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

page: 16
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 10:26 AM

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).

posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 10:56 AM

Your opinion. Have you ever seen a jet airliner hit a building like that before? I'd guess no, so how can you make that claim?

Good point. I'm not a ballistics expert. Are you? But the hole is the right size and shape for an aircraft with a 13ft diameter fuselage hitting the wall at an angle, and I would have thought pretty difficult to replicate with internal explosives. A 40-ton cylindrical mass traveling at 500mph might be expected to penetrate and explode inside in such a manner. Maybe it didn't, but looking at the damage that seems the most plausible causative agency.

But I'm forgetting! All those US Govt employees working in that wing of the building were sitting on a pile of pre-prepared explosives, ready to blow themselves up when the 757 that all those witnesses thought they saw but didn't really see didn't hit the building! - sorry.

posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 03:54 PM
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.

posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 04:49 PM

Originally posted by bovarcher
But I'm forgetting! All those US Govt employees working in that wing of the building were sitting on a pile of pre-prepared explosives, ready to blow themselves up when the 757 that all those witnesses thought they saw but didn't really see didn't hit the building! - sorry.

Lol your sarcasm is showing your ignorance. The wing of the building hit was the only empty area of the building. And you can claim as many witnesses as you want but if the event doesn't match the claims then I will ignore them.
Witness accounts can be can be made up you know, and if they're coming from the accused then what do you expect?

Personally I don't believe a 757 would make a neat hole and then disappear into nothing after going through it leaving no damage to the lawn, but that's just me.

[edit on 2/11/2007 by ANOK]

posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 11:01 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

Witness accounts can be can be made up you know, and if they're coming from the accused then what do you expect?

Personally I don't believe a 757 would make a neat hole and then disappear into nothing after going through it leaving no damage to the lawn, but that's just me.

[edit on 2/11/2007 by ANOK]

Who are the accused?

posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 05:57 AM
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.

"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

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.

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.

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 12:19 PM

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 03:28 PM
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.

posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 12:31 PM
That's strange because I was not permitted to discuss this idea of swapped-in remotely piloted military drone aircraft, on 9/11.

posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

This is also an almost five year old thread which died before the Hoax forum.

And yes, a 767 would far exceed its flight parameters if we were talking using just engine power. Diving down and leveling off is another story.

posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 01:57 PM

What is fake? Everyone of the home videos taken and the professional videos taken are fake?

Just to play devils advocate here, there are very few videos of the second collision and none of the first.
I've seen evidence to suggest a lot of videos of the second plane are from the exact same angle.
Some thing to look into if you haven't.

I'm not saying I agree with the OP, I have no idea about aerodynamics but I do somewhat dispute this line you said.

Also nevermind, I never realised the date..
edit on 31pm22pmMon, 09 Dec 2013 14:00:36 -060031 by Taggart because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 01:59 PM
reply to post by Taggart

There's one video of the first impact, the Naudet Brothers documentary.

There are at least two different angles of the second impact, both showing the plane diving down and leveling off just before impact.

posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 03:17 PM


(I need to find the full length video somewhere for that)

Re: Speed
Speed Cont'd

Here's the video missing in the OP, for anyone who's interested

Boeing - Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard in this recording saying 500+ mph at 700 feet is impossible.

(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"

Boeing Spokesperson - (Laughs) "Not a chance..."

edit on 9-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 05:00 PM
I just remembered something about this. The notes I took from the Egypt Air crash said that the jet did a freefall from about 24,000ft and when it reached mach 0.86 (whatever that means) it began to break up before it hit the ocean. This was not due to speed but G-Force and I never really understood what they were trying to say. Also, due to this force the ocean is actually harder than solid ground and the engines were found miles from the wreckage field.

Again, to this day I still don't know just what they were trying to say but it made sense so I just accepted it.

posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 05:05 PM
reply to post by spooky24

EgyptAir hit .99 Mach, and finally lost the left engine when they tried to pull up. It's entirely possible, and probable that they broke Mach before they crashed.

posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 09:57 PM
reply to post by spooky24

Thanks spooky24, I'm so glad you pointed that out, honestly. It was helpful. Star.

Best Regards,


posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 02:08 AM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

Helpful that the speed given was wrong? Because it hit .99+, not .86.

posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 06:47 AM
Well the NTSB final report says 0.86 mach and there was no attempt to nose up on the second decent. The relief First Officer had shut down the engines and kept his elevator control on a downward pitch so the pilot could do nothing to save the plane without the first officers help. I doubt I will ever really understand this as the pilot was able to nose up the plane from 16,000ft and begin climbing again only to reach 24,000 then go straight down in an inverted spin. Both the FDR and CVR stopped recording once the engines lost power. That was during the second plunge so how do they know this stuff.

They calculated the speed upon impact at 36,000 fpm. How do they expect people to understand that- what is wrong with mph.

Just makes no sense to me.

I though the entire reason for having 2 different controls for pilot/first officer was to prevent one person from crashing the plane-but that is exactly what happened.
edit on 10-12-2013 by spooky24 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-12-2013 by spooky24 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:12 AM
reply to post by spooky24

They never went into an inverted spin. The alarm went off as the passed through 0.86 Mach, and exceeded parameters of the aircraft. If you look at the full report and all the slides, the airspeed and derived Mach are just below Mach 1, exceeding the 0.86 that is set as the aircraft's do not exceed speed.

The aircraft structure failed shortly before impact with the water, during their second dive. The left engine was found about 1200 feet away from the main wreckage. The only debris found with it was associated with the left engine. Everything else was found with the main debris field.

posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:58 AM
OK-your saying when they hit 0.86 Mach the master warning went off as that was the extent of the planes recommend speed and it continued to increase until impact. Why the hell didn't they just say that? That part makes sense now thanks for clearing that up. Again, if the engines stopped providing electrical power and both recorders stopped functioning at that point as the second decent began how do the know this stuff?

I think they deliberately make these reports hard to understand.

The Egyptian news paper says the plane "spun into the ocean after a massive mechanical failure" and goes on to say "despite the heroic efforts of the crew" and the "recovery vessels failed to find important evidence as to the cause of the crash"

How fast is 36,000 feet per minunte?

top topics
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in