Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by hikix
I was on Church Street when it happened.


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]




posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Here somethings...look it up

767-200 - Max cruising speed 914km/h (568mph), economical cruising speed 854km/h (531mph).


This is an educated guess, but it seems likely that whoever fed the 9-11 flight data to the newsfakers — some spooks — simply took the highest possible Boeing 757 flightspeeds right from the spec charts without thinking/understanding that they weren’t attainable at sea-level heights. People are highly specialized these days and it is unlikely that the 9-11 cabal was a well-rounded, educated, intelligent group of people. They compensated their stupidity with their ruthlessness.

Greetings,
The 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]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by hikix
I'd love to know who came up with this hologram theory, probably some idiot living on a farm with too much time on his hands.


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.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   
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…



[edit on 9/23/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   
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



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



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



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   

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]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   
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]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Here:

Airliners Net Discussion

Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:19:05 +1300
From: "Tony Davies"
To: "Dylan Phelps"
Subject: Re: B757 Videos

Dylan,

I was the captain of that particular shot, filmed during a Squadron open-day a couple of years ago. It's part of a routine that has been performed over thirty times at various airshows and practices around the world including RIAT Fairford 2003, Kemble 2006, RAF Waddington 2006, Warbirds Over Wanaka 2004, Avalon 2005.

The low pass is flown into wind at 350 knots (indicated) and 100 feet above the runway. It's a 2g pull up to between 45 and 55 degrees nose up pitch (although there has been higher) and the zoom climb ends at an altitude between 8000 and 10000 feet depending on the type of pull up used. The sequence does not end with a loop as some of the readers speculate, but in fact with a 60 degree wingover at around 220 knots. It is easily possible to enhance this maneouver with a steeper climb and bank but there is no need - it is spectacular already, and safe.

The aircraft is NZ7572 (formerly PH-TKB of Transavia) and it's sister ship, NZ7571, is seen in the foreground of the video shot. Both aircraft are operated by 40 Squadron at Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Whenuapai in Auckland, New Zealand. It is a B757-2k2 with RB211-E4 engines, shortly to become E4Bs.

Feel free to post this information if you so desire. If you want more details, I can provide. I can also pass you more videos of other maneovers we have done but I am a little busy right now and need some time to convert them to MPEG. I have attached a shot of the same aircraft involved with a formation practice for a London flyover with 3 Typhoons taken in November this year, as well as a quick shot taken from inside the B757 at the same time.

Regards,
Tony Davies.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



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



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hikix
reply to post by CB_Brooklyn
 




I'd love to know who came up with this hologram theory, probably some idiot living on a farm with too much time on his hands.



Actually it was John Lear right here on ATS



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   
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]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 11:55 PM
link   
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:


Auckland International Airport
Airport: Auckland International Airport Auckland International Airport
ELEVATION: 23 ft.


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



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   
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?


This is an educated guess,

Um. No.

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


simply took the highest possible Boeing 757 flightspeeds right from the spec charts without thinking/understanding that they weren’t attainable at sea-level heights.

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]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman #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.


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



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by talisman #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.


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.



Actually, there are a few!!









posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 02:03 AM
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?






top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join