer in your link. ocpagu Feb 2013 #13

As I expected, you have no answers. ocpagu Feb 2013 #17

Really? Academics who have lost their jobs? AZCat Feb 2013 #20

Actually, I was waiting for you to answer my questions. zappaman Feb 2013 #26

And I'm still waiting for you to answer mine. ocpagu Feb 2013 #28

I asked you first. zappaman Feb 2013 #29

You can start by here: ocpagu Feb 2013 #31

Ah, yes - AE911Truth, the font of accuracy. AZCat Feb 2013 #37

Really not interested... ocpagu Feb 2013 #53

No, of course not. AZCat Feb 2013 #59

Just ... wow ... tomk52 Feb 2013 #56

I won't even bother responding... ocpagu Feb 2013 #58

definition of terms... tomk52 Feb 2013 #61

Welcome to DU! greyl Feb 2013 #62

Thank you. I would like to get OC's serious response … tomk52 Feb 2013 #65

This is a superb example of the intellectual dishonesty of Truthers... tomk52 Feb 2013 #74

As I said before... ocpagu May 2013 #88

Just "wow"... tomk52 May 2013 #89

Doesn't Bazant.... Frank_Norris_Lives May 2013 #92

"Free fall" doesn't have anthing to do with his analysis William Seger May 2013 #93

He does, but its irrelevant tomk52 May 2013 #97

Bazant doesn't actually use any estimate of the acceleration in his analysis William Seger May 2013 #98

If we get over this speed bump... tomk52 May 2013 #90

LOL ocpagu May 2013 #91

LOL, that was a little "Snidley Whiplash" of me... tomk52 May 2013 #94

Ok. ocpagu May 2013 #95

Well, waddaya know... tomk52 May 2013 #96