"UA175
Aircraft" Speed Analysis
For the purpose of this speed analysis I
have assumed that the UA175 aircraft was travelling at a height of
approximately 1000 feet at the time of impact and that the air temperature was
approximately 20 degrees Celsius at that altitude. Under these environmental
conditions the speed of sound (Mach 1.0) would occur approximately at 767 mph
or 666 knots. Here is a list of UA175 speeds issued from official bodies that
were presumably calculated using video footage of the WTC2 strike:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology - 503 mph / 436
knots / M0.653
British Royal Air Force - 575 mph / 500 knots / M0.750
Federal Aviation Administration - 586 mph / 510 knots / M0.765
National Institute of Standards and Technology - 546 mph / 475 knots / M0.714
Federal Emergency Management Agency - 590 mph / 514 knots / M0.771
As you can see there is a difference in
speeds from one UA175 video to another, which does not make sense because the
UA175 aircraft could have only been travelling at one speed prior to its
collision with WTC2.
Not entirely happy with these official speed figures from MIT, RAF, FAA, NIST
and FEMA I decided to calculate the approximate speed of the UA175 aircraft
myself using 3 different video sources in an attempt to clear up the speed
inconsistencies demonstrated by the official calculations and hopefully to
identify one universal speed.
To calculate the approximate speed of the UA175 aircraft from any given video I
simply cloned together two images of the UA175 aircraft at a known time
interval from the same video footage and then measured the distance travelled
between the two UA175 aircraft clones using the WTC2 towers east wall as a
horizontal reference for measuring distances. With the time frame known and the
distance travelled calculated it is possible to obtain a reasonably accurate
speed for the UA175 aircraft for each different video.
For my analysis I used the Park Foreman video (below), the Evan
Fairbanks video and the "Unknown" video.

All media used for my calculations came directly from good quality
NTSC DVD sources. The results were as follows:
Park Foreman Video - 540
mph / 470 knots / M0.705
Evan Fairbanks Video - 565 mph / 490 knots / M0.735
"Unknown Video" - 492 mph / 428 knots / M0.642
As with the official calculations there is quite a variation in
speeds obtained from one video source to another according to my analysis, but
we can comfortably group together the RAF, FEMA, FAA, Park Foreman Video and
the Evan Fairbanks video figures to produce a speed range between 560 mph and
590 mph.
The variation in speed from the differing video sources could easily be due to
small errors in the calculations by each respective party and as the calculated
speeds in this group are quite close, this could be one possible explanation.
However, the calculation performed by Eduardo Kausel (below) at MIT and my own
calculation using the Unknown Video are well outside this 560 mph to 590 mph
speed bracket, yet Kausel claims to have used various publicly available video
recordings and states that the velocities for the two WTC planes were in
excellent agreement with the flight data based on RADAR information provided by
the NTSC.

How can MIT's Eduardo Kausel be producing a UA175 speed that are
at such odds with FEMA, RAF, FAA, NIST and my own set of calculations?
Moreover Eduardo Kausel draws our attention to another important point...
"...the above data indicates that the terrorists flew towards the WTC
close to the ground at nearly the full cruising speed of the planes, which is
about 900 km/h (560 mph) at a normal altitude of 10km (33,000 feet). It is
surprising that the inexperienced pilots that the terrorist were could still
steer the planes at those speeds and hit their target head on. Also,
considering that the air at low altitudes is much denser than that at normal
cruising height, the pilots greatly exceeded Vne ("Velocity Never
Exceed") and thereby risked disintegration of the aircraft by air
friction."
I spoke to a former Boeing 767-200 Captain about the aerodynamic limitations of
the Boeing 767-200 aircraft and he stated that it would be unwise to exceed an
indicated airspeed of 400 knots (460 mph at sea level) at any altitude.
As mentioned before, the airspeed of 400 knots at sea level is well outside the
maximum operating speed of the Boeing 767-200 and therefore the pilots would
run the risk of either total structural failure or localised structural
failures, namely wing fairings breaking off, engine cowlings breaking off,
control surfaces breaking off or becoming inoperative and handling
difficulties. None of these structural failures and handling issues would be of
any benefit to the crew, so why did the alleged hijackers chose to operate
their usurped aircraft at such a dangerously high airspeed such that it could
have prematurely terminated their mission through complete structural failure,
or made it unnecessarily difficult or even impossible to execute through partial
structural failure and aircraft handling difficulties?
The high speed approach to the WTC2 target as seen in the visual records of the
event would have created a vast flight deck work load at a critical point in
the mission, while making navigation to the WTC complex unnecessarily difficult
for the hijackers who were not renowned for their skills and experience
operating large passenger aircraft like the Boeing 767-200! When you consider
the fact that the Boeing 767-200's airframe would have smashed to pieces on the
towers façade during impact under any speed condition you have to wonder what
the alleged hijackers had to gain by choosing this high speed approach and high
speed collision.
I was also informed by the former Boeing 767-200 Captain that there would NOT
be any adverse effects on aircraft handling or performance as a result of
nearing or achieving transonic airspeeds.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from this UA175 airspeed analysis is
that the video recordings are all giving us different speeds because the UA175
aircraft was actually travelling at a different speed in each video!
The fact that all the videos apparently show a structurally intact Boeing
767-200 in controlled flight prior to its collision with WTC2 travelling at
such a ridiculously high airspeed is another indicator that whatever the UA175
aircraft was, it was not a production model Boeing 767-200, or it was simply
something that has been added to the video recording in post production either
to conceal what the video recording originally showed, or to add something to
the recording that should have been there, but was in fact absent from the
original recording.
We should consider the possibility that there is more than one person or group
responsible for the forgery and / or manipulation of any given UA175 strike
video and that there is seemingly a lack of accordance between these groups or
individuals which could account for the speed inconsistencies demonstrated by
the videographic record.
Next - Available Tower Distance,
Glide Slope, Pitch, Roll And Yaw Approximations