You’re entire argument STARTS with an assertion that the planes couldn’t have made the holes in the building that we can clearly see from pictures. What did you think made the holes in the shape of the planes?
What part of 143,000 lbs traveling at 560 mph are you having problems with?
But I wouldn’t award him the Oscar. 
Your math is wrong here.
Doubling the speed does not mean you square the power, it means that you multiply the power by 4.
The formula for wind resistance is F=kv[sup]2[/sup], where k is a constant, based on the makeup and density of the atmosphere, along with the profile of the plane.
With k equal to 1, and in the case of v=1, then F=1 x 1[sup]2[/sup], so F=1
Keeping k equal to 1, and in the case of v=2, then F=1 x 2[sup]2[/sup], so F=4
Substitute any other numbers in there, and you will find it to be consistent.
So yeah, basic math.
It seems that you are instead using an equation like F=k[sup]v[/sup], which is entirely wrong.
Hod do you figure that a falling object will deliver less than its static weight?
Try this. Hold a 1 pound object. Feels like it weighs about 1 pound. Now place the one pound object on your foot. Fairly comfy, right? Now, drop that 1 pound object on your foot from chest height. Feels a bit heavier at the moment it hits your foot, doesn’t it? That’s because things impress more than their weight when they are being decelerated, not less.
That you are wrong.
It grows quadratically, not exponentially.
The formula is F=kv[sup]2[/sup], not F=k[sup]v[/sup]
I have a problem with your basic math, as shown above.
Once you can get through and acknowledge your error on those very simple equations, we can get to the other parts of where you went wrong.
and I suppose that you assume that all you need to do is simply advance the throttle and fly at 540 mph at < 1000 ft … right?
oh well …
Remember, he uses the term “alleged”(sometimes) to refer to the airliners. He actually believes there were no planes, the TV coverage was faked, there were no live witnesses and a few other bizarre things.
“Doubling the speed does not mean you square the power, it means that you multiply the power by 4.” SOURCE PLEASE, BTW: there is a wiki article that explains the fact that power required goes up exponentially as the speed increases linearly.
witnesses who had a line of sight to either the north wall of the north tower or the south wall of the south tower and were focused on that bit at the time the alleged airliner crashed would have been useful, however, where are the documented witness statements that say they actually saw an airliner penetrate the wall?
you point the nose down to increase speed.
If it’s possible to drive a car faster than the speed of sound, anything is possible. And I am not making this up. It happened on today’s date 20 years ago, in fact.
what would YOU think if the “news” on TV said that the government has information
about how the Republic of Elbonia is planning a first strike against AMERICAN military assets overseas and we MUST respond by bombing the shit out of the tiny republic…
what?
… The TELL-LIE-VISION is an instrument of propaganda!
We have several professional pilots on the boards. I’m one of them, and I don’t really see what you’re getting at here. What are you asserting?
Putting a plane into a downward attitude and advancing the throttle would most certainly increase the speed dramatically. It’s true the air is “thicker” at low altitude. And… what?
The engines wouldn’t like it? Eventually, sure. The plane would over-speed to the point of structural failure eventually, sure. But planes are built pretty tough, and if you don’t care about surviving the flight you can push them to some pretty extreme feats.
Again, how do you explain the holes in the buildings that match the shape of the aircraft that occurred right after the planes hit the buildings?
You saw that Dilbert episode, too, huh?
“If it’s possible to drive a car faster than the speed of sound, anything is possible.”
well NO, “anything” isn’t possible, and an airliner has finite limits imposed by its design that make it very difficult if not impossible to fly at 540 mph at < 1000 ft altitude
If the airliner were to attain such speed, it would only be by way of a dive and this brings up yet another problem, at what altitude does one start the dive so as to attain the desired speed and altitude at the finish and how to execute the pull out from said dive in such a manner as to not generate g force that would render the pilot unconscious … and after the pull out, the aircraft would be functionally a glider because the jet engines would not contribute significantly to the propulsion of the airliner.
because aluminum aircraft do not act as hardened steel punches to make holed in structural steel. The ONLY way that this could have happened the way that it was alleged … .would be for the WTC tower wall to have been made of paper.
The internet is absolutely full of pictures like this: https://s-i.huffpost.com/gen/1177202/images/o-CAR-WALL-CHRIS-SIMPSON-SUTTON-facebook.jpg . Are you claiming that wall was made of paper?
If you really are a pilot, please give this a bit of thought
an airliner put into a dive to attain high speed, and once having attained that speed, the pilot must then pull out of this dive, and in doing so would create g force, and if the pull-out is done wrong the g force would break the aircraft, so then how is it that marginally trained “puddle-jumper” pilots could be expected to know how to handle a large airliner and not cause catastrophic failure by screwing up a maneuver?
Clearly you have absolutely, and I mean absolutely no knowledge of aircraft or how they’re flown.
They’re were no problems reaching the speeds discussed. I’m truly not sure why you’re talking about G forces while pulling up because it was a one-shot suicide mission designed to maximize damage. As to what altitude to start at there is no magic number for suicide missions. Altitude is controlled by throttle and air speed is controlled by attitude. Adjust both as needed.
There is a HUGE difference between a wall composed of structural steel box columns and un-reinforced masonry … Also note that the car ( and the vast majority of cars in this position … ) stopped before disappearing inside the building.
…Documented witness statements? This is somehow superior evidence to the countless videos of the planes hitting the towers? I’m sorry, I’m having serious trouble wrapping my head around this. Are you telling me that if we didn’t have the video, and all we had was eyewitness testimony from people who claimed that they saw planes hitting the towers, you would believe that planes hit the towers? If I could dredge up eyewitness testimony from people who saw the planes hitting the towers, would you be convinced that planes hit the towers, or would you just handwave it away? I mean, from my experience, testimony is a hell of a lot easier to fake than video, but hey, if that’s the evidence that would convince you, by all means, I’ll go find some.
