rationalskepticism.org

psikeyhackr wrote:

Paul wrote:If you don't know anything about aviation then I suggest you don't start spouting about it. It only shows another topic that you are ill equipped to argue about, and gives you even less credibility with this lurker than you had before (which was fuck all anyway).

Professional pilots tend not to land at that speed because their aircraft have tendency to keep flying at that sort of speed (due to the airflow over the wings producing lots of lift).

I didn't say I didn't understand anything about fluid mechanics.

The air pressure on wings works just like the constriction in a carburetor in a car. The higher speed over the curved surface reduces the pressure on the surface. That creates the lift for airplanes. You just wnat to believe people are STUPID if they disagree with you.

While that explanation was taught for a long time, it's not actually correct. Angle of attack is what creates the lift - as can be seen with an airplane flying upside down.

I am SO impressed by you phenomenal credibility.

But that drag on airlines is about 4 times what it would be at the altitudes they normally fly at those speeds. It does seem peculiar that NORMAL airliners would have enough thrust to do that.

OK, you've discovered the real proof of the conspiracy - we used abnormal airliners with massive afterburners to let them fly fast at lower altitude.

Have you considered that, while drag is increased at lower altitudes, the primary reason the aircraft don't fly that fast and that low isn't because the CANNOT, but because they don't WANT to, due to higher risk and lower fuel efficiency?

Didn't think so.

So where is your physical model that can collapse?

psik

Where is your physical model that replicates what happened in the WTC, yet doesn't fully collapse?