9/11 - Europhysics report



Very sensible post but please explain below.

A "normal" minimum clean speed with a full load and landing fuel varies between about 210-220 knots this is based on a Vref speed of between 130-140 knots. With this in mind an arrival into a field such as LGW would be flown clean until ATC ask us to reduce below that. Normally ATC ask for 210kts at about 12 miles 180kts between 12-8 miles and then 160kts til 4 miles.
What I normally do (not saying this is how it should be done everyone does it slightly different) is fly it clean at 210 (or min clean speed) until 12 miles then go to flap5 and fly at Vref+40 (170-180kts)til 8 miles and then use flap20 gear up Vref+20 (around 150-160kts) at about 4.5 miles I'd ask for the gear down and at 4 miles go Flap30 Vref+5 (135-145 knots) and fly that for the remainder of the approach.
Hope this helps. Wasn't sure what level of understanding you have so I've tried to explain it middle of the road.

The planes used in the 9/11 incident were not landing using the flaps as per Boeing's years of development.

These planes were used as missiles and at that speed/altitude were uncontrollable, so a few guys from the Middle East with no flight time were never going to achieve the devastation caused in 9/11.

It happened but to blame the named is laughable. Don't believe the conspiracy theories but I still await the truth behind this tragic incident.

Aircraft are uncontrollable at 200kts 800ft in the air? Is that what you're trying to say?

The buildings were hit in two completely different ways, but collapsed in identical fashion. You know that.

Gravity only works downwards.
 
The buildings were hit in two completely different ways, but collapsed in identical fashion. You know that.

I've already answered that.

They were both similar enough too, in that both towers had two 757s flown full pelt into them and had the central core damaged. Less of the central structure was damaged in tower two, but it was hit lower down, so had even more weight bearing down from above the impact zone. As both towers were built the same they could only ever collapse one way.

If it was so choreographed they'd have brought tower one down first, as that was the first to be hit.
 
Last edited:
I love how these knackers always mention the unprecedented nature of the collapse of the buildings without mentioning the unprecedented nature of the attacks that led to the collapse.

I’m surprised they haven’t applied it to JFK.

“His head just exploded. Heads just don’t explode like that. They’re designed to keep the brain in place even if you are driving down a Texas road in an open top car. Loads of people have done that and their heads didn’t explode. Must have been a conspiracy”

“Erm, maybe it exploded due to the bullet?”

“Heads just don’t exploded like that. Watch the video. They obviously rigged his head with explosives”
How abput about a plane cutting thro a steel structured building? Whats strongest? The weakest part of the wings cant hold fuel, it would snap off yet that part cuts through a massive steel structure. Love how knackers like you are so thick you will find an excuse for it
 
Why is everyone avoiding building 7 ?
Can you read?

How abput about a plane cutting thro a steel structured building? Whats strongest? The weakest part of the wings cant hold fuel, it would snap off yet that part cuts through a massive steel structure. Love how knackers like you are so thick you will find an excuse for it
If only Newton had developed a second law of motion. Lazy prick.
 
So the towers were legitimate attacks. Then what, the government joined in and attacked its own country?
:) :) Yeah, haven't you heard? There was an amazing stroke of bad luck, in that the US had planned attacks on the same buildings on the same day, but they were bested by actual attacks, so instead of just letting that happen, they started randomly blowing shit up.. Apparently
The buildings were hit in two completely different ways, but collapsed in identical fashion. You know that.

Why is everyone avoiding building 7 ?
Why are you avoiding my questions from pages ago..
How did they conclude it (whatever 'it' is) was 'staged', exactly? And what exactly was staged - are they claiming there were planes that hit the buildings, but this was part of the conspiracy?
 
Explain more einstein....
Should I have to? I mean you're so sure you have it all worked out and yet you've seemingly got no idea of the relationship between mass and force, or as you see it 'strength'.

You're writing cheques your brain can't cash.
 
Should I have to? I mean you're so sure you have it all worked out and yet you've seemingly got no idea of the relationship between mass and force, or as you see it 'strength'.

You're writing cheques your brain can't cash.
No i think you should? If your quoting the second law of motion which i understand, you should explain its relevance to this if your quoting it over this
 
No they haven't - you are living in fantasy.
Buildings fall straight down, it's called gravity.
Building 7 had been on fire for 7 hours, after which, a steel girder failed causing floor 13 to collapse, triggering a succession of collapses on all floors. All 23 central columns collapsed. All external columns collapsed.

There, now fuckoff and read a book.
 
:) :) Yeah, haven't you heard? There was an amazing stroke of bad luck, in that the US had planned attacks on the same buildings on the same day, but they were bested by actual attacks, so instead of just letting that happen, they started randomly blowing shit up.. Apparently

Why are you avoiding my questions from pages ago..
How did they conclude it (whatever 'it' is) was 'staged', exactly? And what exactly was staged - are they claiming there were planes that hit the buildings, but this was part of the conspiracy?
Why are you asking me to explain a document i've asked you to read? Read it you clown.

Buildings fall straight down, it's called gravity.
Building 7 had been on fire for 7 hours, after which, a steel girder failed causing floor 13 to collapse, triggering a succession of collapses on all floors. All 23 central columns collapsed. All external columns collapsed.

There, now fuckoff and read a book.
:lol::lol::lol: wow.
 
Address the rest

Building 7 had been on fire for 7 hours, after which, a steel girder failed causing floor 13 to collapse, triggering a succession of collapses on all floors. All 23 central columns collapsed. All external columns collapsed.

What say you?

Once again you totally ignore the things that disprove your stupid conspiracy theory. You're an idiot and not worth debating.
 
No i think you should? If your quoting the second law of motion which i understand, you should explain its relevance to this if your quoting it over this
The fact that you need its relevance explaining is enough really. What do you imagine its relevance could be to questions of relative force in a f***ing plane crash like?

Ponder it with a cup of tea.
 
Address the rest

Building 7 had been on fire for 7 hours, after which, a steel girder failed causing floor 13 to collapse, triggering a succession of collapses on all floors. All 23 central columns collapsed. All external columns collapsed.

What say you?
What you are saying comes from where please? Claiming" a steel girder failed & triggered a succession of collapses on all floors" is ridiculous, especially since we know steel doesnt collapse as a result of fire. You can't have it one way for building 7 saying it was fire, and then for 1&2 claim it was structural damage.
 
How abput about a plane cutting thro a steel structured building? Whats strongest? The weakest part of the wings cant hold fuel, it would snap off yet that part cuts through a massive steel structure. Love how knackers like you are so thick you will find an excuse for it

Massive steel structure? That solid structure was in the middle of the towers not the perimeter you balloon :lol:

The Pentagon however was a solid external structure. Hence not much of the plane remained.
 
Nice to see people remembering what I said, saves me the bother of repeating it ;)
 

Back
Top