hi doma,
if what you have written is the basis of your theory, then i think it is challengeable on the physics.
1. ground speed isn't air speed. you are using ground speed to define an air speed parameter. a plane may seem to be moving at 510 knots relative to the ground, while it is going at a slower speed relative to the air: or put another way, you can go faster with the wind behind you. this is why it takes an hour (or 10%) longer to fly from london to los angeles than los angeles to london. what was the plane's air speed?
2. thrust plus gravity is greater than thrust alone. not sure why you think gravity (or if you prefer, the attractive force) doesn't have an impact. your own example of a falling person demonstrates it.
3. gravity is a force. air density is resistance. the aircraft's acceleration downwards depends upon thrust plus gravity. resistance includes air density (which is different at different altitudes and creates drag) plus or minus wind speed.
4. the air density you quote is the air density at the moment of impact. but the plane experienced gradually increasing air densities. so the restrictions you place on the velocity of the aircraft at a particular altitude are not germane. the effects of deceleration are gradual rather than immediate. the plane was descending. it was not travelling horizontally.
5. i'll be interested to see a report from an authoritative source who uses the parameters of thrust, gravity and air density/ drag to establish a theoretical limit on this sort of aircraft's velocity in a descent from altitude. theoretically, the difference between that and actual velocity ought to be wind speed.
6. the evidence indicates 510 knots is doable. or was in that instance and in those circumstances. there were also eye witnesses, of course.
7. the other planes did not reach that velocity. so perhaps they were not part of your latest theory.
8. has it occurred to you that the real conspirators might be the folks who turn susceptible people into believers in conspiracies? and that the way to resist the conspiracy is not to be fooled.
| 