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

How Military Hightech Was Used On 9-11-2001

Dr. Stefan Grossmann, For one hour, he informed listeners in Canada and the northern U.S.A. how military hightech was used on 9-11-2001 in order to simulate realistic-looking holographic projections of airplanes into the World Trade Center. While he was looking at engineering graphics of the event on his computer screen, he verbally informed the listeners:"



[edit on 29-9-2007 by LightsInYourMind]

Originally posted by justin-d

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.

Thanks for the post justin-d. It shows great insight. I spent several years in the Middle East. I lived in Beirut and flew for Trans Mediterranean Airlines. I got there about 3 weeks before the beginning of the war in September 1975. So I got to see the best of Beirut just before it was destroyed.

Not only did I fly for TMA but I was the Beirut correspondent for Combat Illustrated (Challenge Publications) which got me into a lot of places where I met a lot of people.

This is a photo I took standing just outside the door to TMA Operations looking south at the control tower which was taking incoming (yellow circle).



I spent 2 years there and then several years in Cairo between 1981 and 1983.

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.

Truer words were never spoken. I can attest to that.

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.

I agree wholeheartedly and 100%.

Thanks for the most poignant and significant post of this thread.

^ cheers for the kind words, John! I wish I could have seen Beirut in its prime. The whole of the Middle East has such amazing cultural depth that it's nothing short of a shame what has happened to it. The potential is still there, I just hope they have the opportunity to flourish once again.

[edit on 29-9-2007 by justin-d]

reply to post by johnlear

"I spent . . . several years in Cairo between 1981 and 1983"


How many years are there between 1981 and 1983 John? Just teasing. Lol.


[edit on 29-9-2007 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 29-9-2007 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit

How many years are there between 1981 and 1983 John? Just teasing. Lol.

Hmmmmm. Ok you edited out 'Middle East' in the "I spent several year in..."

So 2 years in Beirut and 2 years in Cairo...is that several?

Originally posted by johnlear
I was wrong!
In double checking with my sources for my post on the circuit breaker for the overspeed warning in the Boeing 757/767 I found out that I was wrong.

In fact there is a circuit breaker for the aural warning. On the Boeing 757 it is on Panel P-11 and it is either B16 or H35. One of those is the overspeed warning and one is the cabin altitude.

Please accept my apologies for the misinformation I have posted on the overspeed warning. There is in fact a circuit breaker that can disable the overspeed warning.

Hello Mr Lear and my apologies for getting on to this so late, and I hope that the moderators here won't mind that I've quoted your entire post. I think it's needful due to the time lapse since you wrote it. My jaw dropped a little when I read your original comment that modern airliners don't have aural warning circuit breakers so I'm glad to see you have since said otherwise.

However, in case anyone else might wonder, the B767 actually has two aural warning breakers (for "overspeed"), one is designated "right" and the other "left". During Check Flight Certification they are both pulled, the right first and then after it has been reinstated the left is pulled.

For anyone that is interested in some proof of this they can view the CAA (UK) Check Flight Certificate document, which covers the full ground- and in-flight testing procedure for the B767-200. It also has performance climb and stall check speed charts and other useful bits of data.
[here]

The procedures relating to those pesky circuit breakers are on p.18 of this document.

Originally posted by JustMike

For anyone that is interested in some proof of this they can view the CAA (UK) Check Flight Certificate document, which covers the full ground- and in-flight testing procedure for the B767-200. It also has performance climb and stall check speed charts and other useful bits of data.

The procedures relating to those pesky circuit breakers are on p.18 of this document.

Thanks JustMike. I think that you need to make it clear that CAA(UK) standards (when the Boeing 767 was certificated) are often different from FAA standards and requirements.

So just because it appears in a UK Boeing 767 flight manual doesn’t mean it would be identical in a U.S. FAA certificated Boeing 767 flight manual.

Do you know what date the UK Boeing 767’s were retrofitted with the circuit breakers, or was that a UK requirement from the gitgo?

Thanks for your post and the head up. :

It seems that the service bulletins from Boeing went out between about '99-'01, but it wasn't until 2003 that the FAA made the AD proposal to include the capacity to silence the alarms. Would it have been left up to the airlines whether on not to retrofit in that case? At least until it became regulation?

proposal link

[edit on 29/9/2007 by justin-d]

To Mr Lear:

Yes, the FAA and CAA/EASA certainly have different rules/standards, which is why I mentioned that the document I referenced was CAA (UK) and hence not FAA. I followed up on your question and interestingly in this case, it seems that there was a discrepancy between the FAA's standards vis a vis overspeed warning reset capability and those in existence on this side of the pond.

EASA Airworthiness Directive no. EASA-2005-0026R1 seems to cover this, and my reading of it (which may be astray) is that European-based aircraft fitted with overspeed warning reset have to be modified to meet the FAA standards.

The whole document (as numbered above) can be found [here]

Scroll down a little over half way (through this very long document) and you will find the directive I have noted above.

I was unable to find a document that specifically cites retrofitting dates but form what I can pick up it's likely that it was after 2001 -- perhaps as late as 2004. There are AD's cited for Oct of that year that seem relevant. Which means, in simple terms, that a US-based Boeing of that time possibly did not have a circuit breaker for the aural overspeed warning, even if European-based a/craft did.

I appreciate that some may consider this a trivial detail. However I feel that all details are important. Those who don't have an interest can skip it

Mike

EDIT: I should have also made it clearer that just because some Boeings had certain features it should not be assumed they were universal. My error, sorry.

I do not know if the Euro-based Boeings had this "shut the darned alarm off" feature in 2001. It does seem that the US ones didn't, which is what I meant by "of that time" (above).





[edit on 29-9-2007 by JustMike]

reply to post by johnlear

I'm going to be spending several years at work tonight between 11PM and 7AM. I enjoy your stuff Mr.Lear.

Originally posted by johnlear


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.

Hello all,

Regardless any relationship to 911, the "Airborne Holographic Projector" is on the books. Check this out, go to page 102, look under "Weapons" on the org chart, then under "5.0 Air and Ground Based" column of boxes, the projector is box 5.6

csat.au.af.mil...

I haven't had much time to go any further, but this site is a real mind-binder!

Many thanks to Mr. Lear for pointing it out. As usual though, more data leads to more questions and doubts...

Now, in order to eleiminate or substantiate, we must figure out present level of capabilities @ 5.6.

There is no doubt more data at the AU site, I'm just too tired right now to pursue it.

Night all...

Why can't things just be simple anymore?

Technology Review Magazine Discusses How the Military and TV Networks
Can Insert Prerecorded Images Into Live News Feed to Alter World Politics
in their July/August 2000 Article "Lying With Pixels":


CLICK HERE: www.911researchers.com...


[edit on 30-9-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
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.
[edit on 29-9-2007 by ipsedixit]

OK, I kind of understand what you are saying... so the airplanes were still going much slower than 500 MPH when they were still 5+ miles from the WTC.

I still have a couple of questions:

So when a plane is flying at 30,000 feet, how can I STILL hear the plane before it is overhead?

Why would whoever (George Bush, Al-Queda, CIA, etc.) go through all the trouble of creating these holographs to fool everyone? Why not just fly the real planes into the buildings? Even if you go with the explosives in the towers theory, still why not just use the real planes AND the explosives?

reply to post by craig732


Real planes would be too risky. A real plane would have crashed against the building and fallen down in front of many eyewitnesses.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
reply to post by craig732

 

Real planes would be too risky. A real plane would have crashed against the building and fallen down in front of many eyewitnesses.

You really think that a 757 would not penetrate that building? I think it would, i think it did. 99.99% of people think it did, except for the people who think it was done by holograms.

how can you justify a hologram:

'we have no idea how they did it, we aren't sure if the technology exists, we have no idea how they could mimic the sound that thousands of people heard, we dont know how the beams of the building were bent back into the building, we dont know how there were pieces of airplane wreckage on the street, but we are positive it was a hologram!"

Im sorry, that logic just doesnt add up.

reply to post by hikix



Where's the evidence that thousands of people heard planes?

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
reply to post by hikix

 

Where's the evidence that thousands of people heard planes?

All the people that were standing next to me, along with some of my friends that were in the surrounding buildings....... oh yeah, where were you again??

reply to post by FredT


Good point. MOST of the outside of the WTC was GLASS. Even the Pentagon was considered blast RESISTANT and not 3 solid feet of concrete.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
reply to post by craig732

 

A real plane would have crashed against the building and fallen down in front of many eyewitnesses.

That argument is so stupid, the plane was not solid steel, there were huge glass windows between the steel columns. Even a small Cesna would not "bounce off" the glass windows of a building, a multi-ton passenger jet certainly would not.

Originally posted by johnlear


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.

You can suspect all you want but you can't claim that because someone WANTS this technology that means it exist. Look at the latest Time magazine, the US Marines cant get their neat rotating wing plane to work, and that is far less of a technology leap than daylight hologram.

I don't know if it is "unreasonable" to assume it is think it could exist, but the burden is on you to prove it overwhealmingly, not on people who don't believe to disprove your dreams.