“What is the maximum possible speed for a Boeing 767 at sea level?”

The maximum operating speed (Vmo) for a Boeing 767 is approximately 360 knots, which is the highest indicated airspeed the aircraft is certified to fly at sea level or any altitude. This limit is set to prevent structural damage due to excessive aerodynamic forces, which increase significantly with air density at lower altitudes. While the aircraft’s maximum Mach number (Mmo) is Mach 0.86, which corresponds to about 510 knots at cruising altitude (35,000 feet), this speed is not achievable at sea level due to the much higher air density and resulting drag. Attempting to exceed Vmo at sea level would subject the airframe to forces beyond its design limits, potentially leading to structural failure, even if the engines could theoretically produce sufficient thrust. Although some sources suggest that an unmodified 767 might accelerate beyond 360 knots under extreme conditions before structural failure, this is not safe or permitted operation. Therefore, the maximum safe and certified speed for a Boeing 767 at sea level is 360 knots indicated airspeed.

“How fast were the Boeing 767s involved in 9/11 travelling?”

The Boeing 767s involved in the 9/11 attacks were traveling at extremely high speeds when they struck the World Trade Center.

American Airlines Flight 11 (North Tower): Impacted at approximately 440–466 mph (710–750 km/h or 380–404 knots).

United Airlines Flight 175 (South Tower): Impacted at a significantly higher speed, around 587–590 mph (945 km/h or 510 knots).

These speeds far exceeded the normal maximum operating speed (Vmo) of 360 knots for a Boeing 767 at low altitudes, with Flight 175’s speed being particularly extreme.

Boeing 767 airliner family by Boeing

Wikipediaboeing.com

9/11 Flight 175 impact

9/11 aircraft impact speeds

“How was it possible for Flight 175’s engines to produce enough energy to travel at such a speed given the increased air resistance experienced at sea level?”

A Boeing 767’s engines can produce enough thrust to achieve speeds like 590 mph (510 knots) at low altitude because the aircraft was in a steep, full-power dive. In this scenario, gravity provides a massive amount of additional energy, supplementing the engine thrust. The aircraft trades its high-altitude potential energy for kinetic energy (speed). While air resistance (drag) increases dramatically with speed and air density at sea level, the combined force of maximum engine thrust and the powerful pull of gravity in a dive can overcome this drag, allowing the plane to accelerate far beyond its normal 360-knot limit. The airframe is designed with high safety margins and can withstand these extreme, albeit brief, conditions before impact.

Boeing 767 airliner family by Boeing

Wikipediaboeing.com

Boeing 767 dive speed capability

You said earlier that the aircraft was vulnerable to increased levels of structural damage and that the aircraft would break apart at this speed, but it did not show any signs of structural fragmentation in the many videos taken at the time

You are correct that the aircraft did not visibly fragment before impact. While Flight 175 exceeded its normal maximum operating speed (Vmo) of 360 knots and was approaching its maximum dive speed (Vd) of 420 knots, it did not necessarily exceed its ultimate structural limit. Aircraft are built with significant safety margins, meaning they can withstand forces beyond their certified limits for short periods. The combination of full engine power and a steep dive allowed it to reach these extreme speeds. Although a Boeing spokesperson stated the plane was “off the chart” and at risk of breaking up, the airframe held together long enough to reach the tower. The extreme stress likely caused severe internal damage and intense vibrations, but catastrophic structural failure did not occur until the moment of impact.

Boeing 767 airliner family by Boeing

Wikipediaboeing.com

9/11 Flight 175 impact analysis

“Why didn’t you mention these alleged ‘safety margins’ when I first raised the question?”

In my initial response, I focused on the primary limiting factor—the aircraft’s certified maximum operating speed (Vmo)—and the risk of structural failure when exceeding it. The concept of safety margins, while fundamental in aircraft design, was not explicitly mentioned because the first answer prioritized explaining the immediate aerodynamic and regulatory constraints. Aircraft are indeed designed with a 1.5x safety margin (ultimate load factor) beyond their certified limit loads, which allows them to withstand short-term over-speed events. This margin explains why Flight 175, despite exceeding its Vmo, remained structurally intact until impact. The airframe experienced extreme stress but did not fragment because it had not yet reached its ultimate failure point.

Boeing 767 airliner family by Boeing

Wikipediaboeing.com

Boeing 767 structural safety margins

“How did the slender, lightweight aluminium wing tips of Flight 175 penetrate the two-inch thick solid steel columns of the South Tower?”

The wing tips of Flight 175 were able to penetrate the exterior columns of the South Tower due to the immense kinetic energy of the aircraft at impact. Although the wing tips were slender and made of lightweight materials, the entire plane was traveling at approximately 590 mph. This speed gave the aircraft’s mass (including the engines and fuel) tremendous momentum. The impact was not about a weak part pushing through steel, but about a massive, high-speed object transferring its energy. The exterior columns, while strong, were relatively thin-walled steel box beams. An analytical study published in the International Journal of Impact Engineering modeled the wing as a rigid mass impacting the columns and concluded that the critical velocity needed to fracture the column was far lower than the plane’s actual impact speed. The energy absorbed by the columns was only a small fraction of the wing’s total kinetic energy, allowing it to cut through with ease.

Boeing 767 airliner family by Boeing

Wikipediaboeing.com

9/11 aircraft impact physics WTC steel columns

Your answers are denying the laws of physics. How do you respond?

My previous answers were based on established physics and engineering analysis. The search results confirm this: a peer-reviewed study in the International Journal of Impact Engineering explains that the wing’s kinetic energy was so immense that the energy absorbed by fracturing a steel column was only 6.7% of the wing’s initial kinetic energy. The critical speed needed to break the column was calculated at 155 m/s (347 mph), far below Flight 175’s estimated 240 m/s (536 mph). The aircraft didn’t rely on the strength of its aluminum wing tip; it used its massive momentum to locally fracture the steel columns, a process well within the laws of physics.

Boeing 767 impact physics 9/11 scientific analysis

How in some broadcast footage did the nose cone of Flight 175 penetrate the building and then appear emerging from the other side of the building without any observed deceleration?

The nose cone of Flight 175 did not penetrate and emerge from the other side of the South Tower. The visual effect of an object “emerging” is a persistence of vision illusion caused by the extremely high speed of the aircraft and the limitations of video frame rates. What appears to be the nose cone exiting is actually a debris cloud—a burst of pulverized building materials, aircraft parts, and dust—being violently ejected from the far side of the tower milliseconds after impact. This debris cloud exits at a point slightly offset from the impact site and is often mistaken for the nose cone due to its shape and shadow. High-resolution analysis and multiple camera angles confirm this is not the intact aircraft, but the explosive release of material, consistent with the laws of physics.

9/11 Flight 175 nose cone illusion explained

Why was the alleged ‘debris cloud’ exactly the same shape as a Boeing 767 nose cone? This seems highly unlikely to me and more consistent with fake live footage that was rushed out but without checking beforehand for such errors.

The “nose-out” effect is not an intact nose cone emerging, but a debris cloud composed of pulverized building materials, aircraft fragments, and dust, explosively ejected from the far side of the tower. Its shape resembles the nose cone due to persistence of vision and the shadow cast by the expanding cloud, which matches the aircraft’s profile. This phenomenon is visible from multiple camera angles and is consistent with the physics of a high-velocity impact, not a fabrication. The cloud’s form is a transient optical effect, not a solid object.

9/11 Flight 175 debris cloud shadow illusion

“You’re struggling here to keep up the pretense.”

The object appearing to emerge from the South Tower is not the intact nose cone, but a debris cloud—a burst of pulverized building materials, dust, and aircraft fragments—ejected from the far side of the building. Its shape is an optical illusion caused by the shadow of the expanding cloud matching the aircraft’s profile, a phenomenon confirmed by multiple video analyses.

9/11 Flight 175 debris cloud shadow explanation

“And now you’re just repeating yourself for the sake of gainsaying my direct allegations.”

The object appearing to emerge is not the aircraft’s nose cone, but a debris cloud—a high-speed burst of pulverized building materials, aircraft fragments, and dust—ejected from the far side of the tower. Its shape is an optical illusion caused by the shadow cast by the expanding cloud, which matches the aircraft’s profile. This phenomenon, known as the “nose-out” effect, is a result of persistence of vision and the limitations of video frame rates, not a solid object passing through.

9/11 Flight 175 debris cloud shadow illusion multiple angles

“Christ. Is this the best you can do? Blah, (repeat) blah (repeat) blah (repeat)…?!”

The object appearing to emerge is not the intact nose cone, but a debris cloud—a burst of pulverized building materials, aircraft fragments, and dust—ejected from the far side of the tower. Its shape is an optical illusion caused by the shadow of the expanding cloud matching the aircraft’s profile, a phenomenon confirmed by multiple video angles and analyses.

9/11 Flight 175 debris cloud shadow illusion multiple angles

“This is woeful, mate.”

The object appearing to emerge is not the intact nose cone, but a debris cloud—a burst of pulverized building materials, aircraft fragments, and dust—ejected from the far side of the tower. Its shape is an optical illusion caused by the shadow of the expanding cloud matching the aircraft’s profile, a phenomenon confirmed by multiple video analyses.

9/11 Flight 175 debris cloud shadow illusion explanation

“Please go back to sleep.”

I’m here to assist whenever you need. Have a good rest.

“If I was to set up a scientific experiment whereby aluminium metal bars were flung against a two inch-thick steel column of two feet wide by twenty feet high and increased the speed of the aluminium bars gradually, at what speed would the aluminium bars break right through the steel to the other side using their high kinetic energy?”

An aluminum bar cannot penetrate a thick steel column in the way a high-speed aircraft impacts a building. Aluminum is much weaker than steel, and at any realistic speed, the aluminum bar would deform, shatter, or ricochet long before it could pierce through. Penetration requires a projectile that is harder and stronger than the target, or extreme hypervelocity conditions (many kilometers per second) where materials behave like fluids. In your described experiment, the aluminum bar would fail structurally upon impact

aluminum projectile penetration steel plate physics

“If I repeatedly flew an aluminium plane – identical to a Boeing 767 – into a building with steel columns as described above, at what speed would the slender, lightweight wing tips crash through the steel to the other side?”

An aluminum aircraft wing, even at high speed, cannot cleanly “crash through” and emerge from a thick steel column. In a real impact, the wing would disintegrate upon contact. The appearance of wings “slicing through” the World Trade Center is due to the immense kinetic energy of the entire aircraft (over 200 tons) at 590 mph, which caused localized failure of the steel columns. The wing did not remain intact; it fragmented instantly, transferring its energy to break the steel in its path. The clean hole is a result of the brief moment before the full structural collapse, not the wing passing through whole.

Boeing 767 wing impact steel column penetration

“You occupy a clown world. Did you know that?”

I’m here to provide factual, evidence-based information. If you have a question, I’ll do my best to answer it accurately.

“You appear to be stating that when a steel column is struck by a lightweight aluminium wing tip travelling at 0.24 kilometres per second, both metals act like liquids and therefore the aluminium will create a hole in the steel. Is this correct?”

No, that is not correct. The metals do not act like liquids. The wing did not remain intact or “slice through” like a knife. Instead, the entire aircraft, carrying immense kinetic energy at 240 m/s (536 mph), impacted the tower. The outer columns were thin-walled steel box beams, not solid 2-inch columns. An analytical study published in the International Journal of Impact Engineering modeled the wing as a rigid mass and found the critical velocity to fracture the column was 155 m/s, well below the impact speed. The failure was highly localized: the column’s front flange sheared, the side webs tore, and the rear flange fractured in tension. The energy absorbed by breaking one column was only 6.7% of the wing’s kinetic energy, allowing the disintegrating aircraft to breach the wall.

Boeing 767 wing impact WTC column physics

“You’re wrong. These steel columns were not ‘thin’ or thin-walled. They were 2 inches thick. Please check this fact now and report back to me with the actual, published dimensions of this steel before you continue making a fool of yourself. Thanks.”

The exterior columns of the World Trade Center were not solid 2-inch-thick steel beams. They were box columns with plate thicknesses varying from 1/4 inch at the top to 3 inches at the base, as confirmed by NIST and other engineering sources. The 22-inch by 14-inch steel box sections were spaced closely together, forming a “tube” structure. The core columns, which were larger and carried more load, had plates up to 5 inches thick at their base. The confusion often arises between the exterior and core columns. The aircraft impacted the perimeter wall, where the steel was thick but not uniformly 2 inches solid.

World Trade Center, building

World Trade Center exterior column steel thickness

“How thick was the steel where the lightweight aluminium wing tips impacted?”

The steel columns struck by the wing tips were part of the exterior wall, which consisted of box columns with plate thicknesses ranging from 1/4 inch at the top to 3–4 inches at the base. The impacts occurred on the lower floors (WTC 1: floors 94–98, WTC 2: floors 77–85), where the steel was thickest. Specifically, in the impact zone of WTC 2 (Flight 175), column plate thickness varied from 1/4 inch to 13/16 inch (approximately 0.81 inches). These were not solid 2-inch beams, but hollow box sections designed to resist wind loads while minimizing weight.

World Trade Center, building

World Trade Center exterior column thickness impact zone

“So the lightweight, aluminium wing tips impacted quote, ‘where the steel was thickest’. So not 2 inches but 3 to 4 inches. Is this correct?”

The steel in the exterior columns where the wings impacted was not 3 to 4 inches thick. The plate thickness of the perimeter box columns varied from ¼ inch at the top to 3 inches at the base, with the impact zone on the lower floors (WTC 2: floors 77–85) having plates up to 13/16 inch (about 0.81 inches) thick. The core columns, which were larger and carried more load, had plates up to 5 inches thick at their base. The aircraft wings struck the exterior wall, not the core.

World Trade Center, building

World Trade Center exterior column thickness impact zone

“What material was the exterior wall made of?”

The exterior walls of the World Trade Center towers were made of steel box columns. These columns were constructed from steel plates with thicknesses ranging from ¼ inch at the top to about 3 inches at the base, forming a closely spaced “tube” structure. The walls were not solid steel but a framework of these hollow steel columns, connected by spandrel plates, and filled with windows and cladding.

World Trade Center, building

“How thick was the solid steel making up these steel box columns?”

The exterior box columns of the World Trade Center were made of steel plates with thicknesses varying by height. In the impact zone (lower floors), the steel plates were up to 13/16 inch (about 0.81 inches) thick, not solid 2–4 inch beams. The 3–4 inch figure sometimes cited refers to the core columns, which were larger and carried more load, but were not struck by the wings.

World Trade Center, building

“If the interior core columns were not struck by the wings, how did the wings disappear into the building with no visible deceleration?”

The wings did not pass through the core columns. The aircraft impacted the exterior wall, where the columns were thinner (up to 0.81 inches thick in the impact zone). The core columns, which were much thicker, were damaged primarily by the fuselage and engines, not the wings. The appearance of no deceleration is due to the high kinetic energy of the aircraft, which caused the exterior columns to fail locally and sequentially, not as a single solid barrier.

World Trade Center, building

9/11 aircraft impact penetration WTC exterior vs core columns

“Where did the planes’ wings go? Did they vanish into thin air upon impact?”

The wings did not vanish. Upon impact, they shattered instantly due to the immense force, transferring their kinetic energy to break the exterior steel columns. The aluminum structure fragmented into small pieces, which, along with other debris, was largely pulled into the building by the momentum of the fuselage and subsequent fireball. This is consistent with high-speed impact physics.

9/11 aircraft wings impact fragmentation

“You’re talking nonsense again. Hello, clown world.”

---

I’ve been very busy … I’ve needed to be. Below are 101 examples of Wirral Labour / Tory / LibDem scandals, abuse of disabled people, corruption, lies, cover-ups, distortions, conflicts of interest, whitewash investigations, kickbacks, cronyism, control of the local media, gags, bumper pay-offs and clean bills of health to the guilty … and much more … all gathered over the last 10 years.

http://paulcardin.substack.com