Originally posted by rhombus24

OP I am a pilot and am telling you a 747 can be a 500 even 1000 mph. Ok by 1000 I would expect structual collapse but you get the point.

OP, rhombus24 is not a pilot. No 747 'can be a 500 even 1000 mph'. As a matter of fact it couldn't even fly at 500 or even 1000 mph at sea level.

If the plane had descended by say 3000 ft in the period of about 30 seconds it could hit 500.

This is not true. If it descended 3000 feet in 30 seconds that would be 6000 feet per minute. Even if the airplnane were capable of such a maneuver, 30 seconds would not be enough time for the acceleration to 500 mph.

Thanks for the post. Oh, by the way, I would give some thought before I posted that thread on the questions for the Muslim Sheik. Just a thought.

500mph? I thought that was common, especially in video games at least.

Originally posted by johnlear

This is not true. If it descended 3000 feet in 30 seconds that would be 6000 feet per minute. Even if the airplnane were capable of such a maneuver, 30 seconds would not be enough time for the acceleration to 500 mph.

6000 FPM is not that hard to do and well in the capabilities of the majority of jets, and at full power 20% nose down would do it very fast, but as we all know descent rate doesn't equal KTAS. The more important part is just to have a descent going at full power and the speed will come.

The one angle of the plane (holograph) looked as if it was in about a 15% descent rate towards the tower at a rather high rate of speed as what also looked like the pilot was struggling to pull out of that small descent rate because of the speed.

BTW 500mph = 733 FPS = 146 Feet in .20 of a sec and so when that plane hit the building the tail of the plane would travel into the building in .20 of a sec.

C'mon johnlear just who really are you? You know as well as I do that they made over 500. So why try with all this dis-info stuff. People are gonna stop believing what you say.

Originally posted by Osyris
Here is a clip from a 767 spec sheet, * DO NOT Exceed 250kts @ or Below 10,000ft Altitude.* .

As it has been stated on this thread, that is an FAA regulation, its not a structural limit on the aircraft. I posted a video link (I think someone else posted the same one as well) of a 757 doing 350kts at 100 feet.

Thanks for your honesty Gorman91. Personally, I'm still in a lot of doubt about so much that happened that day, at least as far as the details go, although I am firmly in the Truther camp and believe that elements of the US government were suited up on the terrorist team that day. I personally feel so badly for the people in the towers and everyone who has died since in this mess. I so want to see the perps in the dock on this one.

I think for a lot of the eyewitnesses, what they saw and what they say they saw might be different, and not because they are lying, either, but for a whole lot of understandable reasons. It's almost a guarantee that no-one at street level in Manhattan that day saw any more than a couple of seconds prior to impact with the south tower. Is that hologram distance? I don't know.

I'm willing to bet that very few viewers at a distance had much more than a few seconds of sight of the plane or hologram (whichever).

One more thought. A boiled egg will go right through an egg slicer at almost any speed. The fact that the towers had airplane outline holes in them might be more suspicious than if there were no holes, aside from broken windows and holes for the entry of the engines.

Gorman91

I believe you, and there are others on this board that saw the planes. Even when pressed they actually saw the planes, and they regularly contribute to other topics on the forums.

It is this type of eyewitness testimony that is in agreement that find the most compelling evidence against the tv fakery theory.

They often point toward some people who thought they might have seen something else, but that is very common when dealing with eyewitness testimony.

I just wish that people stopped fighting about this, because the planes are at the heart of 9/11. If you take away the planes you might as well take away the whole event and that can never happen.

thanks for your testimony.

I LOOOVEEE that people/mods at this site think they can explain a shaker system better than the guy that INVENTED it. They think they can explain how engineers at Boeing are wrong. Good lord.

Yea xtrzero I fly missions into space too... We are both pilots.



[edit on 24-9-2007 by shug7272]

Originally posted by shug7272
I LOOOVEEE that people/mods at this site think they can explain a shaker system better than the guy that INVENTED it. They think they can explain how engineers at Boeing are wrong. Good lord.

Yea xtrzero I fly missions into space too... We are both pilots.



[edit on 24-9-2007 by shug7272]

I have over 5000 plus hours on the C-141Bs and 3500 plus hours on the C130E/H/H2/H3. I still fly and just did 4 months in Iraq last Dec. I'm also in aircrew training and at my level I oversee the training of 1100 students per year, so mister astronaut got any questions? I can email ya my flight time from 1984 to present if that would help.

As I said I do not know what his reasons are to state such a goofball statement.



[edit on 24-9-2007 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by rhombus24

C'mon johnlear just who really are you? You know as well as I do that they made over 500. So why try with all this dis-info stuff. People are gonna stop believing what you say.

Thanks for the post rhombus24. No, actually I don't believe they could. Today I got the Vmo of a 757 (from a friend who flys one) which is 347 knots at sea level. There is no reason it should be higher for a 767 because the limitation is usually the windshield which are both the same. But I called Boeing to be sure and the lady was at lunch and hasn't called back.

If 347 knots (thats roughly the indicated airspeed) was Vmo it would be, in my humble estimation unusual to go to all the trouble to make it flyable up to 440 knots indicated at sea level up to 20,000 ft. Climb speed would be considerably less than 350 knots as you are looking for the best forward speed vs. rate of climb with the minimum drag. Nobody wants to waste gas and nobody wants to waste money so why design an airplane for speeds you are not going to fly at and believe me, SPEED COSTS MONEY.

So did they go over 500? First of all there were no real airplanes crashing into the World Trade Center at any speed. Now the holographs may have exceeded 500 mph but they were probably trying to stay within the actual limitations of the aircraft with the holographic projections.

As far as your accusation of dis-info. It matters to me not one whit what people think of me or my ideas.

But thanks for the post and your input. It is greatly appreciated.

Originally posted by johnlear
If 347 knots (thats roughly the indicated airspeed) was Vmo it would be, in my humble estimation unusual to go to all the trouble to make it flyable up to 440 knots indicated at sea level up to 20,000 ft. Climb speed would be considerably less than 350 knots as you are looking for the best forward speed vs. rate of climb with the minimum drag. Nobody wants to waste gas and nobody wants to waste money so why design an airplane for speeds you are not going to fly at and believe me, SPEED COSTS MONEY.

347 kts sounds about right for level flight at sea level, but if they were descending at full power that would be different. That 347kts has more to do with the power of the engines than what forces the plane can take.

Also you are half right on speed cost money for when you fly you have two best speeds. One is how far you can fly on the fuel you have and the other is how long can you stay up in the air on the fuel you have, and so you have 99% max range and endurance speeds. The specs on the 767 is they climb out at 290kts then at .72 mach to cruise alt then they cruise at .83 mach for best range.

Fuel cost for a jet is not that critical in the speed it goes as much as the altitude it flies, so the higher they get the less gas for the same speed. Some planes that have a T tail will fly slower than .80 mach because they get into what is called a Mach Tuck that creates more and more resistance as they approach the speed of sound. A 767 does not have this problem and so .83 mach is their best range speed.
.