Ok, you wanna talk science and physics, let's do that for a second. The airplanes that crashed into the world trade center towers, flight 175 and flight 11, were said to have been going 542 and 443 mph respectively when they hit the buildings. Bear in mind they would have had to have been going those speeds at barely 1,000 feet in the air, as the towers were only about 1,300 feet high altogether. Already this seems to be impossibility because after all, has anyone ever heard of a commercial airliner hitting basically cruising speed barely after taking off? The usual altitude for cruising is anywhere from around 25,000 to 40,000 feet, so the notion that these planes 1,000 feet off the ground could have been going that fast seems rather ridiculous on this basis alone.

BUT, let's just see if it could have been possible, by comparing it to another plane. In October of 1999, Egypt Air Flight 990 went down. In the investigation that followed its' crash, it's maximum speed was clocked to be 489 mph at 22,000 feet up. Shortly after that, the plane fell apart into pieces, there were two separate debris fields found indicating it.

So now looking at that, what does that tell us? It tells us that there is a certain altitude where a plane simply cannot go beyond a particular speed for very long, without it falling apart. The air pressure prevents it from doing it. They simply aren't designed to be able to handle that.

Now, with all that information in mind, let's go back to flight's 11 and 175.. If flight 990 fell apart going 489 mph 22,000 feet in the air, 21,000 feet HIGHER in altitude than they were flying at, logic and common sense would tell you that they would have done the exact same thing, going pretty close to the speed 990 was going, and in the case of flight 175, exceeding it.

In short, in order for those 2 planes to have been traveling at near cruising speed as low to the ground as they were, they would have had to have defied the laws of aerodynamics. Whatever did hit those buildings flat could not have been a normal commercial plane because as I have shown, it would have been physically impossible for them to do what we are told they did.

So you wanna talk science? Well science pretty much disproves the official story right here.

Ok, you wanna talk science and physics, let's do that for a second. The airplanes that crashed into the world trade center towers, flight 175 and flight 11, were said to have been going 542 and 443 mph respectively when they hit the buildings. Bear in mind they would have had to have been going those speeds at barely 1,000 feet in the air, as the towers were only about 1,300 feet high altogether. Already this seems to be impossibility because after all, has anyone ever heard of a commercial airliner hitting basically cruising speed barely after taking off? The usual altitude for cruising is anywhere from around 25,000 to 40,000 feet, so the notion that these planes 1,000 feet off the ground could have been going that fast seems rather ridiculous on this basis alone.

BUT, let's just see if it could have been possible, by comparing it to another plane. In October of 1999, Egypt Air Flight 990 went down. In the investigation that followed its' crash, it's maximum speed was clocked to be 489 mph at 22,000 feet up. Shortly after that, the plane fell apart into pieces, there were two separate debris fields found indicating it.

So now looking at that, what does that tell us? It tells us that there is a certain altitude where a plane simply cannot go beyond a particular speed for very long, without it falling apart. The air pressure prevents it from doing it. They simply aren't designed to be able to handle that.

Now, with all that information in mind, let's go back to flight's 11 and 175.. If flight 990 fell apart going 489 mph 22,000 feet in the air, 21,000 feet HIGHER in altitude than they were flying at, logic and common sense would tell you that they would have done the exact same thing, going pretty close to the speed 990 was going, and in the case of flight 175, exceeding it.

In short, in order for those 2 planes to have been traveling at near cruising speed as low to the ground as they were, they would have had to have defied the laws of aerodynamics. Whatever did hit those buildings flat could not have been a normal commercial plane because as I have shown, it would have been physically impossible for them to do what we are told they did.

So you wanna talk science? Well science pretty much disproves the official story right here.

For one I found nothing to suggest it could not handle the pressure or speeds during the crash. I am sure if they couldn't someone would have claimed this and given specs of the pressures it can handle.

As for flight 990 if the plane was diving as they think it did it could easily increase its speed. For every second its diving gravity alone increases its speed 22 mph. The engines now not having to fight gravity would also produce extra force and allow for greater speed increases.

You know the planes that hit the the WTC didn't take off in NY right? Both flights left from Boston. Plenty of time to reach full cruising altitude and speed.

How would they defy the laws of aerodynamics? I see no science anywhere in your post. Saying you think some unknown speed at some unknown altitude caused a singular plane is not science. Also with the planes crashes being 11 years apart and not knowing the age of each aircraft we can't assume the same specifications and tolerances either. Assumptions are not science.

Actually it wouldn't defy physics because the air pressure is different at different comparable altitudes......the pressure and speeds at different altitudes would create different circumstances.....

Instead of arguing about the details of what may or may not have happened, why don't you look at the two official accounts of what happened and ask the question why did they change their offical story about what happened?

Then for those who believe everything their government tells them, ask yourself why, when they completely changed their story, you just shrugged and said... "Okay, thanks for clearing that up for us. We believe you no matter what you say or how many times you change your story, because we are gullible."

If you are not the least bit aware of HOW they changed the official story, then you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to this subject because you have not researched it enough.

Because I didn't come here to debate 9/11. I am debating his statements about breaking the laws of aerodynamics. I can't stand people claiming things defy physics when they don't. Also since he can't seem to grasp the law of inertia I highly doubt he grasps aerodynamics.

Waste of time if you don't have a degree in physics. Ask the obvious simple questions first.

Actually it wouldn't defy physics because the air pressure is different at different comparable altitudes......the pressure and speeds at different altitudes would create different circumstances.....

What kind of degree in engineering do you have? (There a lots of type of engineering.) What kind of practical experience do you have?

I prefer to believe an experienced commercial pilot over a 26 year old with a degree in engineering, concerning the Pentagon attack. He has been flying almost as long as you are old.

What kind of degree in engineering do you have? (There a lots of type of engineering.) What kind of practical experience do you have?

I prefer to believe an experienced commercial pilot over a 26 year old with a degree in engineering, concerning the Pentagon attack. He has been flying almost as long as you are old.

I am an electrical engineer. I took cross discipline classes and passed the FE exam which covers topics from all sides of engineering. I worked on the MH-60 Naval Helicopter and flew the flight simulator on mock missions for testing. (and I agree with seakolony that simulators are not the same thing as flying the aircraft. I felt comfortable in the simulator. I bet I would crash the aircraft)

My comments were not on those subjects but on the so called science on an unrelated topic. Not about the pentagon. Please stop trying to pull things off topic. I debated 9/11 for 40 pages in another thread. I am not debating that here. I am only debating Kleisto's claims of science. What your doing is comparable to this example. A physics teacher is using a baseball to explain projectile motion. Then you say something like "well I would rather believe a baseball player to tell me the proper way to pitch a change up than a physics teacher." See how that comment has no relevance to the subject of projectile motion?