it's true, mr. lear has some very whack theories. but his rundown of the technical capabilities of aircraft seemed pretty tight which was why i thought conversations here about airspeed might benefit from the link
Quote from ratboy88:
have you seen the video of the approach, and does it match what you saw?
i scoured the web last night for the handful of existing footage of flight 11, and as many photos as i could find, frame by frames, etc of the first plane and the entry hole.
i have to admit, the footage does not match what i saw. the fireman video is too fast and grainy to say either way. the brooklyn 'web artist' guy's frame of flight 11 on approach is way high. it just doesn't jive. at the altitude portrayed in these, the plane just wouldn't have gotten our immediate attention as it came over us from behind like it did. granted it was about 3 seconds that happened 6 years ago, but also the kind of experience that imprints deeply in your memory. the plane was very close and i just can't imagine remembering it that way from a 100 story flyby
from our vantage point facing straight down renwick street from the north sidewalk of spring st, we were literally looking straight up the back of the plane and directly at a full view of WTC 1. a few really tall condos went up on that block since then, but they weren't there in 01.
first there was an engine roar, next it was pretty much right in front of us. i think we looked at each other and said 'holy shit that plane's going to crash'. initially i thought it was going to hit close to the ground in the financial district. i also remember thinking it couldn't have been higher than maybe twice the height of the buildings behind us which were 6-10 stories....and that anyone on rooftops would have been practically grazed. immediately it followed an upward arc and left bank smoothly up into the tower with more of a high pitched fast crack sound than the kaboom one would expect. then we're staring at a perfect airplane shaped hole in the wtc and i turn to my friend and just said 'this is a really bad sign'. the air looked like it was full of glitter and we realized it was 10 foot shards of glass. the fire inside was deep red. almost didn't seem real
but we were literally looking directly at it's final path and i have been describing that arced trajectory up into the building since the day it happened. when i asked my friend yesterday she volunteered the same thing. i never really considered it unique or possibly a noteworthy aspect until seeing NIST diagrams showing a descent into the final impact which is just a really obvious contradiction with what we both saw. i've been hanging out at runways, tooling with flight simulators, building rc airplanes etc since i was a kid. i feel confident in what i saw.
i took a look at the impact hole diagrams and read a few websites speculating as to a mismatch with the wingspan and dihedral of a 767 with the hole. it seemed to me like those questions DO jive with what i saw. what they're not accounting for in those attempts to fit an image and 767 dimensions into the hole are an upward pitch and combined with a slightly diagonal impact almost like a left yaw. plus, under load (i think that's how you would describe it) ... i think the dihedral angle is steeper and wingspan tighter which could explain the mismatch people are seeing
