Can a 767 Fly 500MPH @ 700ft Altitude? Boeing Official Says: Ha Ha Ha! Not a Chance!

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
This is further proof that the idea of real jetliners hitting the towers is ridiculous!

Hear three people speak on the subject:

Retired Aerospace Engineer, Joseph Keith, was the lead engineer designing the "shaker system" for these types of aircraft. He's thoroughly familiar with this topic.

Two Boeing officials, one of them an engineer.



At the end is a newly found eyewitness video of a guy at Ground Zero claiming NO plane, only a bomb!






posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Well a "shaker system" is for stalling and warns the pilot that the plane is about to stall.


Can a 767 go 500 mph at 700ft I do not think so, but can a 767 descend from cruse altitude at a steep angle at full power and level off at 700ft going over 500 mph, yes it can very easily.

For the engineer to say the 767 would start to shake itself apart at 220 mph is totally stupid. I fly all the time flat and level in a prop C-130 at 230 knots at 500 feet and that is 265 MPH.


Speed of sound is important, but 550 MPH at 35000 feet is very normal for any jet and that is about .82 Mach. 550 MPH at 700 feet is .72 Mach.

All big jets cruise between .74 and .89 Mach. This is the NORMAL (not max) cruising speeds, so I really do not know what that guy was trying to say.

[edit on 23-9-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I would have to agree. The stick shaker is a stall feature and none of the aircraft appeared to be at the stall threashold.

Most comercial aircraft have a maximum speed for a given altitude. However, as often the case the airframe itself is capable of dealing with higher loads for short periods of time. Im trying to find a good reference for this but it is eluding me so far.

Maximum speed also factors in fatigue etc. Companies like Boeing and Airbus are conservative with thier figures so as to avoid cutting into the fatigue life of the airframes.

THe Egypt air crash of a 767 many years ago seemed to indicate that the airframe stayed intact in the dive untill after the plane passed mach 1 in a dive. So 500 mph is not that unfeasable esp. if you had a pilot who obviously carred little for the stress he was puttin on the airframe.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Mr Keith explains the Shaker System to have to do with the resonant frequency of the aircraft. He says a 767 cannot fly faster than 330 MPH at 700ft, and that it would start to break apart at 220MPH.

Please link to a 9/11 video that shows a "plane" **descending**...



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Mr Keith explains the Shaker System to have to do with the resonant frequency of the aircraft. He says a 767 cannot fly faster than 330 MPH at 700ft, and that it would start to break apart at 220MPH.

Please link to a 9/11 video that shows a "plane" **descending**...


What I said was a plane can easily descend and level off at over 500 mph. It actually had to descend at one point don't you think? 220 MPH is nothing to a jet, hell landing speed is about 120 MPH plus. Resonant frequency? At 700 feet the speed of sound is 770 MPH or so, and so that doesn't even come into play...



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

For the engineer to say the 767 would start to shake itself apart at 220 mph is totally stupid. I fly all the time flat and level in a prop C-130 at 230 knots at 500 feet and that is 265 MPH.


I guess you're right. The lead engineer who designed the Shaker System for Boeing is too stupid to know what speed 767s start to break apart at.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Some food for thought:

This comes from
web.mit.edu...

Which is well written and free of the usual hubris and outrageous claims we see with 911 stuff.

AA-11 was going at 429 mph and UA-175 was traveling at 503 mph. The aircraft were at about 1000 ft.

While the VNE (velocity not excede) is above those numbers (about 590 mph) there were lower and the best I can tell the VNE at FL10000 is int he 250-330 range based on several sources.

However, exceeding the VNE speed does not mean the aircraft will break up if you go over it. it does meant the aircraft can and will if it is subjected to those forces for a period of time. Also, the planes could have been well below that speed untill the they becan thier run at targets. The relativly short period flying basically straight and level is alot less strain on the airframe than turning and banking. They mauvered at the last second, but by then the fate was sealed



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn

Originally posted by Xtrozero

For the engineer to say the 767 would start to shake itself apart at 220 mph is totally stupid. I fly all the time flat and level in a prop C-130 at 230 knots at 500 feet and that is 265 MPH.


I guess you're right. The lead engineer who designed the Shaker System for Boeing is too stupid to know what speed 767s start to break apart at.


Shaker onset speed is just above stall speed...sorry...that is the way it is. I been flying in the military for over 25 years I kind of know these things. This guy has other reasons to say what he says.

Here somethings...look it up

767-200 - Max cruising speed 914km/h (568mph), economical cruising speed 854km/h (531mph).

In the states jets need to slow down below 250 knots (or 280 MPHish) below 10,000 feet. It is a FFA rule, and so if they must SLOW down then I guess they are going faster at some point. 250 knots is NORMAL speeds below 10,000, and the reason is so controllers can better time departures and arrivals.

Like i said though I do not know that guy's reasons to say what he says.



[edit on 23-9-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I don't understand why people are convinced that no planes hit the WTC?!?! I mean, the pentagon is a possibility but considering there are dozens of videos and thousands of eyewitnesses (including myself) why is this even being brought up! Planes hit the towers, get over yourself...



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hikix
 


When are people going to "get over" the idea that thousands of New Yorker's saw planes hitting the towers? If you're going to make stuff up, why not just say little green men did 9/11?

Whatever you (and the few others who claim to have seen a plane) witnessed, was nothing more than a magic trick.

And there are people who saw missiles, and others who saw no plane, just an explosion. I suppose they're wrong, and you're right?

Every one of the videos violates laws of physics, therefore they're fake.

No planes hit the towers.

[edit on 23-9-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by CB_Brooklyn
 


I was there, where the hell were you?!?!?! WE SAW the second plane hit the building!!!!!! If whoever did it pulled it off by using a hologram and speakers then I have to give them props.. because that def looked and sounded like a plane to me. And when my girlfriends dad died and called up before the building went down he said that he heard multiple explosions.. yes, there could have been bombs in the building, but just because there was bombs in the building doesn't mean that there were no planes.

I'd love to know who came up with this hologram theory, probably some idiot living on a farm with too much time on his hands.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by CB_Brooklyn
 


Hmmmmmm never mind all the eyewitnesses, nevermind the plane wreckage, etc etc. The bottom line is this: The planes hit the towers, nothing the planes did violated the laws of physics. Those witnesses included my sister and brother in law

As far as Boeing not knowing what the breakup speed is of thier aircraft, I doubt that. The planes are tested to the point of destruction (Have you ever seen the wing failure test? They take a wing and bent the tip up untill the wing structure snaps. Its very impressive) and breakup speed is variable based on the age of the aircraft, weight etc. Neither plane was near a 767 MTOW so that would add some margin.

[edit on 9/23/07 by FredT]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
What is fake? Everyone of the home videos taken and the professional videos taken are fake?

Are you saying that CGI was inserted into these videos, or were people taking videos of holograms?

Also where did that screaching sound come from that we heard when the plane flew above our heads?

Did someone put speakers all around the city, to make it sound like a plane crashed into the building?

Or was everything silent b4 the plane hit?

Were you there? do you know?

Or do you just have a little youtube video you wanna show us, and now you know everything that happened?



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by hikix
 


Dear hikix:

Please, pretty please tell us where you were standing when you saw UAL175 slam into the south tower. Better yet, why not start a new thread “I saw flight UAL175 with my own two eyes”, so that we finally have an easy-to-retrieve-record of a live 9-11 plane crash witness. This will help all of us further understand 9-11.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



[edit on 9/23/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by hikix
 


I was not there, nor did I have to be to understand. I'm sorry about your girlfriend's tragedy, but aluminum airplanes don't glide into steel/concrete buildings. It violates basic, Newton's Laws of Motion. Since every video shows this, it means they're all fake.

Have you seen the Evan Fairbanks interview, btw?





[edit on 23-9-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn

I was not there, nor did I have to be to understand. I'm sorry about your girlfriend's tragedy, but aluminum airplanes don't glide into steel/concrete buildings. It violates basic, Newton's Laws of Motion.


Hmmmm you may want to pick up that physics book on your shelf and have a looksee at some point



Geeeee is this film bogus too? Seems like the F-4 went through that huge chunk of reniforced concrete.

That was with a much smaller aircraft with a whole lot less mass travaling at the same speed. Last I looked the walls of WTC were not make of 4+ feet or reinforced concrete

[edit on 9/23/07 by FredT]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 



You might need a pair of eyeglasses. The F4 did not break through the wall.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
reply to post by FredT
 



You might need a pair of eyeglasses. The F4 did not break through the wall.


But the wing tips made a signifigant progress through when it did. THe F-4 weights 30000 lbs empty and about 41000 typical load out. A Boeing 767 was in the neighborhood of 220000 pounds when it hit (180000 empty, 330000 max) If an F-4 can do that amount of damage what would an aircraft weighting over 5-6 times as much be capable of. Remember that this "wall" represented a hardened reactor containment wall. Not the exterior of WTC.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Here somethings...look it up

767-200 - Max cruising speed 914km/h (568mph), economical cruising speed 854km/h (531mph).


This is an educated guess, but it seems likely that whoever fed the 9-11 flight data to the newsfakers — some spooks — simply took the highest possible Boeing 757 flightspeeds right from the spec charts without thinking/understanding that they weren’t attainable at sea-level heights. People are highly specialized these days and it is unlikely that the 9-11 cabal was a well-rounded, educated, intelligent group of people. They compensated their stupidity with their ruthlessness.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I was on Church Street when it happened. The 9/11 ceremony that i attended a couple of weeks ago took place off of church street.. you can see a huge hole in the ground behind the rescuers that were speaking at the event. I never heard of this whole 'no plane' theory until recently on this site. Ill let you guys talk amongst yourselves and if any hard evidence ever comes up, feel free to let me know.





top topics
 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join