Yea, about 600mph. How would your friend notice a plane going 600mph? Thats INSANELY fast, faster than the speed of sound. Also, planes land at Reagen [National Airport] all the time, how would he know where the plane was going. The distance from Reagen to the Pentagon @ 600mph is about .0002 seconds.
44 comments
600 MPH = 880 feet per second. That's how you notice it. That's insanely slow.
Also, while correct that the distance from Reagan to the Pentagon is almost negligible, planes travel much slower when landing.
1. The speed of sound is 768 mph.
2. Even if that is broken, the speed of light is still faster.
"The distance from Reagen [sic] to the Pentagon @ 600mph is about .0002 seconds."
You should go back to first grade math, because distance isn't meassured in seconds, it's also not ok to just say "at that speed" before it, that's still not right.
The speed of sound is 768 MPH. But an aircraft flying toward you would be noticeable, kind of like how if you watch a baseball game and are watching the pitches from 90 degrees, you don't see the ball that well. But when you're in the batter's box, you see the ball coming toward you.
And, assuming you're talking about 9/11 here, the aircraft which hit the Pentagon didn't take off from Reagan National.
@Louis Cypher
"So the pentagon is 12 feet from the airport interesting..."
600 MPH = 880 feet per second
880 feet/1 second * .0002 seconds = 0.176 feet
That's 2.112 inches, or 5.36448 centimeters for those uncivilized types that don't use real measurements.
Edit: Anyone want to figure out the acceleration needed to get from 0 to 600 mph in two inches?
600 mph isn't close to any speed of sound that I've ever heard of. Also, it's a really freaking big passenger plane. They're sort of hard to miss.
Also, the rest of that thread makes me face palm since I've seen the footage of the plane flying into the pentagon posted on YouTube. It's not exactly a state secret.
@Dr. Razark:
Do not try to confuse MagicalMystery with your high-flyin’ fancy NASA-math!
Also re:measurements:
Metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogs-head and that's the way I likes it! [/Abe Simpson]
Physics fail? Check.
Nutty conspiracy theory? Check.
Unnecessary capitalization? Check.
Spelling mistakes? Check. (Reagen? Seriously?)
Math fail? Check.
Also, Broton for the win...again.
@Kuno
"...high-flyin’ fancy NASA-math!"
A. In .0002 seconds, I don't think the plane would be able to gain much altitude, and then drop back down to ground level. Therefore, it's "low-flyin' math".
B. This is in regards to a passenger plane. Here, we no longer carry passengers, so it can't be "NASA-math".
OK, I stand corrected.
Carry on.
;-)
"Yea, about 600mph. How would your friend notice a plane going 600mph? Thats INSANELY fast , faster than the speed of sound. Also, planes land at Reagen [National Airport] all the time, how would he know where the plane was going. The distance from Reagen to the Pentagon @ 600mph is about .0002 seconds. "
Meh:
'Thrust SSC, (or Thrust supersonic car), is a British jet-propelled car developed by Richard Noble, Glynne Bowsher, Ron Ayers and Jeremy Bliss.
Thrust SSC holds the World Land Speed Record, set on 15 October 1997, when it achieved a speed of 1,228 km/h (763 mph) and became the first car to officially break the sound barrier. '
763 MPH. The sound barrier; where the US's Gen. Chuck Yeager did so first at 45,000 ft in a Bell X-1, Britain's RAF Wing Commander Andy Green did the same at sea level in a jet-powered car. You don't need to be on 'shrooms to have your mind blown by that concept. 'Magic' & Mystery' , can be easily explained, thus gaps filled, and beliefs - certainly Conspiracy Theories - destroyed.
...oh, and even at 763 MPH, it [i]can[/i] be seen. Certainly [i]heard[/i].
Next question.
Learn some aviation before you type, dumbass. It isn't 600 mph or past the speed of sound, it's more like .85 Mach or so.
And speed is RELATIVE. If you look at a cargo ship going 15 mph, it's barely moving. If you look at a spider running at 15 mph, it's practically traveling through time. Similarly, if you look up and see a Zeppelin traveling at 85 mph, it looks like it's just trudging along, but a one-person microlight going 85 mph is flying like a bat out of hell. Something the size of a jumbo jet could be going very, very, very fast and not seem it, because it's only traveling a few body lengths per second.
@ Broton of Loch Ness
Could you even say it was Just Plane Wrong?
How would your friend notice a plane going 600mph? Thats INSANELY fast, faster than the speed of sound...The distance from Reagen to the Pentagon @ 600mph is about .0002 seconds.
For sufficiently (very) large values of "mile" or "hour", perhaps.
Not fundie, just very, very incapable of dimensional analysis.
@ ChakatBlacksta:
I've seen the footage of the plane flying into the pentagon posted on YouTube. It's not exactly a state secret.
Faked, obviously. The reason the video wasn't released immediately is because they needed time to fake it.
It's too easy when you can predict conspiracy theorist's arguments.
As Bad Wolf pointed out, Mach One is ~768mph at sea level . It decreases as altitude increases.
That having been said, our planet's atmosphere doesn't extend anywhere nearly high enough for the speed of sound to drop to 600mph. *rolls eyes at the OP's faggotry*
What's it like being so incredibly stupid?
Really, I don't normally like responding to an argument with nothing more than a personal attack but I feel this one is warranted.
@#1526258
So passenger planes are supersonic now??
Well, they used to be. That is until this:
image
turned into this:
image
However, to be fair, since the speed of sound increases with a medium's density/temperature, the absolute speed of the Concorde flying Mach 2 at cruise altitude was about 200mph slower than it would have been at sea level.
But still, yes, some passenger planes used to be supersonic.
And @MagicalMystery, yes, if the Concorde had flown right over your head at ca. Mach 0.9, you would have noticed it.
@Checkmate
Frankly, the crash of the Concorde certainly didn't help matters, but it was the Concorde's ridiculously uneconomical operation that truly did it in. No one wants to be jammed inside a grossly complex needle of an aircraft for two or three hours and shell out $15,000 for the privilege. Not to mention the maintennance costs of those things were downright frightening.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.