It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   

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.


I love how people can take a video taken from the Internet at face value. If its written down or on a youtube video IT must be true


The simple fact is that a stick shaker system is used to warn of empending stalls. Ive flown in a 747-400 Simulator at Boeing. It gets your attention for sure. But we were NOT talking about a 767 stalling Those a/c were far from stalling.

[edit on 9/24/07 by FredT]




posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I don’t understand. Is half the ATS readership going crazy? Why aren’t more paying attention to what John Lear has said. He’s been repeatedly stating that while 500 mph at sea-level might be possible for a 767, at speeds above Vmo (357 knots) deafeningly loud alarm noises go off inside the cockpit making the plane un-flyable for amateur (highjacker) pilots. If people (foolishly) insist on arguing with him, they should at least address his very specific points, such as that one.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
I don’t understand. Is half the ATS readership going crazy? Why aren’t more paying attention to what John Lear has said. He’s been repeatedly stating that while 500 mph at sea-level might be possible for a 767, at speeds above Vmo (357 knots) deafeningly loud alarm noises go off inside the cockpit making the plane un-flyable for amateur (highjacker) pilots. If people (foolishly) insist on arguing with him, they should at least address his very specific points, such as that one.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


I'll bite

Pull one circuit breaker and all those sounds go away, and also many planes have a bypass switch so in case the damn thing goes off when it shouldn't they have a way to silence it. It would suck flying seven hours over the pond with it going off the whole time.

Kind of an old trick of when you want to exceed the max speed you pull the Max Speed Warning Horn CB first.

But personally I do not think they cared if it was on for they were going to hit the towers, what would some noise matter.



[edit on 24-9-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by CB_Brooklyn
 


"The limiting speed for a Boeing 767 is 593mph at 35,000ft. The maximum cruising speed is about 563mph."

Both of those comments have nothing to do with the plane being at an altitude of 700ft, so both mean absolutely nothing here whatsoever.

As for the engineers comments, I am no aircraft engineer, so at this time, I can say nothing about them. He may know what he is talking about, but I'm not sure what to think about it. I do have a few thoughts though.

The other two people are completely worthless to listen to. They have no idea what they are talking about.

Is this any kind of proof of anything?

I think not.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Originally posted by Xtrozero



Pull one circuit breaker and all those sounds go away, and also many planes have a bypass switch so in case the damn thing goes off when it shouldn't they have a way to silence it. It would suck flying seven hours over the pond with it going off the whole time.

Kind of an old trick of when you want to exceed the max speed you pull the Max Speed Warning Horn CB first.

But personally I do not think they cared if it was on for they were going to hit the towers, what would some noise matter.



Thanks for the post Xtrozero. Sorry, there is no circuit breaker for the overspeed warning on Boeing 757/767. There was on older craft but not on newer jets for just that reason.

And if you think a pilot can ignore the overspeed warning its because you haven't heard one.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Maybe a tad bit off topic, but in flight sims, all jets can turn off the over speed warning with a button.

And John, What about I seeing the plane as a dot away in the horizon. What hologram can zoom to over 100 miles and still be clear (estimate)

[edit on 25-9-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
deafeningly loud alarm noises go off inside the cockpit making the plane un-flyable for amateur (highjacker) pilots

Annoying but far from deafeningly loud.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Why aren’t more paying attention to what John Lear has said.

Maybe his threads on soul catchers, moon bases, and secret space stations, are starting to hurt his credibility.


Originally posted by johnlear
And if you think a pilot can ignore the overspeed warning its because you haven't heard one.

Its possible to stand next to a running 737 engine and ignore it if need be. It may not be comfortable, but it can easily be done.


[edit on 9/25/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   
John, after the aircraft hit the trade centres, you can easily see the engines smash right through the towers and keep on going, where they would land onto a street.

The engine (s) were photographed on the ground. Were these engines planted, fakes, or holograms?


If a plane made mostly of steel could not make much of a pentatration into the reinforced conrete wall, how could a plane made mostly of aluminum travel throgh the walls and collums of the Pentagon?

Probably because the Pentagon wasn't made from a reactor containment vessel, a 757 is five times the size of a F4, and the F4 actually IS made from aluminium.


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.

Please explain to me how an 767 could NOT decend at 6000 feet per minute.

Oh, and explain how a 747 (China Airlines flight 006) descended 30,000 ft in under two and a half minutes.


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.

Please read the thread again.


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.

Well, first, that Boeing engineer stated the aircraft would break apart at 220mph, which is factually, a complete lie. At sealevel the speed at which an aircraft is limited to (350knots in 767 as per earlier (VNE)) is limited at that speed because the risk of structural failure, due to calculated factors such as wing or tail deformation or due to aeroelastic 'flutter' (unstable airframe or control oscillation). Yep, RISK. Meaning if you hit turbulence or wern't careful at that speed, you run the RISK of smashing the airframe to tiny little bits.

Let's look at history too, eh? China Airlines Flight 006. It decended 30,000 ft in under two and a half minutes, thought to many to break the sound barrier. After recovery, the plane landed. When decending at an average of 15000 feet per minute, how is the plane NOT going to get WAY above VNE? en.wikipedia.org...

FedEx Flight 705, the aircraft had an attempted hijacking, and one of the pilots left temple had been hit with a hammer. He could barely move, so with the only weapon he had, he litterally did aerobatics in the aircraft. It is thought to of came very close to the sound barrier. The plane landed and flies with Fedex to this day. en.wikipedia.org...

On a clear, sunny, day probably with little turbulence, how the hell is a 767 decending at three times the normal rate (6000fpm vs 2000fpm) with engines FIREWALLED NOT going to hit 500mph without breaking apart? It's happened in the past.

Yep, an aircraft hit the World Trade Centres, not only because there was video evidence, but because there were engines laying on a street not to far from Ground zero, not to mention there were thousands of eye witnesses. Yet if anyone ever brings up this proof against someones agenda, they usually dismiss the aircraft as holograms, witnesses brainwashed, engines planted.... airliners disapearing... and so on. If anyone tells them the technology isn't there, then they will say; 'no, it's secret government technology!1.


HOLOGRAMS!!1111ONEONEONEONEONEONEONEONE2ONE.



[edit on 25/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Sorry, there is no circuit breaker for the overspeed warning on Boeing 757/767. There was on older craft but not on newer jets for just that reason.

And if you think a pilot can ignore the overspeed warning its because you haven't heard one.

Thanks for the post.


For someone with so many hours flying, fundamental errors such as this are worrying. From a report on the loss of a 757 in 1999:


The report said that the captain's statement "Pull the airspeed" was a command to pull the circuit breaker for the overspeed warning system, so that the overspeed warning system would be silenced.


Source

I'm sure we'll find the case to be the same for 767 aircraft. But thanks for the post



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Hello all,

What puzzles me about the WTC and Pentagon attacks was the apparent skill of who ever was flying the highjacked planes.

I am no pilot, but it seems to me who ever was in control had more exprience than some guy with a few hours in a Cessna?

As many of you point out, these planes were operating at extreme speed at low attitudes for a considerable amount of time. I've heard that's the most difficult flying; requiring a high level of skill.

I am of a mind that agrees these planes were there and did hit their targets causing massive death and destruction. If I accept this it implies I also accept the fact that the planes stayed airworthy at least long enough to make it to their targets. However, I'm not so sure about who was actually flying them on that horrible, sad day.

Perhaps I am wrong and anybody could just sit down and fly a massive airliner as we saw on 911. But, doesn't that seem rather odd? It does to me.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I don’t understand. Is half the ATS readership going crazy? Why aren’t more paying attention to what John Lear has said. He’s been repeatedly stating that holograms, the likes and scale of which we've never seen nor imagined managed to run for miles without diffusion of the image -- the entire time, thousands of people were working in synch and harmony to make the event as realistic as possible.

And as this unbelievable plane roared in, a JUST AS SOPHISTICATED sound system managed to create the sound and all relative characteristics of that sound, and tailor it individually to every single person on the ground -- from angle, height, etc.

The fact is, again, you're all arguing about some silly plane's ability to break-up, or how long you can deal with a very frightening mechanism.

You're all ignoring the support of a conspiracy with another conspiracy -- and hitherto unknown technologies.

If I tell you the sky is red, and not just because of some weird chemical reaction, but because aliens painted it that colour with a toothbrush, are you going to argue the attributes and characteristics of the colour red? --And ignore the alien and his toothbrush? WHICH PAINTS?

Honestly.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
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.



So if you are so sure a 767 can't do that speed at that altitude, why make it look like something did? And if it was difficult to get the speed needed right, why not use a 767 just going slower? Seeing as it's so impossible for it to go any faster, surely it makes no sense to fly your amazing 50 year ahead (that idea is getting repeated far too much) faster than it should be.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
You're all ignoring the support of a conspiracy with another conspiracy -- and hitherto unknown technologies.

We are sticking to the thread topic, johns hologram issue is for another thread and quite off the topic of whether or not a 767 can do 500kts at 700 feet altitude.


[edit on 9/25/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreenFloyd
What puzzles me about the WTC and Pentagon attacks was the apparent skill of who ever was flying the highjacked planes.

I am no pilot, but it seems to me who ever was in control had more exprience than some guy with a few hours in a Cessna?


The guys flying had quite a bit more experience then just having flown a Cessna. The whole issue about them being incompetent pilots was a misquote from one instructor who refused to rent on of the guys a plane once. These guys had descent flight training, including training in a professional flight simulator.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Xtrozero,

Attempting to explain airspeed, alt and FARs to none pilots that will not listen, is much like trying to teach a pig to sing. First it is a waste of your time and secondly it annoys the pig.

Should anyone here decide that they can just bust 250 kts below 10,000 any time they want without ATC's blessings go for it. I am sure the FAA will be amused.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I'm having a lot of "deja vu all over again" sensations in this thread, so with that in mind I ask, as I believe I've asked before in another thread, "Shouldn't it be possible to calculate the speed of Flt.175 by marking it's progress in some of the videos, against the known photographic frame rate?

I wonder if the videos all agree on the speed of the plane? I'll bet they don't.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by GreenFloyd
 


Here's some information that I posted from a different thread.



I done some more digging and found a link to the Zacharias Moussaoui trial exhibit and there is a photocopy of Hanis logbook and some jet tech records of his 737 simulator training. Document #'s are PX00021 and PX00021.1 (PDF)

His logbook and record say this....

255 hours total time
74.5 hours IFR (Instrument Flight Rules)
29.9 hours AMEL Turbine (Aircraft Multiengine Land)
12 hours B737-200 simulator time

I can't find what type of twin-engine turbine he had flown, so I can't say for sure if the aircraft that he flew was capable of going above 18,000 feet. He did fly a 737 simulator which means that there's a good chance that he was taught to reset the altimeter at 18,000 feet.

Remember that these records were recorded at 255 hours total time and that leaves almost 350 hours of flying for him to learn more.


Here's the abovetopsecret.com thread.
They had more experience than a couple of hours in a Cessna.









[edit on 25-9-2007 by Boone 870]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I was wrong!

In double checking with my sources for my post on the circuit breaker for the overspeed warning in the Boeing 757/767 I found out that I was wrong.

In fact there is a circuit breaker for the aural warning. On the Boeing 757 it is on Panel P-11 and it is either B16 or H35. One of those is the overspeed warning and one is the cabin altitude.

Please accept my apologies for the misinformation I have posted on the overspeed warning. There is in fact a circuit breaker that can disable the overspeed warning.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Originally posted by Gorman91



Maybe a tad bit off topic, but in flight sims, all jets can turn off the over speed warning with a button.


You are correct. Not with a button but with a circuit breaker.


And John, What about I seeing the plane as a dot away in the horizon. What hologram can zoom to over 100 miles and still be clear (estimate)


I don't know how holographs are projected so I am not sure whether or not they can 'zoom' 100 miles and 'still be clear'.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Originally posted by apex




So if you are so sure a 767 can't do that speed at that altitude,


Let's take these questions in order. I said a Boeing 767 could probably do 500 at 700 feet based on the fact that with full thrust it wold probably be able to indicate 440 knots which would be 500 mph. I doubt if it could go much faster, assuming it had the thrust to do so, because it was not designed for that greater speed.


why make it look like something did?


There are reports that the airplanes went faster than 500 mph, such as an initial report that ATC tracked one of the airplanes at 600 mph.

Your question is "Why make it look like something did?". I said whoever perpetrated this illusion was probably trying to keep the speed range in the believable range or at 500 or below.


And if it was difficult to get the speed needed right, why not use a 767 just going slower?


I wasn't in on the planning of 911 so I can't answer that question. If you could find Chick Burlingame I am sure he would be able to answer it.


Seeing as it's so impossible for it to go any faster, surely it makes no sense to fly your amazing 50 year ahead (that idea is getting repeated far too much) faster than it should be.


I think you are confusing the speed of the airplane with the projection of the holographs. The speed of the airplanes was not 50 years ahead in techonology. The speed of the airplanes is a fixed value with todays techonology. Projected holographic images with accompanying sound is technology that may be 50 years advanced from where we think we are at this point in time.

Thanks for the post.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join