It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

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

page: 5
8
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 06:46 PM
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.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:01 PM

You know johnlear, I don't like you too much. How do you know are you a pilot? I gave a very sloppy example but it is 100% possisble for that plane to have been able to go 500mph. If it comes from a high enough altitude almost STRAIGHT down it sould hit massive speeds.

Now consider this,
The plane did not need to be going straight down, it only needed an angle of about 60-70 degrees downwards to create those speeds on fact I actually think the angles could be a little less. And then the plane could level off right before the impact. Does anybody have video of before the impact to the extent of planes coming in from 10 miles away or even 3? If you do I would like a link to them until then I am not satisfied in saying it could not hit 500.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by b309302
A tornado can drive straw through a tree, and wood through thick concrete at under 300mph... were going to debate aluminum and steel at over 500mph?

Not this tired argument again?

Straw getting stuck in trees during tornadoes has NOTHING to do with it's velocity. In fact science has yet to explain the phenomenon. There are two main thoughts, one is that the tree bends in the wind and cracks are formed allowing pieces of straw to get trapped in the cracks. The other has to do with static electricity, I forget the details now. It has no correlation with objects colliding.

With a specially designed cannon, wind engineers at Texas Tech University have fired boards and other objects at over 100 mph into
various types of construction materials, duplicating some of the kinds of "bizarre" effects, such as wood splinters embedded in bricks. Intense winds can bend a tree or other objects, creating cracks in which which debris (e.g., hay straw) becomes lodged before the tree straightens and the crack tightens shut again. All bizarre damage effects have
a physical cause inside the roiling maelstrom of tornado winds. We don't fully understand what some of those causes are yet, however; because much of it is almost impossible to simulate in a lab.

Source (pfd)

So you need to re-think your opinion as it can't be based on this fallacy you believe.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:14 PM
Leer, you tend to spit out info like an ATM. I'm seriously starting to believe that other topic that you're a disinfo agent. Never in all my days has one person been bale to say so much on so many things. You can't possibly know it all unless you are either Einstein x 4 or a team of CIA in multiple areas.

It's simple. Planes travel fast. I've seen 500 MPH before, I saw it on 9/11. I've always trusted field research over professionals. That's how the UFO conspiracy started.

But hey, if you trust the professionals, straight from the Boeing site.:

Speed: Mach 0.80 (530 mph / 850 km/h) -- cruise

www.globalaircraft.org...

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:17 PM
500mph? I thought that was common, especially in video games at least.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:30 PM

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.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:31 PM
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.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:31 PM
Gorman91, I wish you could tell us, in detail, exactly what you saw with regard to the flight path of Flt.175. Here is a link to a video in which an air traffic controller describes it's flight path shortly before the impact with the south tower.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'd also like to hear from John Lear on the subject of the air traffic controller's story. I'm assuming that John Lear would say that the ATC is following a script or that a phony blip was put onto his radar screen, but more than that is the scenario that the ATC describes compatible with a 500 mph. impact? In other words is the "phony story" internally consistent and plausible?

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:42 PM

A comercial 767 passanger jet liner would not be able to do 550+mph at 700 feet though NY city. Nor would it be able to drop 20,000 feet and keep a speed of 550+mph and still be accurate as a weapon.
What he is saying is that at a 27,000 foot altitude the atmosphere is 1/3 lighter or resistant then at sea level. Therefor the friction caused by said speed at said altitude on said plane is not obtainable. Here is a clip from a 767 spec sheet, * DO NOT Exceed 250kts @ or Below 10,000ft Altitude.* . Here is a link to that site. www.curbe.com... . I'd check it out.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:52 PM

In all honesty, I feel time has corrupted my thoughts. I was sick that day. You know how when you have a fever you start seeing things more fuzzy and your eyes feel like squinting? The dot I saw wasn't made up in my mind though, I saw it coming in, and then crashing. Going faster as it went, contradicting alot of what others saw, I know.

I am a believer that the gov faked vids to further anger Americans into going to war, and It's highly likely most vids are fakes.

All I remember is seeing a dot coming in. I thought "hmmm, that seems suspicious" Still under the thought that it was just an accident, as the plane came closer and closer I started thinking " wait, no way, that thing has got to get out of the way, just have to". It turned, ziged zaged a bit, but still went kaboom on the building. My dad saw it alot better though. He says he saw it coming in sorta straight, turning a bit.

I guess it all depends on angles. I wish we could assemble a graph of how people saw it go and where they were.

Time does destroy and corrupt memories though. The time between seeing the dot, and seeing the fireball is lost to my mind, shoved away into being less important. Just the beginning and the end are visible, not the middle

Why are we cursed to forget?

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 08:01 PM

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.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 08:10 PM
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.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 08:11 PM
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.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Osyris
A comercial 767 passanger jet liner would not be able to do 550+mph at 700 feet though NY city. Nor would it be able to drop 20,000 feet and keep a speed of 550+mph and still be accurate as a weapon.
What he is saying is that at a 27,000 foot altitude the atmosphere is 1/3 lighter or resistant then at sea level. Therefor the friction caused by said speed at said altitude on said plane is not obtainable. Here is a clip from a 767 spec sheet, * DO NOT Exceed 250kts @ or Below 10,000ft Altitude.* . Here is a link to that site. www.curbe.com... . I'd check it out.

Dude I been flying in the military for 25 years and so I kind of know what a plane can do. The 250kts below 10,000 is a FAA rule only. All planes are required to fly no HIGHER than that unless cleared to do so. That 250 kts is for the controllers only and has nothing and I mean nothing to do with the capabilities of an aircraft. 300kts is a very doable speed at sea level with no descent, so if you add any descent that speed greatly climbs, and since the speed of sound is around 770kts at SL that doesn’t even play into the equation at all.

Now you might be implying that the terrorist were following FAA rules so in that case they would slow down to 250kts to not get violated….

Also 10,000 is a meaningless number to air for we use 18,000 as the cutoff.

Looking at those stats the gear is rated to 300kts and not too many planes fly at high alt with the gear down

[edit on 24-9-2007 by Xtrozero]

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 08:33 PM
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]

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 08:56 PM

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]

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:39 PM
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.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 10:26 PM

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.
.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 10:44 PM

Still 350knts is only around 403 mph. Not 550+mph. So you still prove nothing. You have no proof contradicting what Boeing employees or that engineer stated. So all your doing is restating your opinion louder then before. That still doesn't explain how that 767 got to 550+mph at 700 foot atltitude.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Osyris

Still 350knts is only around 403 mph. Not 550+mph. So you still prove nothing. You have no proof contradicting what Boeing employees or that engineer stated. So all your doing is restating your opinion louder then before. That still doesn't explain how that 767 got to 550+mph at 700 foot atltitude.

Dude does your car go faster down hill than on a flat road? The point is a jet in a descent can reach 500+ mph at sea level. The power of the engines at a level flight limits it to around 400 mph.

Why is that hard to understand?

top topics

8