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

i love how convincing u are, haha
u absolutly prove nothing. u dont offer evidence u dont offer a real explanation. that whole holograam thing is almost impossible. ur stating opinions not facts.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
Please avoid using "TXT Messaging Shorthand" for words when posting on AboveTopSecret.com and AbovePolitics.com, such as "4" for the word "for" or "u" for the word you. Common "Internet Slang" acronyms such as "LOL" and "ROFLMA" are acceptable, but should still be used sparingly.


[edit on 25/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Which "Laws" were violated?

What were those big things that looked like airplanes, that hit the towers?

While reading this topic a user posted the following quote:

"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". "

This has to be one of the most absurd things I have read. I compare this to a cheese grinder. Chese is definately softer than the metal grinder so how does the block of cheese go through the grinder.

Have you figured it out yet? The grinder is not solid (has holes in it) so for the cheese to go through somone applies force on the cheese block and shoves it though the holes. Same thing with the tower and the plane. The tower is not solid metal, therefore the force of the plane would shove it though the windows of the tower and make it look like it was gliding into the building.

Originally posted by searcus





Uh, er, as a matter of fact it was. There were steel girders all around the perimeter of the tower and then, in the case of the south tower, 37 feet in (that is, 37 feet from the entrance of the airplane into the building) was the steel core which consisted of 47 steel girders. Now, searcus, with all due respect, are you trying to tell us that an aluminun tube is going to 'glide though' a 47 girder steel core?

The building was 208 feet wide, the wingspan was 156 feet, the core was about 90 feet wide and you think an airplane with a hollow aluminum tube sliced it like butter? Thats fantastic. If so, where is the airplane?

Just a little memory jogger here not one piece of an airliner was found in either tower footprint. No trace of the two 6 ton jet engines, no trace of the wing plank center section, no trace of the horizontal/vertical tail structure, no oxygen tanks, no flight recorder, no voice recorder, no hydraulic cylinders, nothing. I mean where is all of that stuff?

A few planted pieces were found on the street and rooftops but there is about another 100 tons to account for. Know what I mean?

You are saying it crashed through the building core. Something has got to be left.

Thanks for the post, it gives us food for thought.

I never heard the warning horn on a 767 and the ones I have experienced were more of a annoying buzz and not the Klaxon sound you suggest. Also my aircraft are very noisy to begin with and so we wear full headsets and ear plugs and not just the one ear and mouth piece headset.

The problem is there is a clamp down on full media disclosure of the WTC crashes. Bodies...airplane seats some still with strapped-in passenger remains that fell to the ground around the towers; we won't see this in media for general public. The public has got only a very sanitized picture of what happened. Is this good or bad? Some of us are adults, and or vets, who have seen just as bad. Regardless, the "whole" truth would probably make this debate about CGI/holos moot.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by farmfellow]

[edit on 25-9-2007 by farmfellow]

reply to post by Xtrozero

---

This is exactly the point I am trying to make. From what johnlear has said in his response I think he is seeing in terms of a car going on a flat road is the same as it rolling down a hill. For some reason johnlear and some others of you seem to think that the Vmax stated on the Boeing site is actually the maximum speed.

It's NOT, that is the maximum speed for SAFETY. In normal operation, if a pilot wishes to keep his job, he should follow the max speed is that stated on the site. However we all know this was not normal operation and that safety was not a concern.

The terrorists did not care for safety they were only concerned in getting the plane where it needed to be. They only trained in a flight simulator for a 747, there are big differences between a sim and the real thing. I assume they did not take this into account as much as they should have (Although I am sure they did, they weren't stupid).

But the reason for training in the sim was to get the plane where it needed to be from point A takeoff to point B in New York. Now they did not train for point C in the tower, if you put yourself in that cockpit awaiting death and having such a narrow target to hit it was hard. I don't know how many of you have played the Microsoft Flight Sim but if you have try and hit a building. Once you try that you can see how hard it is to hit the target.

This all means that they did not care about the safety and just wanted to hit those towers. They came from a high enough altitude and achieved 500mph. It is not unreasonable to believe, as opposed to a hologram theory that has little backing. Also think about this johnlear, why would it be a hologram, where did all those people go?

Remember that this was done sloppily, if you argue with me about that point why are there so many unanswered questions and nervousness about the topic in the white house?


[edit on 25-9-2007 by rhombus24]

Well not totally John...

Here is a Airworthiness Directive from 2004 that suggests there are 7567-200s out there that do not have the C/B yet


Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, 747-
400F, 757-200, 757-200PF, 757-200CB, 767-200, 767-300, and 767-300F
Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Boeing transport category airplane models, as
listed above. This amendment requires a modification of the air data
computer (ADC) system, which involves installing certain new circuit
breakers, relays, and related components, and making various wiring
changes in and between the flight deck and main equipment center. For
certain airplanes, this amendment also requires accomplishment of
various other actions prior to or concurrently with the modification of
the ADC system. For certain airplanes, this amendment also contains an
option that will extend the compliance time to accomplish the
modification of the ADC system. This action is necessary to ensure that
the flightcrew is able to silence an erroneous overspeed or stall aural
warning. A persistent erroneous warning could confuse and distract the
flightcrew and lead to an increase in the flightcrew's workload. Such a
situation could lead the flightcrew to act on hazardously misleading
information, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.
This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective June 22, 2004.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of June 22, 2004.



[edit on 25-9-2007 by Xtrozero]

I'm pretty sure the VMO of a 767 is 360kts at sea level. In straight-level flight, no turbulence, there is a standard safety factor of 50% (if I recall), so the plane should hold together at up to 540kts, at least in the short term.

Running the 767 airframe through the x-plane simulator (laminar flow model) and using stock thrust values for the engines, balls to the wall (and assuming it doesn't fall apart) it tops out at about 530kts near sea level (~1000 ft). I know that's not totally scientific, but the laminar flow model is quite good. There is a fair amount of excess lift at that speed at sea level, so the plane flies pitch-down about 3 degrees to maintain level flight. For what it's worth, anyways, it seems that the plane could, in theory, do something of the sort we saw on 9/11. That's not to say that it did, but it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility.

Interesting to note that the simulator gave back a top speed just under the design limit plus safety factor - a sensible design move, to match airframe and engine such that it will take you just under the structural speed limit but not beyond.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by justin-d]

[edit on 25-9-2007 by justin-d]

Originally posted by Xtrozero









Thanks for trhe information Xtrazero.

There were 2 accidents which precipitated this action. One was out of Puerto Rico and the other out of, I think, Chile. In both accidents the airplane had just been serviced and the static ports had been masking taped over to prevent water and other contaminents from entering.

Both at the completion of the servicing and during the preflight the tape was not noticed and therefore not removed.

As the static ports and the pitot tube are the primary sources of information for airspeed and altitude, erroneous information was presented to the pilots in flight.

I believe the scenerio was this: This erroneous information included erroneous airspeed and altitude information along with an erroneous airspeed overspeed aural warning. The aural warning contributed to the confusion about what was wrong and how to deal with the problem. If I remember correctly the airspeed was showing overspeed and along with the overspeed aural warning the pilots thought they were going too fast so kept pulling back. The altimeter was showing a descent which made them pull back even harder. When in fact the airplane was stalled and descending out of control. In both instances it was night time or IMC, or both, over water, and the pilots had no outside visual reference and the airplanes crashed with the loss of all on board.

So this FAA directive was to install a circuit breaker to be able to silence the aural warning in case of an emergency.

Last time I checked, a hologram is two light sources. The light bisects, creating a hologram out of light (bisecting 2 dimmer lights = brighter light hence the 3d effect) . I'll look it up on my spare time.

Originally posted by Gorman91






Thanks for the post Gorman91 and uh, don't bother. You looking up the definition of a hologram that is 50 years ahead in technology would be like Noah looking up plans for the USS Ronald Reagan.

But thanks for the post.

Actually, a hologram is very simple.

In fact, you can buy one:

www.io2technology.com...

Ok, maybe not "buy" one

The tech has been around for a century. I remember going to a museum in New Hampshire seeing it. I loved the place, it closed down this year however

www.heritagenh.com...

It was one of the first places they showed the seaway.

But they showed how pranksters of the 1800's made them to scare folks at shows.

Here, Virgin seems to be coming along with the tech
www.youtube.com...


I will forever miss that beautiful museum.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by Gorman91]

reply to post by GreenFloyd

---

You're welcome GF. I'm not sure how experienced the other hijackers were, I haven't been able to find any real good sources yet. I do know that most people claim that Hani was the most experienced of the four.

I just checked my last post and the link isn't working properly, so here it is again in case you need it. www.vaed.uscourts.gov



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

Yes, but that's not "technically" a hologram. Holography can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people, but in general when a physicist speaks of a "hologram" it generally refers to an N+1 dimensional "set" which is encoded in N dimensions. In the case of the classic reflection holograms, a mathematical pattern is encoded onto the 2D surface which alters the appearance of the image on the surface depending on your position in 3D space - the surface contains an extra "dimension" of information (or, at least extends into the extra dimension, but in a "curled up" fashion...a holographic surface is, after all, "three dimensional" - it just contains "more" of the third dimension than its "size" would seem to betray).

What John is on about, I suspect, is wild, new-physics stuff - nothing of the sort of light-interference tricks we use to achieve the effect, but stuff based on physics that "human society" has not yet figured out. There are theories, for example, which posit that our entire universe may be a holographic projection extending from a lower-dimensional "surface" universe. Were such to be the case, it could be possible to manipulate such physics by accessing and altering the lower-dimensional universe, which needn't be in the same "location" as we see the object in "real" 3D space, in order to manifest an illusion of something which, by all measures, would appear "real" in our universe, but would simply be a temporary fabrication, dependent on the continual operation of whichever device was manipulating this lower-dimensional space.

Now, whether such things could possibly exist, I have no idea. I've heard enough weird crap to not discount the idea, and I'm sure John's experiences have given him even more reasons to keep an open mind about the prospect! The multiple-worlds theory just got a boost in Oxford this week and the physics we do understand just gets weirder and weirder. When delayed-choice quantum eraser experiments are showing in the lab that the fundamental particles of our universe seem to have the ability to look into the future - and normal, everyday scientists take this as accepted theory - then great goodness knows what on earth is possible.

My only point of contention is that, if this is indeed within the thieving hands of our UFO exploiting overlords, then we probably shouldn't be onto them as much as we are... but then again maybe we aren't and maybe there's more of this going on than we realise. Who knows?

[edit on 25-9-2007 by justin-d]

reply to post by johnlear

---

It's not surprising that there's nothing left of the plane, If you think of the force involved at the speed of impact. You're thinking backwards. of course a hollow tube (airplane) made of aluminum (actually, I beleive there are more composites than aluminum), etc. would not cut through the steel girders, the girders would shred the plane, and the plane, people, cargo, everything would be shredded into basically nothing, and then burned in the tons of fuel that was turned into a vapor and ignited just like a fuel injector does inside an engine. If the plane sliced through the girders, the top of the building would've fell over immediately, or collapsed a few floors crookedly onto itself. Also, how many intact chairs, desks, file cabinets, computers, doors, or other steel or "tough" items were found? I beleive most were reduced to dust, etc. just like the majority of human remains. Shoot an aluminum bullet at hardened steel blade in a scale model and see what happens. even solid aluminum will shred on impact. The person who said the plane would bounce off is obviously off their rocker.

^ agreed. Fire a ball of cheese at 500mph and it can pierce things much harder than itself. Despite being made of ally, the plane has an enormous amount of momentum. I think the Berkeley animation is reasonably accurate for the 3/4 of a second it models - the "thin" perimiter mesh is sliced by the plane as it shreds it to bits (they essentially destroy each other) and the heavier columns take much less of a beating. There's test footage of an F-4 flown into a solid concrete block and it does much the same thing. Much less damage to the concrete, mind you, but the plane just doesn't have the structural integrity to absorb the amount of kinetic energy in damage as it is carrying at velocity - the whole thing becomes a massively inadequate crumple-zone and bleeds nowhere enough energy to slow the tail section significantly.

From what I've been able to gather, Joseph Keith was a software engineer working in the aerospace industry. Some of you might want to look up what a software engineer is. You would not need a single course from a Faculty of Engineering to be a software engineer.

He was apparently involved in the development of shaker systems for vibrational testing. This is not a "stick shaker" system for warning of impending stalls but a test bed for stress testing. As a software engineer, he would have been involved with that aspect of it and probably would have been the lead for the software and possibly the test instrumentation. This certainly wouldn't make him an expert on 767 flight characteristics and capabilities.

As for the two Boeing officials, one appears to be a PR person and is not a what I would consider a good source of info on max speeds at various altitudes. The other may be an engineer but of what type? My father is a mechanical engineer and, if I wanted to get an answer to a question about pneumatic conveying systems, he would be the first person I'd ask. But I wouldn't bother asking him if I wanted to know about electrical engineering or structural engineering beyond the basics as those are outside his area of expertise. Based on her response to the questions, I'd say that the answers were not within her field of expertise.

Give this one a try;



www.metacafe.com...

Remember, that MS took the towers out of the simulator after 9/11, but you CAN put them back in if you want to, or just fly 2000 version.

Flying large jet aircraft is ENTIRELY different from tiny single engine props. No ammont of flight simms will prepare a pilot for slow response time and tendency to overcorrect.

To think that some guys with ZERO flight hours in a jet plane can fly and actually hit those towers, is the same as assuming that a 16 year old can play a video game and then outrun a police chase while driving an 18 wheeler at 80 miles per hour.

Other then that, NEVER in the ENTIRE HISTORY of flight, did an ENTIRE jet simply DISSAPERE after a crash over solid ground.

In fact, the simple rules of PHYCIS state that NOTHING can just disappear with out a trace.

Another fact; even after massive bomb explosions, investigators regularly recover bomb parts, and are able to ID all kinds of elements, including wire and battery type / make.

We’re talking TINY pieces recovered from MASSIVE blasts created by explosives such as C4.



Good question. Somehow 18 tons of jet engines (think the most advanced metallurgy technology achieved by the human race) just EVAPORATED into thin air.

Does anybody care to calculate the amount of ENERGY needed to flash vaporize 18 tons of titanium?

We’re talking about high temperature thermodynamics of what, 22 century?

The melting point of titanium is 3135 F, and I’m simply not aware of any existing technology which can flash vaporize that much titanium with out going thermonuclear.

So what happened to HUGE shafts and compressor discs from all those jet engines?

What happened to 18 tons of SOLID TITANIUM?

Where is all ofit?

Until I see a single serial number from ANY of those jet engines, nobody will convince me that any airliners crashed ANYWHERE on 9/11.

Wait did I say 18 tons of jet engines? I forgot about other flight that crashed, no engines recovered there as well, huh?

So was a SINGLE jet engine ever recovered from all of the crashes on 9/11?


edit:spl

[edit on 26-9-2007 by iskander]