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: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
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.


So tell me, seeing as your an expert on impact dynamics, how it should have gone then? And with Newton's Third Law, the building gets a force on it too, thats the whole point.

So seeing as your the expert, lets see the formulae proving it's impossible, since you are so sure it is. If you can't give solid proof it's impossible, then that means what you are saying is a belief and not a proven fact.

oh also ignoring the fact that that B-25 hit and caused a significant hole in the side of the Empire state building once, but obviously a 767 going about 3 times faster can't possibly do that much damage to a building.

[edit on 24-9-2007 by apex]




posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 02:57 AM
link   
I have had this discussion a wee while back with John Lear and a very experienced personal friend (with many flying hours as a commercial pilot )when I posted a thread about low altitude and the technical ability of both the pilots and the aircraft.

I have u2u'd Mr Lear asking if he could add his input because many people,including myself, regarding John as the single most accomplished pilot anywhere... and an ATSer to boot.


[edit on 24/9/07 by AGENT_T]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 03:29 AM
link   
I think the real question here is can a student pilot be capable of the feats performed at 911. Most senior pilots that I have heard interviewed say fat chance.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
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.


Flight 175 made it northern New Jersey before it's transponder was turned off. Radar then tracked it during it's turn back toward New York. Flight 175 hit the south tower from the south because it was coming in from the skies over New Jersey and not coming in directly from Boston.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex
oh also ignoring the fact that that B-25 hit and caused a significant hole in the side of the Empire state building once, but obviously a 767 going about 3 times faster can't possibly do that much damage to a building.


Also had consederable more mass to it:

A B-25 had a MTOW of about 42000 lbs. The 767-200 had a mass af about 200000+ thats almost 5 times as heavy.

Also the structure of the Empire State Building is different from the WTC making it MUCH harder to penatrate IMHO



Steel columns and beams form a stable 3-D grid throughout the entire structure. But since such closely spaced column grids obstruct open spaces in buildings, there are virtually no open spans, or column-free spaces, on each floor of the Empire State Building.
www.pbs.org...


The WTC however



Tube buildings are strengthened by closely spaced columns and beams in the outer walls. The closely spaced columns and beams in each tower form a steel tube that, together with an internal core, withstand the tremendous wind loads that affect buildings this tall.
www.pbs.org...


Once the aircraft penatrated the facade it had little or no obstruction and penatrated deeply into the structure. Once the outer structure was penatrated the load shifted to the core. In the Empire State building the load would be better distributed.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 

I'd like to make a few points. I have been in the aviation field for many years and have met some very stupid engineers for what its worth. First. An internal combustion engine makes the most power at sea level (much like a supercharger) and that is also where it consumes the most fuel. ( yes, jets are ICE's ) Speed records are set at low altitude. More air (oxygen) in = more power out. Second. The shaker is a "stall warning" system.. It shakes the yoke and sounds a horn to alert the crew that the airspeed is too slow, just in case they are not paying attention or there is some sort of problem. Yes.... the plane will shake and vibrate IF it stalls but that's another issue.
Vibration at speeds approaching mach 1 (speed of sound) are from a shock wave forming. This is called trans sonic . Airplanes are not designed to fly in the transonic range.

Now you wonder about the news reporter?.... One of the local anchors commented after a story about the french Concorde SST. "That's the supersonic transport that flies nearly three times the speed of LIGHT."
Most of the mainstream reporters are just script readers and the people that write the scripts are just writing what they are told.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by jpm1602
 


I am a student pilot and I reckon I could.
Think about it, student pilots can place a Cessna 172 right on the runway pianokeys routinely... how could they not fly into a building 5 times the size of a runway?



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Larry B.
Now you wonder about the news reporter?.... One of the local anchors commented after a story about the french Concorde SST. "That's the supersonic transport that flies nearly three times the speed of LIGHT."


Don't I know it! A couple of years ago I saw a news broadcast where the report said (from memory): "The President will be landing in a helicopter, not Air Force One. He'll be landing in, oh, Helicopter One I guess we'll call it...". She's on Presidential detail and didn't evev know that that helicopter is called Marine One. Good God, I've known that since I was in sixth grade.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   


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.


Wizard

The North Tower was struck from the north because the plane was flying
down the Hudson River (which runs North - South, guess they don't
teach geography in Florida).

The South Tower, as pointed out by another poster, was hit from the
south because the plane was coming from central New Jersey - there's
that geography thing again. As I have said before dozens of people
where I worked were watching as it impacted ! My boss came to our
office and told us what he and others had just seen. This is in Linden
New Jersey, right near Newark airport.

[personal attack removed by moderator]

[edit on 8-10-2007 by Byrd]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by CB_Brooklyn
 


hahah, you people that really think this are crazy. I just don;t know what to say. I am just glad I don;t know you, try getting out of your moms basement and getting so exercise and stop trying to come up with crazy ideas.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 06:16 AM
link   
OK, I am at work atm so haven't read the entire thread. However I totally believe that Hikix saw the plane hit the second tower as did thousands of others on TV and with their own eyes.

As for those who are saying that an aluminium plane would not have penetrated the building but crushed and fell to the ground.. that is ridiculous!

Figure this an airliner packed with tons of luggage and people, fuel and solid jet engines travelling at over 500mph.. and you say it cannot penetrate a wall of glass and concrete pillars??!!! Don't be stupid!

I reckon a heavy suitcase alone travelling at 500mph could put a pretty big dent in the WTC.

There WERE planes.. so many people saw them. How can people be so hell bent on finding a conspircacy that they ignore the facts right infront of them??



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   
I still want to know where and when Newton's laws were violated.

I can toss a spit ball at a sheet of paper and it'll usually bounce right off. But, if I add enough thrust, the spitball does dent the sheet of paper.

Does the OP deny that F=ma? Or does the OP still wonder if an aluminum airplane, at that velocity, is capable of making minced meat out of steel those columns?

I still don't understand which of Newtons laws have supposedly been violated. May the OP please clarify?

[edit on 24-9-2007 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   
So, some people, i.e. OP, believe that rockets (designed to look as an airplane) hit the twin towers? Or atleast the 2nd tower?



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Please, enough with the no planes hit the towers thing already. Its sickening. Some of us dont have a no-gag reflex. This is gone beyond a joke.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   


ok its a 757 - but , well to quote the author


it's at 100 feet, 350 knots, 45 degree pullout climbing to 7500 feet - nothing special



there ya go - so aircraft can`t do this huh.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
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".


Crushed & fallen to the ground? Hmmm. . . Let's do the math;

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x ( mass ) x ( velocity )2 or K=1/2m(v)2

Let's use a reasonable estimate of 250,000 lbs for the 757, and a velocity of 500 mph, which seems to be a generally accepted value. The resulting kinetic energy exerted on that section of the tower would have been;

2,039,330,539.312 foot pounds

That's 2 billion with a "B"

Now, let's compare that with the WTC tower itself. . .

A widely advertised value for the total weight of one tower is 500,000,000 kilograms, or;

1,102,311,310.924 pounds

That's 1.1 billion with a "B"

The striking force of the incoming aircraft was equivilant to crushing both WTC1 & WTC2 down to the size of the 757.

IMO- It could have been made out of marshmellows & still went through. . .

2PacSade-



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
I reckon a heavy suitcase alone travelling at 500mph could put a pretty big dent in the WTC.


Lets not forget the two pound piece of foam that hit the reinforced carbon carbon wing edge of the shuttle.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Originally posted by Fett Pinkus


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



Yes it was me. And yes, I may be an idiot but I don't live down on a farm. I live in Sunrise Manor, just south of Nellis Air Force Base, at the foot of Frenchman Mountain (sometimes, and erroneously referred to as 'Sunrise Mountain') here in Las Vegas. And no, I don't have too much time on my hands. Although I am retired after 40 years of airline flying, I am busy from 6am in the morning until about midnight when I make my last post on ATS as a Conspiracy Master.

And again, LISTEN UP! No airplanes, of any kind, crashed into the World Trade Center, or into the Pentagon, or into the ground at Shanksville, September 11, 2001. It was a PsyOp.

The World Trade Center airplanes were highly advanced holographic images. I am not sure whether or not the Pentagon was a holographic image or just an overflight but I am sure that Chick Burlingame (the Captain) is alive and well and still working the Navy at this time.

A Boeing 767 could attain the speed of 500 mph at 700 feet above the ground but that speed puts it well above Vmo/Mmo. At Vmo the cockpit 'clacker' is going to start making one hell of a racket and no pilot, especially an inexperienced one is going to be able to maintain precise heading and altitude with this noise. The noise is distracting and designed to psychologically instantly remind a pilot that he is overspeeding the aircraft and that he has exceeded either Vmo or Mmo and in this case it is going to be Vmo. The level of cockpit noise just from the rush of air is going to be very loud in addition to the clacker. The control forces are going to be extremely heavy which will make precision maneuvering very difficult.

In any case, no Boeing 767 crashed into the World Trade Center. It was a PsyOp. It was a scam. It did not happen. It could not happen. All videos where either CGI's or faked in some fashion or videos of a holograph.

In addition to which the Boeing 767 which crashed into the south tower would have met the 47 column steel core 30 feet in. Did you see any compression or slowing of an airliner 159 feet long? No. The airplane disappeared nose to tail in .20 seconds.

In addition to which the Boeing 767 which crashed into the north tower would have met the 47 column steel core 60 feet in. Did you see any compression or slowing of an airliner 159 feet long? No. The airplane disappeared nose to tail in .25 seconds.

Since true airspeed approximately equals indicated airspeed at sea level that means that the Boeing 767 would have had to be indicating 440 kts (500 mph) on it airspeed indicator. While this is technically possible to achieve this speed, at 700 feet above sea level it is not possible that a hijacker, with limited experience, flew a Boeing 767 at this speed and hit the World Trade Center.

Thanks to hikix and Fett Pinkus for their input on this thread.


And Chick, I know you are out there and reading this.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Hi John-

If these were holograms, or DEW, or whatever. What produced all the noise for the incoming aircraft? I can understand how someone may be able to " project " a visual image from a remote location, but how was the audio provided? It could not be stationary, because it would not follow the movement of the airframe. Our ears would easily detect the difference.

How did they get the audio to constantly relocate along with the hologram?

Thanx-

2PacSade-



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
What i saw on 9/11, By me.

a plane.

The end.

Sorry, but what I is what what I saw.






top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join