that will work. a blizzard of details about engine capabilities rather than atmospheric resistance.
we know from the simulation software that the engines are capable of reaching mach 0.86 at 2,000 feet. in my view, that's off the table.
mach numbers relate to velocity and altitude. the two variables are air density and air temperature. they create effects in opposite directions depending on altitude.
the stress waves that are capable of destroying the frame of the aircraft are much the same at any altitude so long as the mach number is the same. one learns this by reading about mach numbers. this is what the engineer was saying.
when an aircraft exceeds a particular mach number, it will break up. he says that number is mach 0.86. sounds much in line with other planes.
so if the aircraft cannot safely reach mach 0.86 at lower altitudes, it cannot be because of the atmosphere. it cannot be because of the effect of air density on the frame. air density and temperature act to balance one another out, more-or-less. that's the physics.
so if you are looking to explain a low altitude speed limit, it must be for some other reason.
my guess - engine heating leading to swift degradation. if you go fast at a low altitude the engine overheats. if so, then the question is how fast does an engine overheat and at what velocity?
i dunno. i don't really care. i have no doubt at all that 9/11 was an al qaeda terrorist attack using commercial aircraft. and clearly the theory that it was something different hasn't got the support structure necessary to make a difference. it's a conspiracy theory for folk who believe in conspiracy theories and who haven't got the data they need at their fingertips. but the theories stay afloat in the fog of general ignorance.
i have other things that interest me a bit more than this.
| 