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

Dear hikix:

Thanks for responding. We’re not trying to be difficult. No-planers like myself are just trying to figure out what happened on 9-11. Did you see the plane physically glide into the building while you were on Church street? Or did you “only” observe an explosion?

My intentions are not to rake you over the coals. I have a brother who lived near Church street on 9-11 and he swears he “saw the planes”. But if pressed, he defensively admits he didn’t exactly see them but has ‘friends’ who did. If you really did witness the south tower impact — please share further details — it would tremendously help many of us CT-ers comprehend what might have transpired on that dark day.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 9/23/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Those are not max speeds those are normal flight speeds the 568mph economical cruising is their best gas speed not max. 568 is around .78 mach at cruise, and is a very normal fly all day type of speed.

The C-141 I was on for 10 years flew .74 for best gas, the C-5 was .78, the KC-135 is the fastest at about .86, and the 747 is around .83. These are all just your basic normal speeds for jets.

Just do some research on the net or your local airport.

I just can't fathom why that guy on the video would say such a goofball statement like that.



[edit on 23-9-2007 by Xtrozero]

Or someone sitting at a desk at the "George Bush Center For Intelligence" (AKA the CIA) seeing what ways to make us look bad. No offense CB.

reply to post by Griff

---

I don't need to make anyone look bad, you're doing an excellent job of that yourself by buying into the 9/11 perp-run "truth movement" propaganda.

Maybe Mr Boeing engineer should stick to the stuff he was hired to design, if he is going to make remarks like this.

Here is a 757 doing 350Kts at 100 feet, then going near ballistic, no problem…

YouTube Link

[edit on 9/23/2007 by defcon5]

reply to post by FredT

---

The wingtips did not even make contact with the wall. Besides, it does not matter. An aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone is not going to glide through steel girders and concrete slabs. It violates Newton's Third Law of Motion, which states "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

A real airplane would have crashed (crushed) against the building, and have fallen down to the ground. It would not glide in, plastic nosecone-to-aluminum tail.

As Joseph Keith says "Airliners don't meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them".


btw, have you seen this video of a professional commercial airline pilot who actually flew the flight 175 and flight 93 planes?

Google Video Link

reply to post by defcon5

---

What makes you think that airplane is doing 300 Knots ???

Google Video Link

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn

---

If this video works, check out the 59min mark and how a 767 might be traveling @ 500 mph seems more plausible. If the video doesn't work the thread I tried to take it from is on page 10 of the main directory "CBC documentary shows 2nd hit appoach-boeing dive"



[edit on 9/23/2007 by infinityoreilly]

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn

---

Cause it was an airshow high speed flyby and the speed was known!!!

It's even listed on the video…

[edit on 9/23/2007 by defcon5]

I often see a lot of scientific claims but never see any mathematical proofs to back up those claims. If you can't prove your claims then you can't claim that they are true.

Here:

reply to post by defcon5

---

The plane was 100 feet above the runway. How many feet was the runway above sea level?

Actually it was John Lear right here on ATS

Here are simple reasons there were *REAL* planes and not some fake CGI.

#1. If it were the case that there weren't real planes, then can someone explain why they never bothered to also include a CGI of the plane going into the Pentagon??

#2. If their weren't *REAL* planes, then we might as well conclude that NONE Of the events were *REAL*.

#3.Corrobarating eyewitness Testimony backs up the visuals. Now notice I say--Corrobarating--, that is because it is a strong piece of evidence in a court of law.

Our entire Court system relies on *EYEWITNESS* testimony in many cases where other evidence is lacking. YES there are some times differences, YES there are often conflicting testimony. But once you can get a pattern of *AGREEMENT* then that is considered very strong.

If the *NO PLANE* thing was true, then you might as well do away with *HISTORY*, our Court System and Justice, You might as well do away with anything that has *EYEWITNESSES* so there goes everything.

#4. The No Plane theorists never put UP THE ORIGINAL but often are busy putting up highly compressed visuals.

How do we know they didn't "TAMPER" with the evidence? Not saying they did, but they seem to want YOU TO TAKE THEIR WORD FOR IT!

IF the Media tampered with everything, then why should I believe the No Plane Theorists. For all I know,they may be tampering with everything as well!

#5. I want the no plane people to put up a large number of Good Angled video's that show NOTHING HITTING THE TOWERS AND THEN AN EXPLOSION.

I am not talking about far away wrong angled shots, but shots from the right place.

Obviously they can't. So if this is the case can they answer how on Earth did the MEDIA ALSO CONTROL EVERY SINGLE TONY with a film camera pointed at the Towers that Day??

#6. It would be utterly STUPID for the Military to CGI video into the Media's feed when everyone happened to be looking at Both Towers after the first tower was hit. Who on earth would plan something so stupid. The chances of the Feed going wrong, the millions of New Yorkers speaking up about seeing nothing.

NEW YORK is definitely not the city to do something like that, since it is one of the most vocal on earth. The City itself refutes the idea that there were No planes.

There were planes, there were large explosions, and there were many people killed that day.



[edit on 23-9-2007 by talisman]

You've GOT to be kidding me. Them 'engineers', have got no clue what they're talking about.

In normal operations the 767 shouldn't exceed 250 knots when below 10 000 feet for safety. However, you can be wavered from this rule if you request (or are requested) where your maximum speed near sealevel is 320-350 knots.

There is not a thing in the world which is going to stop a 767 from flying 500mph if the pilot REALLY wants to. All you'd get is a very annoying warning sound, not to mention you'd have to be gentle with the controls.

If anyone wants to debate how fast a plane can go above VNE (Never exceed speed), you should really search for FedEx Flight 705 and China Airlines Flight 006. Good luck.

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn

---

I don’t have the exact information on that airport, as its possibly military, or it may be connected with the civilian airport. The air show is the Auckland International Air show, which looks to me like its held at the Auckland International Airport. Here is what I found for elevations above sea level for Auckland International, NZ:



So its basically almost at sea level, for all practical purposes, as far as I can tell.

Oh, and by the way, the World Trade Centres were designed for a 707 impact at 180knots. The 767s were flying at over 450knots. Do you really think they could sustain over twice the force they were designed?


Um. No.

That is not an educated guess at the maximum cruise speed. It's a fact.


uk.youtube.com...

So all them sources are lying about the speed? You should really search for FedEx Flight 705 and China Airlines Flight 006. Not to mention try a Commercial Flight Simulator. :-)


EDIT: If anyone still thinks a 767 would break apart at 220mph (LOL!), then do you really want me to waste my time throwing aircraft manual pages at you? What about the fact that planes.... airliners, at airshows fly at 350knots?

[edit on 24/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

Dear talisman:

You make one good point that there ought to be some pictures/videos showing only an explosion — without any planes — hitting the twin towers. But, indeed there aren’t.

I don’t really have a super-straight answer for that. I still don’t think it’s a coincidence that the south tower was hit from the south, the opposite side of where the north tower was impacted from and the opposite side of the city where the second plane originated from, Boston, MA. Perhaps this way there were less cameras focused on that side of the building.

I have no explanation, other than perfect media control. How can this be possible? How can anything be controlled so entirely? Well this brings me to a related subject which I have been wondering about since 9-11-2001 itself. Why are there no ‘gory’ 9-11 images on the internet. I realize it’s morbid and troubling to bring this up, but why are there no pictures of 9-11 victims anywhere to be found? Surely they must exist. A single image of a someone burned to death in one of the many charred cars might shock us into understanding what sort of forces were present at the destruction of the WTC’s. Three thousand people died and not one picture has made it past censorship. So maybe total control is possible…

Perturbed,
The Wizard In The Woods

Actually, there are a few!!

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn

---

Tell me where are the missing planes then? Also the people on those planes if it never hit. Yes i'm pretty sure no one saw the planes flying towards the towers and it was an illusion... =.= gezz

Btw: Which law of motion does the planes defy?