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

page: 13
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732

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

[edit on 29-9-2007 by craig732]


Pardon me, I haven't been here for a while and now I am posting all over the place.

I think hearing or seeing first would depend on a number of factors. If you were behind a building or had other ground obstructions deflecting sound, plus being in a city there would be a lot more background noise covering the far off noise, you won't hear it until it is closer and louder. Also if you are in a straight line with the flight path you would seem to be hearing it simultaneously.

But go to a Blue Angels or Thunderbirds air show and you can really see the sound delay in high-speed fly-bys.




posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Originally posted by TrevorALan




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.


TrevorALan, thanks for the post. Let me respectfully sugggest that you review some of the facts of your statement.

Number one the 14 inch box columns are 39 inches on center that gives a total opening of 25 inches which is further reduced by the installation materials. So there are no huge glass windows. They would be 14 inches wide at the widest.

Second of all a small Cessna would indeed not bounce off the glass windows because they are not wide enough to bounce off. But the Cessna 172 would indeed bounce off the steel box columns on the exterior of the building.

Lets see how many box columns they it bounce off of. Each box oolumn is 39 inches on center. The wingspan of a Cessna 172 is 36 feet which is 432 inches. So we then divide 432 inches by 39 and we get 11. Thats 11 steel box columns 14 inches wide and you think a Cessna 172 is going to crash through? You must be joking.

But thanks for your post, it was highly entertaining!



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Originally posted by TrevorALan




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.



Thanks for the post Trevor. Could you please post the engineering drawings and/or pictures that would substantiate your statement that "MOST of the outside of the WTC was GLASS."

I am assuming that by "MOST" you mean over 90%. Would that be correct?

Thanks for you post, you input is greatly appreciated.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn


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


OK, heres one, form a conspiracy theorist in fact.
www.youtube.com...
Now this person seems to think it is an "F-16" or something, I'll argue that point another day, but you can clearly see from the long shot that the plane was in a SHARP descent until almost the very end. I believe this is a view from the north or north east. I wish I could get raw video but its proof that such aview exists.

I think this also shows the plane descending, less obviously, but again a conspiracy believer posted it so you can't say I faked it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3AwEz0K-UI

And here is a flight controller telling us how fast he tracked the aircraft descending
www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by hikix
 



Your comment is not descriptive. It's also hearsay and is not admissible in a Court of Law.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CB_Brooklyn
 


Heresy to you, fact to me.... maybe if there is a trial, ill conduct some interviews... um, where were you again?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I think it is absolutely preposterous that people keep trying to come up with ridiculous conspiracy theories about the WTC disaster. (or OKC/McVeigh, etc.)

Did anyone consult the families of those who boarded these PLANES that plowed into the Towers as to whether or not it was a real plane?

Does the airline industry succumb to terrorist plots and allow citizens to book flights on BOMBS?

To suggest that there was anything more than what I saw with my own eyes, is beyond absurd.

And if anything is found out of the ordinary, does that help the surviving families of the victims?

It makes me think that some conspiracy theorists are having more of a drug problem themselves and the world is far better off than we thought.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
There is no debate as to whether real planes would have crashed the way they did into the WTC. If they were holograms, they crashed exactly in the way that real planes would have.

E= (1/2)*m*v^2

If you double the velocity, you quadruple the energy of a collision. At 500mph, a collision will have a hundred times as much energy per unit mass as a collision at 50mph. A Cessna crashing at 100mph would have one twenty-fifth as much energy per unit mass as these airliners had. Imagine crashing a Cessna into the same spot twenty five times, over and over again, and see what is left.

To slow the jet down from 500mph to zero required dissipating as much energy as an explosion of 750kg of TNT. Imagine strapping the 767 to the side of the building and setting off nearly a ton of dynamite inside it. Now control the explosion so that everything is directed into the building and not in every direction. That is the sort of damage we would expect and that is exactly what we saw.

Here's an F-4 hitting a concrete wall at 500mph.



There were definitely planes that looked like, sounded like, and behaved according to the laws of physics like real airliners that day. If there were holograms or anything else, they were perfect in all respects. If there is evidence for holograms, this isn't it.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by justin-d

Here's an F-4 hitting a concrete wall at 500mph.


Couple things about the video.

1. The wall is a specially designed reinforced wall to protect nuclear plants.

2. The F-4 is mostly made of steel. The 757 is mostly made of aluminum. So we are supposed to believe that a plane made from steel could not penatrate a wall but plane made of aluminum could go through the outer wall, the reinforced collums, the interior walls and punch through the outer wall.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by justin-d
 


Awesome, except there were windows on the WTC, glass can't stop much:




posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA1

I don't think that the F-4 is made mostly of steel. Do you have any sources for that? I can't think of any aircraft made mostly of steel.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
2. The F-4 is mostly made of steel. The 757 is mostly made of aluminum. So we are supposed to believe that a plane made from steel could not penatrate a wall but plane made of aluminum could go through the outer wall, the reinforced collums, the interior walls and punch through the outer wall.


I'm not asking you to believe it - do the math. All I'm asking you to believe are the laws of physics. The reason I posted it was to show that even if it were constructed as solidly as a nuclear bunker - something it could not penetrate - that it would not simply bounce off.

The trade centers weren't solid structures either:



The planes could have been made of cheese - if you get them going fast enough they'll hit with the force of an explosion. Steel isn't any sort of wolverine-eque, impermeable adamantium material either - it will happily break just like anything else if you apply enough force and impact. Get a heavy steel mesh from your local hardware/diy store and see what kinds of materials you can break it with. You could put a piece of wood through it if you wanted to. That's basically what the towers were - big meshes of steel with a heavy core that held the majority of the structure up like a spine.

Consider an explosion itself. When you detonate a brick of C4, you're basically turning it into a ball of expanding gas. That's carbon dioxide and water vapour which, because they are moving fast enough, can destroy steel, concrete, or whatever else you like. The hardness of the material means nothing - what matters is the energy density it is carrying.


[edit on 1/10/2007 by justin-d]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
ULTIMA1

I don't think that the F-4 is made mostly of steel. Do you have any sources for that? I can't think of any aircraft made mostly of steel.



The F-4 was designed in the 60s before compostite were widely used.

Also if you do researh on the MIG-25 you find it is almost all steel.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by justin-d
Consider an explosion itself. When you detonate a brick of C4, you're basically turning it into a ball of expanding gas. That's carbon dioxide and water vapour which, because they are moving fast enough, can destroy steel, concrete, or whatever else you like. The hardness of the material means nothing - what matters is the energy density it is carrying.


According to NIST and FEMA the explosion was just most of the fuel being burned up outside the towers and did not cause any structural damage.

If you look at the Purdue animation you can see the aluminum airframe being shredded to pieces as soon as it hits the steel exterior beams.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   
The fireball was jet fuel, absolutely. I mean explosion in the sense of impact-transfer of kinetic energy. The Purdue/Berkeley animation was brilliant - you can't demonstrate the physics of the impact any better than that, imo. The collapse is a whole different story, mind you, but I think what that FEM animation showed seemed very realistic and accurate - at least in terms of what the materials would do upon impact. The plane disappearing into the building, both shredding each other to bits, etc.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by TrevorALan




Thanks for the post Trevor. Could you please post the engineering drawings and/or pictures that would substantiate your statement that "MOST of the outside of the WTC was GLASS."



I'm sorry if this isn't in the right place, I'm still a nooby!

However, I have been following John Lears forums for a while and find it interesting that he demands supporting information from people, yet when it is demanded of him he fudges around the issue and never gives a straight answer.


To John: this is MY OPINION and therefore you are equally entitled to your opinion. I just find it hard to fathom how you can demand supporting evidence from others and not supply it yourself.

Other than that, there are interesting questions raised, but I need supporting evidence as well!!!



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by justin-d
The plane disappearing into the building, both shredding each other to bits, etc.


If only aluminum could shred steel. The animation shows the airframe being shredded to little tiny pieces, not able to do muich damage to the steel beams.

Also remember the plane that hit the south tower when in at an angle through the side not causing much damage to the core.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
This is also true - the plane would have absorbed most of the damage, but there would have been certain damage to the perimiter columns. Not enough to damage the core severly, I wouldn't think and certainly not on the south tower where it wasn't even vectored at the center. Again, my only point here is to say that there is no reason I can think of or evidence I can see that the aircraft and impacts were anything but real 767s flying and impacting in ways that are within their physical capacity. Whether amateur pilots could have done it on their own, I doubt. Whether the buildings would have collapsed later, I doubt, but the planes, at least, didn't do anything that looked to be impossible, at least as concerns the laws of physics.

That dive clip is intereting - first I've seen of that and definitely impressive, if not unbelievable, flying for a couple guys who could barely keep a 172 pointed straight!



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   
I wonder if all the wobbly flying referred to in the case of Flt. 175 was some kind of attempt made by patsy pilots to override a wire pattern that they weren't told about. Maybe they were trying to correct and recorrect for what the perps had programmed into the remote controls on the plane. Just a thought.

As far as my personal flying experience goes, I have about 10 hours in paper airplanes, fifty years ago.

They all crashed.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by ipsedixit]



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
As far as my personal flying experience goes, I have about 10 hours in paper airplanes, fifty years ago.

They all crashed.



Gotta tell ya, I like that one!





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join