MAMEWorld Forums - Welcome to the War Room - Re: For the record 9/11 conspiracy theorist

> Granted, this is into the ground. But see how the plane's angle changes. There is
> less resistance since it has little to go through. How could the plane that hit the
> Pentagon not turned in some way, taking out more broad of an area rather than making
> a small hole all the way into the 3rd ring?
>
> Here is a video of a Boeing 727. Even if the descent is slower - see how it holds up
> after it crashes? Not that sturdy really. Hard to believe it can go to the 3rd ring
> of a building.
>
>
> eta: crap, forgot to embed ^this one.

Again, random videos that have zero in common with the events in question prove little to nothing. Both those impacts were in a controlled descent. One of the planes was even attempting to land safely. Neither of them were the same type of plane we are discussing. Pointless eye candy.

> "But, the plane was traveling at 530 MPH!"

Probably, or close to it.

>
> But at sea level (best to my googling ability I come up with) *dang it* I realize the
> greater the speed could make it possible to go that far through (like a straw stabbed
> through a potato, maybe?). But, imo, there's no way it (if it was a plane) should
> stay that much intact to make a mere hole all the way to the other side through 6 or
> more walls. But, honestly, I welcome a good, logical explanation saying that that's
> exactly what would happen and why.
>
> http://youtu.be/b5DgFcpsxes?t=18m40s
>
> It should be much slower.

Yeah....almost. I'll give you points on your research, but you failed in your understanding of flight dynamics. You are right, a 757 can't produce enough thrust to maintain altitude at 530 mph at sea level. That's the key though, he wasn't trying to maintain altitude. He was leading into a 100 feet per second dive. Before that he was struggling to stay at 300 knots, and that was only after a lighter dive. If you are going to post simulations to support your argument, at least watch them. (Or know what you are watching).

It only went through 3 walls, FYI.

BTW, one of those nifty little rules the FAA has is that a twin engine craft must be able to continue to takeoff and then land on one engine in the event of an issue. A 757 is grossly overpowered for it's weight. The reserve power is quite plentiful. I don't know if you've ever flown in one, but even as a passenger you can feel the power difference. It's a smooth, fast, effortless flight.

BTW x2...your video asks the question of a 767. It's similar to a 757, but much heavier. The plane that hit the pentagon was a 757.

> And then there's this...

What of it. It sure looks like he was on his way to becoming a 600 mph bullet/missile to me.