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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 03:25 AM
link   



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.

Please explain to me, in five reasons, how flying (NOT operating), a large jet is so much diferant than flying a Cessna 172? And for the record, they actually DID have time in a Level-D simulator which is highly realistic.


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

And this is what then?
wtcdebris.0catch.com...

911research.wtc7.net...

To verify that they are actually from the plane, watch the videos of the two aircraft hitting the towers. After they've hit, there's two DISTINCT smoke trails arching to the ground in the same path the aircraft hit. They're what we call 'engines'.
That may be little evidence, but then again, take a look at WTC. As IgnoranceIsntBlisss said, are we to beleive the WTC wasn't an office tower because there were little recognisable debris?

EDIT: And please do not say they're to small for a 757. The N1 'Fan', would of been smashed off in the explosion as would many parts of the engines.




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

Yes.

Let's not forget.

The Hologram Challenge:
What made the 'cartoon cutouts' in the steel side of the buildings? You can add to that the 'thermite'-corner: damage in the South Tower, as well as the 'zipper cut' along the wall leading to it.

Nice one IgnoranceIsntBlisss.


[edit on 26/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]




posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Ok I've come to the end but can anyone tell me what the dark object is seen darting across the sky just after the second tower gets hit I've seen it in one video but cant remember which must have been moving hard to capture on freeze frame but definately there



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   
It was a bird, close and out of focus.

Either that, or a passport.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
So IF no planes actually hit the WTC, where did the planes and all the passengers go? Or were the people who died that day just holograms too? It's theories and topics like this really make me wonder how involved the government/black ops are in counter-propaganda on sites like this. It's to the point that we can never really know what is fake and what is real anymore.

:shakes head:



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
 


Great post!! Where are the engine parts? Where's the planes? Blah blah. There's the engines, other peices of the aircraft. Proof right there. Now who has proof of a super hologram or massive conspiracy? The only way this is a conspiracy is if the terrorists worked for our government. Other than that, everything happened just as we saw it. Hey, Mr. Lear? you got any proof otherwise? or just theories?



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I can't believe I just read all the way through this thread - I suppose it's for the same weird reason we try to look at accidents on motorways...

I do wonder why you are trying to engage with these "no planer" people? You might as well try arguing with some who thinks the towers were brought down my the Evil Wizard Zarg slapping them with a large wet mackerel (if you zoom in at 2.36 into the video you can clearly make the head of the mackerel just as it strikes the tower...no that's nothing to do with digital compression...etc)

Amongst the stupidty this post did stand out a bit for me though:


Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
I don’t understand. Is half the ATS readership going crazy?

Quite a small percentage, it seems to me, and half of them have a surname that sounds like smear.



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.

Soooo....the experts at Boeing have installed a "safety" system that, once the plane is outside it's recommended parameters, deafens the pilots and makes the plane un-flyable? Genius. The only feature Boeing need to add to this is a 6000W halogen light that pops out of the dashboard and shines directly into the face of the pilot making sure he or she gets the message.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke




Soooo....the experts at Boeing have installed a "safety" system that, once the plane is outside it's recommended parameters, deafens the pilots and makes the plane un-flyable? Genius.



Thanks for your post FLD. No, actually it doesn't deafen them. Its a 'clacker' that 'clacks' at a rate and pitch that is designed to get your immediate attention and slow the airplane down. If you can't disable the clacker it becomes very difficult to think logically other than to slow the airplane down and get rid of the noise. The warning device has no capability to make the airplane unflyable.


The only feature Boeing need to add to this is a 6000W halogen light that pops out of the dashboard and shines directly into the face of the pilot making sure he or she gets the message.


I am sure that you made this comment in sarcastic jest but in fact there are many warning lights that, while not shining directly in the pilots face do insure that he or she 'gets the message'. However to my knowledge there is nothing as bright as a 6000W halogen light and we prefer to call the 'dashboard' the 'instrument panel'.

Thanks for your post, it is greatly appreciated.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Sorry, I just HAD to reply to this one.


Soooo....the experts at Boeing have installed a "safety" system that, once the plane is outside it's recommended parameters, deafens the pilots and makes the plane un-flyable? Genius. The only feature Boeing need to add to this is a 6000W halogen light that pops out of the dashboard and shines directly into the face of the pilot making sure he or she gets the message.

LOL!


Great post!!

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

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.

(etc, etc, diatribe)


While I appreciate your tangent, please understand that I was not making any argument about the pilots on the day or the ease with which the airplane could be flown or anything else for that matter. My only argument was that, using a standard physics model, I would posit that any 767 could likely sustain the speeds we saw on 9/11, at least for a short time, without compromising the structural integrity.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   
There really should be a smiley that depicts the guy with a tin foil hat. Actually make that 2 additional smileys - one with the hat and one with his hat on just a little too tight.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
You would think step one in a theory about how a 767 did not hit the WTC, would be to figure out how to explain the wreckage of the 767 that actually hit the WTC. Apparently Mr. Lear can't do that. Kind of renders the entire theory null and void until you explain that. Did they actually crash a 767, to cover up the fact they couldn't crash a 767?

[edit on 26-9-2007 by b309302]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


Ok have you forgot that 9/11 was an inside job and that there were explosives in the building, completely capable of destroying the engines and everything else.

And btw your right that nothing can disappear without a trace..

4Al + 3O2 = 2 Al2O3

Notice how this is a balanced equation, the number of atoms are equal on either side. This is what happens when aluminum rusts.

Law of Conservation of Matter
Matter can not be created or destroyed, energy can only be transferred.

Now this is all nice scientific fact but then where did the engines go? Well the explosives will have vaporized what was left of the engines. Remember that even though something is vaporized that does not mean they suddenly disappeared. They are still there on the wreckage. Check for residue of titanium on wreckage that is found to be around the same floor of the plane crash.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Matter can not be created or destroyed? Okay go stand in front of an atomic bomb, it won't hurt you then. 4 hydrogen atoms fuse to form helium. Helium weighs less then 4 hydrogen atoms. Sounds like you loss some matter to me. Transformed into energy. Matter and energy are the same thing hence E=mc2, and can be converted back and forth. An explosion is not going to vaporize anything, just blow it apart, possibly into tiny tiny pieces, but not vaporize it. That means taking it apart at the atomic level. That would take so much energy NY would be a crater.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by b309302]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
 




Please explain to me, in five reasons, how flying (NOT operating), a large jet is so much diferant than flying a Cessna 172?


You are obviously not a driver. If you were, you would be aware of the driver license class, and maximum allowed vehicle weight for each class.

If you do not understand the difference between driving a VW bug and a full size city bus, I doubt you’ll understand the difference between a 172 and a 767.


And for the record, they actually DID have time in a Level-D simulator which is highly realistic.


And for my record, I specifically stated the following; “ZERO flight hours in a jet plane”, not ZERO simulation time.

No amount of driving a virtual Ferrari in a simulation will prepare for handling a real one. Similary, no amount of virtual shots fired out of a virtual gun will teach some one to really shot.

Welcome to REALITY.


And this is what then?
wtcdebris.0catch.com...


This one is interesting!

wtcdebris.0catch.com...

What are the serial numbers on that engine? Was it examined, when, by whom? What is the extent of the damage? Were these pictures included in the file put together by the “Jersey Girls”?

It’s a good start, but if these pictures existed since 2001, I sure haven’t heard about them until now, and I looked at all kinds of 9/11 stuff!


EDIT: And please do not say they're to small for a 757. The N1 'Fan', would of been smashed off in the explosion as would many parts of the engines.


Serial numbers? Photos of them, and a comparison of the blades to X-rays pulled from maintenance records?


Let's not forget.

The Hologram Challenge:


I’m not into hologram theories, I just ask the obvious questions.

While for the public a picture tells a thousand words, when it comes to complicated stuff like aircraft, maintenance records tell it how it is.


Nice one IgnoranceIsntBlisss.


Are you published?



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by me262
 




You're Welcome.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   

My only argument was that, using a standard physics model, I would posit that any 767 could likely sustain the speeds we saw on 9/11, at least for a short time, without compromising the structural integrity.


At what wing load?


You would think step one in a theory about how a 767 did not hit the WTC, would be to figure out how to explain the wreckage of the 767 that actually hit the WTC.


I for one not making ANY theories, I just ask basic questions. In this case, what was the total weight of the wreckage, when and where was it found (GPS mapped location is a standard practice), what are the serial numbers found on the parts, where the maintenance are records?

Basically regular FAA/NSTB stuff that goes on after ANY airline disaster, aka - PROCEEDURE.

If that engine on the picture is identified, where are the other three?


Ok have you forgot that 9/11 was an inside job and that there were explosives in the building, completely capable of destroying the engines and everything else.


Nope, because I’ve never stated anything to that account. I did ask basic questions.



Law of Conservation of Matter
Matter can not be created or destroyed, energy can only be transferred.


That was the point.


Now this is all nice scientific fact but then where did the engines go? Well the explosives will have vaporized what was left of the engines.


What explosives? Were there recorder explosive traces at the site? What was their type, saturation, and dispersal pattern?

I did not know that, so there were explosives at the site?


Remember that even though something is vaporized that does not mean they suddenly disappeared. They are still there on the wreckage.


The fact is that not a SINGLE jet engine was EVER vaporized in ANY crash.

If you are aware of such an occurrence, please let me know.


Check for residue of titanium on wreckage that is found to be around the same floor of the plane crash.


That would’ve been a good idea, but we’ll just never know, would we? Other then that, I find it hard to believe that while ONE engine supposedly survived the alleged “vaporization”, while the other did not, but hey, a RUBBER tire managed not to burn, while it’s located right by the engines… puzzling…

What kind of futuristic rubber aircraft tires are made out of? Maybe they should send some to the guys in NASA so they can use it instead of ceramic tiles.

Here’s a question, given an approximate TOTAL weight and VOLUME of the wreckage shown in the pictures, would it be physically possible to PLACE them, or is it simply impossible?

Wreckage spread also has distinct dispersal patterns, so how do those pieces fit? A physics model I can take a look at somewhere?



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
 



EDIT: And please do not say they're to small for a 757. The N1 'Fan', would of been smashed off in the explosion as would many parts of the engines.


Thanks for the heads upon that one. I though about it, and decided to look into it a bit any way.

I’m particularly interested in the picture of the engine with a “murray” street sign and the black wire trash can in the background.

killtown.911review.org...

So what are the approximate dimensions?

When we can get that one down, then we can compare it to this;

www.911review.org...

Anybody?



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by b309302
 


Excuse me but you know NOTHING about atomic science. Just saying what you just said makes you look like a complete outsider, analogous to thinking that the world is still flat. Vaporize means taking things apart at an atomic level, that is exactly what a nuclear bomb does. Why do you think one of the nick names is the atomic bomb or atom bomb. C'mon man it's common sense, read the story Hiroshima, it's a novel. In about the middle of the book it says how CARS were vaporized and nothing was left in its place except for a shadow. Getting close to the epicenter, everything was GONE. Do you understand what that means? That it was all gone because it was destroyed at an atomic layer and lifted into the atmosphere.

Remember Uranium is an atom not a molecule, the atom was found in the atmosphere at considerable distances away. Which means that atoms were blown apart.

And do you even understand what E=MC2 means? Not just that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared. It has many other implications, in fact when you stated that thing about E=MC2 you contradicted yourself. That equation explains exactly why all that happens. Why do you think Einstein found that equation when working with the nuclear project otherwise known as the Manhattan Project?



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hamalahamala
help im stuck in your girlfriend


WOW, you gonna get banned kid.


Back on topic, I've flown plenty of jets perfectly fine in Flight sims at whatever speed you're talking about. Hey, it's as close to actually flying one any of us will get.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Back on topic, I've flown plenty of jets perfectly fine in Flight sims at whatever speed you're talking about. Hey, it's as close to actually flying one any of us will get.


I wasn’t talking about speeds. I don’t know enough about wing stress loads at low altitude air pressure and turbulence.

As far a sims go, have you ever seen a wing flex heavily when encountering turbulence? Such flex acts as a shock absorber, and has its very specific limits.

Flying a Piper / Cessna is easy. Taking of and landing is what’s hard. Friend of mine owns a Piper, and when I used to live in Seattle he let me mess around when we went up flying.

About two years ago he certified on twin engines, and plans to go jet as soon as the dollar is low enough to buy one.

He’s German, so buying a jet with Euros against falling dollar is a good deal.

Anyway, flying in a Piper is like gently floating. Very relaxing sensation.

Back in the 90s I flew into Magadan on Mavial air during some bad weather. I knew the pilots so they never had a problem letting me observe their landings.

That TU-154 was drifting all over the place, and pilot had to compensate very carefully. It did feel like I was in a huge bus hurtling through the skies. A WORLD of difference from single engine props. Think of it as driving a bus full out on an icy freeway. Scary stuff.




top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join