Jump to content

Talk:United Airlines Flight 175: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Reverted to revision 730730878 by InternetArchiveBot (talk): Not a forum, unrelated to article improvement. (TW)
Line 96: Line 96:
The article still lacks an authoritative source as to how the aircraft came to have an impact speed circa 40 km/h or 20 MPH faster than its certfied top speed. Did it have a tail wind or something? --[[Special:Contributions/79.242.222.168|79.242.222.168]] ([[User talk:79.242.222.168|talk]]) 01:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The article still lacks an authoritative source as to how the aircraft came to have an impact speed circa 40 km/h or 20 MPH faster than its certfied top speed. Did it have a tail wind or something? --[[Special:Contributions/79.242.222.168|79.242.222.168]] ([[User talk:79.242.222.168|talk]]) 01:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
:The article simply notes the speed observed. Certified maximum speed is not the fastest the plane can go, just the fastest it can safely go at a given altitude. Several commercial aircraft have exceeded the speed of sound in upsets and accidents. The speed near sea level was in a powered descent, completely outside the intended performance envelope of the aircraft, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be done: it just wasn't a safe thing to do. '''<font face="Arial">[[User:Acroterion|<font color="black">Acroterion</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<font color="gray">(talk)</font>]]</small></font>''' 01:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
:The article simply notes the speed observed. Certified maximum speed is not the fastest the plane can go, just the fastest it can safely go at a given altitude. Several commercial aircraft have exceeded the speed of sound in upsets and accidents. The speed near sea level was in a powered descent, completely outside the intended performance envelope of the aircraft, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be done: it just wasn't a safe thing to do. '''<font face="Arial">[[User:Acroterion|<font color="black">Acroterion</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<font color="gray">(talk)</font>]]</small></font>''' 01:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
::and for a very good reason: because surpassing neatly the NVO at a given altitude, send the aicraft in flutter and then in pieces, as happened hundreds time... so it's a very good question, and you'll hardly find a liner pilot who could even imagine that such aircrafts could go so fast at SL and stay in one piece. Especially if you consider, that a totally rookie pilot could 'overstress' the airframe with a too fast command and rip the plane in pieces in a matter of seconds. that's why the airliners are never, never flown if not by experienced and well trained pilots (or someone really thinks that a pilot unable to fly a Cessna can drive such planes like fighter-bombers?). And i am surprised to not read anything about the criticism that exists about 9/11 outside Wikipedia articles.[[Special:Contributions/159.20.209.65|159.20.209.65]] ([[User talk:159.20.209.65|talk]]) 14:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
== External links modified ==

Revision as of 14:23, 24 September 2016

Error: The code letter 9/11 for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

Which/that

"United Airlines Flight 175 was a passenger flight which was hijacked..."

I've always been pretty shaky on the whole which/that issue, but my gut says it should be "passenger flight that was hijacked". I'm hoping someone who is smarter than my gut will chime in and set me straight. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds better to me. I await further comment. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still not sure, but I think my gut may be right this time; I've made the change here and on the other three hijacking articles. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myth about the video showing the wing disappearing behind the building, letting to believe the airplane was added with computer animation

Can we mention this and a link to where it it debunked? Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a new one...where is the reliable reference?--MONGO 04:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on United Airlines Flight 175. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murray St. Engine

After Flight 175 slammed at the South Tower on 9:03 AM.An engine of Flight 175 was found on Murray St. However, when you take a deep analysis, you will find that the Books Nash (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this and read second part Books Nash (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murray St. Engine

After Flight 175 crashed on the South Tower, an engine landed on Church and Murray St. If you all take a closer look on the engine, you will find out that the engine type this cooling duct assembly is used on. It is used on the JT9D-7 series.The name of the component is HPT Stage1 Cooling Duct Assembly. There is a history behind this assembly as I began to read more. This component was part of the early JT9D-7 series engines that were used in development of Boeing's 747 line of aircraft. The "7" series engines have gone through many revisions but are exclusively used on 747's. Many years later, P&W decided to work with NASA in the development in a new technology to improve engine performance and reliability. This improvement was made specifically to this section of engine. Tangential On-Board Injection (TOBI or "R" for Radial) was the newest improvement to reduce nozzle temperatures by over 2% which could open the door for a more powerful engines based on the "7" series engine. The new model of engine would be called 7R4+Revision Letter. The 7R4D engine is the one that is specified for United Airlines Boeing 767's.

So. We have two data points indicating that the Murray Street engine is a Pratt and Whitney JT9D-7 series engine: the HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct Assembly which the manufacturer indicates is for use only with the 7 series engine, and we have the diffuser casing of the Murray Street engine matching perfectly the diffuser casing of a 747 engine --for which model of Boeing aircraft Weezula says the JT9D-7 series engine was exclusively used.

So. All data so far seem to indicate that the Murray Street engine is not a JT9D-7R4D engine, as would have been on Flight 175. (And the Murray Street engine certainly is not a GE CF6 engine from Flight 11.)

Unless I'm missing something --and I don't think that I am, though I am no engine expert-- how did a 7-series 747 engine wind up on Murray Street?

Unless I'm missing something, that engine did not come from Flight 175

So, then, what struck the South Tower? And, uh, where is Flight 175?

Books Nash (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that you find reliable sources and references for your comments above. Please remember Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, dealing with well sourced facts and not a repository for conspiracy theories. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get to the part where Books Nash claims he is not an engine expert....full stop. Regardless, opinions that are not backed by reliable references are....opinions.--MONGO 18:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Airlines Flight 175. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impact speed

The article still lacks an authoritative source as to how the aircraft came to have an impact speed circa 40 km/h or 20 MPH faster than its certfied top speed. Did it have a tail wind or something? --79.242.222.168 (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article simply notes the speed observed. Certified maximum speed is not the fastest the plane can go, just the fastest it can safely go at a given altitude. Several commercial aircraft have exceeded the speed of sound in upsets and accidents. The speed near sea level was in a powered descent, completely outside the intended performance envelope of the aircraft, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be done: it just wasn't a safe thing to do. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
and for a very good reason: because surpassing neatly the NVO at a given altitude, send the aicraft in flutter and then in pieces, as happened hundreds time... so it's a very good question, and you'll hardly find a liner pilot who could even imagine that such aircrafts could go so fast at SL and stay in one piece. Especially if you consider, that a totally rookie pilot could 'overstress' the airframe with a too fast command and rip the plane in pieces in a matter of seconds. that's why the airliners are never, never flown if not by experienced and well trained pilots (or someone really thinks that a pilot unable to fly a Cessna can drive such planes like fighter-bombers?). And i am surprised to not read anything about the criticism that exists about 9/11 outside Wikipedia articles.159.20.209.65 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on United Airlines Flight 175. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Airlines_Flight_175&oldid=740969070"