It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   

I do beleive it would be fairly easy, a large poportion of pilots agree with me (airliners.net). I've flown aircraft, including warbirds (two seat), and have time on a Level-D sim for Qantas. There are no profound diferances in handling with speed in any of those planes, I don't expect a 767 to be the slightest bit diferant.


Different to a Cessna?

I’ll put it this way, a TU-154 handles entirely different from IL-76. Why? Figure it out. That’s why pilots get qualified to fly a specific plane model.

If you care to continue stating that there are no profound flight characteristics differences between difference jets, you will only engage is self sabotage.


And whoever said that comment about a Cessna 172 and Boeing 767 having the same handling is ridiculous. They have NOWHERE NEAR the same handling.


Thank you rhombus24, unfortunately these days repeatedly stating the OBVIOUS is simply required in order to get through to the strongly opinionated but ill informed.




posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
The no planes theory is just plain dumb. I hate to be direct. No, wait a second, I don't give a crap. I'm happy to be direct. It's dumb. It's stupid. It's tiring. There were planes. They hit stuff, knocked it over and killed a bunch of people.

The points of contentions are:

1. Who did it?
2. Why did they do it?
3. Can we catch them and punish them?

We can't move along and achieve any success on those questions (and others) unless we refrain from talking about dumb things like, "there were no planes!"



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   
VNO (Velocity Normal Operation) is a limit set for avoidance of structural stress. It is not an absolute limit above which the aircraft will not fly.

Boeing's own literature on the subject says as follows for the 767:



Boeing refers to VMO as a limit which may only be exceeded for training, or test flying purposes with authorisation.


There are a string of other limits above VNO, most important of which is VD or maximum dive speed. VNE or MNE for the Boeing 767 is published as 514 knots at sea level.

www.aviationforum.org...
www.pprune.org...



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

You and many others saw the same thing. A holograph is indistinguisable from the real object but that is difficult to imagine when you are thinking in techonology of the year 2007.


Dear Mr. Lear:

My roommate at the time was standing outside his place of employment on E 49th Street between 3rd Avenue and Lexington Avenue when Flight 11 flew overhead, slightly to the east of where he and his co-workers were standing. They all heard the plane well before they saw it. They saw the plane flying above them. They commented on how low it was and speculated that it was going to crash.

I am imagining technology 50 years from now, as you suggested, and no mater how hard I imagine I can't see anyone generating a holograph continuously for the 5+ miles from East 49th Street to the World Trade Center, let alone from Boston to the WTC.

At what point do you suppose they started generating the holographs? Where were the holograph projectors located? How many thousands of them would be needed to continuously generate this holograph for miles and miles? Where were the sound generators located?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Craig732 I do applaud your efforts to talking sense to Mr Lear, but it's kind of futile. Nobody's home.

People like this are a massive distraction form the issues which really matter in life.

Those in politics who scheme to do real evil in the world love people like Mr Lear because they have all these internet kids running in circles chasing their tails trying to prove something which can never be proved or disproved.

I call it mental masturbation and we all know who here are those most prominent in that indulgence.

They distract people who are easily led from caring about real issues in Iran, Iraq, Myanmar, Dafur or wherever. They are the enemies of democracy and the friends of disinformation.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Well, to be fair to John, what he talks about is not much beyond "theoretically" possible by today's more esoteric physics, and assuming we have had contact with ET, they have shared or had extorted the technology to apply that theory, and it has managed to have been kept a secret, then it is not outside the realm of possibility. If such were the case, however, we would have absolutely no way of proving it without proving the former, so it does seem a moot point. I'm of the mind that a political paper trail and access to more of the physical evidence from ground zero, the pentagon, etc, would be far more illuminating as to what really happened, and it may be the case that such wild theories as holograms bring some level of public disrepute to said investigations, but it may also be the case, as unthinkable as it may be, that he could be right. If here isn't the place to talk about the possibility of such things, I don't know where else is.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by justin-d
 


No, The Brits made fake borders and left. Iraq hates Iran because Sunni and Shiites hate each other. Last time I checked, the US didn't exist in 700-800 AD when the first conflicts of the sects began.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:40 AM
link   
That's vastly oversimplifying the case. They made the same arguments in the former Yugoslavia - that the Kurds and Serbians hated each other, but that's just not the case. In fact, on that one, I can post up a paper from the US Army College that states in no uncertain terms that the conflicts in the Balkans had little to do with ancient hatreds and were far more substantially inflamed by flawed (read:all) US foreign interventions, both overt and covert. The same is true in the Middle East. I mean, they've even caught British soldiers dressed as sunni insurgents, running around in jeeps randomly killing people. If that's not meant to stir the pot, I don't know what is.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Originally posted by craig732


At what point do you suppose they started generating the holographs?


Thanks for the post Craig. I think they were generating some kind of holograph in the 50's. The technolgy has gotten better over the years.

On my way back from the UFO Expo in San Jose I stopped over at a friends house, he was a former Lockheed scientist. I told him about my theory of the holograph used for the Boeing 767s and to my surprise he said, "I wouldn't doubt it."

He then told me a story about driving to work one day (he's been retired about 15 years) from his home is Los Altos Hills to Sunnyvale. He said that a friend of his was in the car, about 8 in the morning and they looked up and there over the car at about 200 feet was a huge 747 type aircraft. They both watched it in amazement knowing that the minimum altitude is supposed to be one thousand feet and that the usual airline traffic is heading northbound to San Francisco and not southbound. After about 30 seconds the airplane disappeared. As my friend described it, "It was like they turned off a light switch." This was at least 15 years ago.


Where were the holograph projectors located?


Probably in the E-4 Boeing 747 seen flying over the White House.


How many thousands of them would be needed to continuously generate this holograph for miles and miles?


Only a single projector would be required.


Where were the sound generators located?


I don't know whether or not the holograph contains sound but if it doesn't an airplane with a powerful speaker, such as the ones we used in Viet Nam but with 35 years of development since then would be able to generate a very believable jet sound simulating Doppler effect which is the effect you get when a source of noise such as a car or boat or plane comes towards you, passes you and then goes into the distance.

Thanks again for the post.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Originally posted by sy.gunson


Craig732 I do applaud your efforts to talking sense to Mr Lear, but it's kind of futile. Nobody's home.


Yeah, I'm home. But the lights off. My wife went to bed.


People like this are a massive distraction form the issues which really matter in life.


People have very different ideas about which issues really matter. I don’t believe that any issue really matters, its just what issue you feel like discussing. That’s what I like about ATS, you turn on your computer and you have 500 subjects from which to choose and you say, “Hey I want to talk about those reptilians today!” and join in the thread.


Those in politics who scheme to do real evil in the world love people like Mr Lear because they have all these internet kids running in circles chasing their tails trying to prove something which can never be proved or disproved.


Well, I would have to disagree with you when you say that I have internet kids running in circles, chasing their tails trying to prove something which can’t be proved or disproved. I would respectfully suggest that it is me running in circles chasing my tail.



I call it mental masturbation and we all know who here are those most prominent in that indulgence.


Hmmmmmmm. Chorlton? MrPenny? IgnornantBliss?


They distract people who are easily led from caring about real issues in Iran, Iraq, Myanmar, Dafur or wherever. They are the enemies of democracy and the friends of disinformation.


I have posted extensively on Iraq and Iran but I don’t know much about Darfur or Myanmar. I know a little about the moon.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Just wanted to make an observation. Regarding Craig732's post, if your friends heard the plane long before they saw it and it flew right over them, then it was going much slower than 550 mph. At that speed the sound arrives about .28 seconds ahead of the plane. Allowing for the altitude and the possibility that your friends were not directly under the flight path, the plane would have been past them by at least several hundred feet before they heard it.

I realize that this doesn't address the hologram issue but there is a lot of controversy about the speed of the planes as well. Eyewitness reports like that of your friends make it highly unlikely that the planes were going anywhere near 550 mph.



[edit on 29-9-2007 by ipsedixit]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
if your friends heard the plane long before they saw it and it flew right over them, then it was going much slower than 550 mph. At that speed the sound arrives about .28 seconds ahead of the plane. Allowing for the altitude and the possibility that your friends were not directly under the flight path, the plane would have been past them by at least several hundred feet before they heard it.
[edit on 29-9-2007 by ipsedixit]


I am no expert at the physics of sound, but I do know what I myself have experienced in my life.

I own a home very close to Newark Airport.

According to your theory, I would never hear a plane first and then see it.

I have planes flying directly over my house all day long, and when I am in my yard I ALWAYS hear the plane before I see it.

Am I missing something?

Has anyone hear ever seen a plane first, then heard its noise later?

[edit on 29-9-2007 by craig732]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   
If they are going slow enough you hear them first. Your friend's experience proves that they weren't going that fast. You said that they heard the plane a long time before they saw it and that it flew overhead. That means it was going a lot slower than 500 mph.

The main point is that sound travels faster than 500 mph., but not much faster. I think at that speed the sound of the plane would arrive something like .34 seconds ahead of the plane. (Going from memory.) You say your friends heard it a long time before they saw it. The speed of sound wouldn't vary much therefore the speed of the plane must have been much slower than 500 mph. otherwise the plane would appear much closer to the time they first heard it.

For clarity.



[edit on 29-9-2007 by ipsedixit]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   
"I don't know whether or not the holograph contains sound "

Oh my God. That is a seriously telling comment. I suggest everyone read it twice to be sure you grasp this example of how ridiculous the no planes theory is.

Let's get real here, people. Planes hit those targets. Airplanes. Like, the things that the Wright brothers invented?


And to argue that, well this is 2007 and there have been all kinds of advancements in technology that we're not even aware of and it's all been kept secret and you wouldn't believe the stuff that goes on at Area 51 in terms of reverse engineering alien technology and holograph stuff and Golly Gee Whillikers, we're under the control of governments that can stick holographs in front of us and create whole new 3D worlds out of thin and air might even be able to stuff sound effects inside them and blast them through the biggest city in the world and fool everyone and... wow, let me stop for a breath here.


Really stupid stuff there. Would have been much simpler to skip over the holographic airplanes and just plant a bunch of explosives up there and then tell the public, "The terrorists carried explosives to the upper floors, detonated them and blew the buildings down."

DOH!



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Originally posted by JRCrowley




Really stupid stuff there. Would have been much simpler to skip over the holographic airplanes and just plant a bunch of explosives up there and then tell the public, "The terrorists carried explosives to the upper floors, detonated them and blew the buildings down."

DOH!



Thanks for the post and you input JRCrowley. It is truly appreciated.

Here is a page from a government manual on techonology expected to be operational in 2025.

I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect that they might be a little ahead of schedule.

Thanks again for your post.





posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by justin-d
 


Um, no. Right after Mohamed's died, a break in Islam happened and the Sunnis and Shiites have been at it since. Only in war do they find common ground: kill the infidel, then they go and kill each other for the infidel choosing wrongly between the sects.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


John, that would be a 2d created hologram. You need at least 8 projectors to give a good 3d effect.






I hope that crappy drawing gets my point through.

[edit on 29-9-2007 by Gorman91]

[edit on 29-9-2007 by Gorman91]

[edit on 29-9-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Originally posted by Gorman91




John, that would be a 2d created hologram. You need at least 8 projectors to give a good 3d effect.


WOW! So there were 8 more E-4's! Holy smokes! This is a lot bigger than I figured! Thanks Gorman91. Your input is greatly apprecaited.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
WOW! So there were 8 more E-4's! Holy smokes! This is a lot bigger than I figured! Thanks Gorman91. Your input is greatly apprecaited.


Well there was a report i have seen about a hologram in either a EC-130 Commando Solo or Compass Call aircraft.

The Commander Solo plane can hack into and override TV and radio stations to send messages.

The Compass Call aircraft is a electronic jammer and decoy aircraft.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Um, no. Right after Mohamed's died, a break in Islam happened and the Sunnis and Shiites have been at it since. Only in war do they find common ground: kill the infidel, then they go and kill each other for the infidel choosing wrongly between the sects.


I think that's a dangerously oversimplified perspective.

I'm going to throw out a general observation about human beings in general here - it's one I've found to be quite transcendental, and that is that, in nearly any aspect of human endeavour, great errors generally come about due to a failure to recognise and address the root cause of the problem, mistaking symptoms of the problem for its cause.

I won't bore you with examples, but you can find many from medicine, science, politics, education, engineering, or nearly any other branch of human activity. At its root is a failure to understand the problem, being hasty to administer treatment before being certain what, exactly, is wrong.

In the case of the Ireland/UK conflict, one might say that "catholics and protestants just hate each other". But this is absolute nonsense. Humans don't just hate each other - it's not in our nature. It is in our nature to be selfish, however, as well as greedy and stupid - and *this* is what gets us into trouble. In the former example, the conflict was over land and sovereignty - the Irish being kicked out of their productive fields so that they could be given to retired British soldiers, etc. Religion formed a means by which to unite the people in resisting this aggression, but it was by no means the cause.

The same is the case in the Middle East - if you look closely, you'll see that these conflicts have little to do with differences of opinion or belief and everything to do with acts of aggression and resistances to that aggression. Consider Israel - everyone would like to say that Muslims "just hate Jews", but that is absolute nonsense. I can give you plenty of examples in history when Christians, Muslims, and Jews lived happily together and enjoyed periods of great prosperity and scholarly pursuit. The Ottoman Empire is one such, as was Córdoba (now in Spain) under the Caliphate for the bulk of the 8th century. The current conflict is one precipitated by aggression - the seisure of lands by force by one group from another.

I suggest a more careful study of history - I think you'll find that the only thing people need to do to get along is simply to stop attacking each other. These are common people, who would never wage such wars, manipulated by ambitious and greedy rulers into hating an enemy such that they may command the support of an army of the people to win the power they seek. As soon as common people stop listening to the madmen who try to control the world, or when those madmen are replaced by kind, benevolent leaders, there are periods of incredible peace and prosperity. It is the influence of malicious leaders that drives people to war - nothing more.




top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join