Can a 767 Fly 500MPH @ 700ft Altitude? Boeing Official Says: Ha Ha Ha! Not a Chance!, page 16


Pages: <<  13    14    15    16  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 26-10-2007 @ 10:26 AM by bovarcher


There are too many holes in this story to believe it so blindly. No one is asking you to believe the ‘out there’ theories going around, just recognize that something doesn’t fit the story you are so blindly accepting.


Well I don't feel that I ever 'blindly accept' anything. For example, it's pretty obvious to me after 20+ years of painstaking research that the US Govt has been lying about its involvement with ET technology, and that the extent of this goes far beyond what most people imagine possible. To a truly frightening extent, actually (and the US Govt is not the only one...)

I am open to all the conspiracy theories, but there is just no evidence to support this one about AA#77. At the end of the day, the most plausible explanation concurrent with the observable facts has to be the most likely. In this case, it's obvious that AA#77 hit the building. I have still seen no evidence to the contrary.

Or perhaps A DIFFERENT B-757 was used to strike The Pentagon in order to cover up that a 757 was supposed to strike The Pentagon? Maybe with a DIFFERENT suicidal pilot to cover for Hani Hanjour (who of course, must be somewhere else with all the missing passengers and crew - but where???)

With all due respect, it's not up to me to 'prove' to you that the 757 engine parts in the wreckage were from that specific aircraft. There is no evidence to suggest they might not be. Have you contacted AA? The wreckage belongs to their aircraft; it's their property and they may still have what remains. Why don't you ask them? There was an insurance settlement. AA's insurers obviously inspected the wreckage in some detail, and presumably paid out only when convinced that that was indeed the aircraft. You could ask them too.

At the end of the day, you'll believe whatever you want to believe. I need some evidence (just a small bit would be a start) before accepting the grossly improbable, when an obvious explanation fits the facts.

(sorry I can't seem to turn the italics off - they are not intended).


reply posted on 2-11-2007 @ 03:54 PM by dionysius9
I think if you asked a hundred people who believe 911 was an inside job, 99 of them would say that actual physical aircraft hit those buildings.

I can't imagine a way it could have happened otherwise.


But the point being debated is how fast were they traveling when they hit? We know that aircraft fly at 35,000 feet because the air up there is much thinner, making it easier and cheaper in terms of fuel cost for an airplane to plow through it.

As you get lower in altitude, the air offers up more resistance. It's thicker, denser.

The question is whether or not that aircraft could fly at the claimed 500+ mph near sea level, as we were told.

The best I have been able to gather while looking some stuff up on the internet is a pretty clear NO.

Level flight at 700 ft with full engine power gets you only to about 330 mph. Which, if true, is just another example of lies the government told us, in which the planes were traveling an incredible 500+ mph.

Now, perhaps the planes were at higher altitudes, took a dive to gain speed, then leveled off. But I don't see anything like that in any video I could find. I guess the only way to answer this question would be to get some info from radar tracking. All data of this sort is conveniently inaccessible to the public.

Taken with everything else I've seen and heard about this issue, it's just another tiny piece to a much greater picture that I would call "guilty demeanor". Strong physical evidence is not forthcoming, but when all circumstantial evidence points in the same direction, you can't just call it coincidence.



reply posted on 5-1-2009 @ 05:57 AM by Anonymous ATS
Crash physics for everyone
Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Why no planes could have struck the towers



There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must assume that it remained intact going through the outer wall.
It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to pieces and fall into the street.
I will deal with this first.

REACTION/deflection
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
That means that the force received by both objects in a collision will be equal.
Now what determines how much force goes into the objects? Well, if one of the objects penetrates the other, the force needed to break through the penetrated object will be the amount of force received by EACH object.
If you add up the total sum of the forces required to "punch" through all of the beams we are told that the plane went through, then you would have to say that the plane sustained that amount of force and did not break up.
I contend that the plane would break up with much less force than what it would take to penetrate all those outer wall beams.
Any remaining kinetic energy would be retained in any parts that had penetrated the wall and parts that had fragmented, the fragments undergoing a deflective process with their remaining energy.
Some of the energy would convert to sound, heat and light.
The heat would ignite any fuel spilled from the wings, a large amount of which would be vaporised instantly with the impact.
Then there is

TERMINAL BALLISTICS.
If the plane were made of tungsten or something, and it remained intact, then upon the nose penetrating the first beams, whatever force that took would be transmitted from the beams to the nose of the plane also, causing deceleration and deflection.
The heavier part of the aircraft (the engines) has more momentum though, and due to the deflection of the nose, the plane would tumble, in the same way a rifle bullet tumbles through Kevlar.

AERODYNAMICS.
The tumble would occur in the direction of lift from the wings and tail plane.
The deceleration of the wing surfaces would not cause an instant loss of lift because the lift is due to low air pressure above the top surface of the wing, there would be enough lift left during an impact to determine the direction of tumble.
And the 2nd plane was depicted as banking to the left when it hit the tower, so it would have been rising to the left when it struck, giving us another, separate reason for the plane to tumble.
With the diagonal rise of the nose being suddenly stopped upon penetrating the building, the rear of the plane should have continued diagonally upwards, causing it to tumble roof-on into the building, probably right-wing first due to the extra lift on that side due to the bank of the aircraft, the wing on the outside moving faster.
And as the bank of the plane means it should have been moving up and to the left then the fuel should have continued in that direction when the tanks ruptured, rather than go straight through any hole made by the impact.


reply posted on 28-2-2009 @ 03:28 PM by intriguedUK
reply to post by Anonymous ATS



I have to disagree with this. A bullet hitting Kevlar s very different than a plane hitting the WTC as the kevlar is of equal strangth across the surface. The walls of the WTC are not, there is more resistance at columns and beams and less inbetween these. Therefore this theory doesn't work.
Pages: <<  13    14    15    16  >>    ^^TOP^^



Why the Pentagon?
  Posted 3 days ago with 12 member flags
NEVER FORGET 9-11….Maybe we SHOULD forget.
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags
Personal Theory on The Twin Towers Plane Pilots
  Posted 0 days ago with 8 member flags
The 9/11 Hijackers: Fraud in Official Video Exhibits Uncovered
  Posted 1 days ago with 7 member flags
Note from trapped workers surfaces 10 years after 9/11
  Posted 1 days ago with 6 member flags
Where were you when the world stopped turning...
  Posted 2 days ago with 4 member flags