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: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by Gorman91
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]


And I've done a 7-minute lap on the Nürburgring in a '87 RUF... in simulation. I know I would kill myself if I tried that in real life - at least without heaps of real world practice. You're talking about flying a jumbo jet like a fighter. Time in a proper sim (with hydraulics, etc), maybe... but I tend to side with John that it's at least highly suspect that they could have pulled it off. This is not to support hologram theories or anything of the sort, but the least we can say is that it is strong grounds for suspicion.

The 9/11 commission report noted that they broadcast their "everyone be calm, this is a hijacking, etc" message to Boston Center instead of over the internal speaker - buffoons who can't even work the com? I mean... that leaves me with doubts.




posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
reply to post by hikix
 


I was not there, nor did I have to be to understand. I'm sorry about your girlfriend's tragedy, but aluminum airplanes don't glide into steel/concrete buildings. It violates basic, Newton's Laws of Motion. Since every video shows this, it means they're all fake.
[edit on 23-9-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]


I'm pretty sure if a tornado can embed a piece of straw through a wooden telephone poll, then a jet liner can fly into a steel building and cause it's destruction. If you think it doesn't obey the laws of physics then please give me a physics proof that proves within the laws of physics that an aluminum chassis Boeing aircraft can't crash into a steel and concrete building, otherwise you're either talking smack or being lied to.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by yellowcard]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to pos by justin-d
 


Flying is not so difficult. it really is simply. Com? you press a button and tada, you're on the speakers.

People, for some reason, seem to think flying a jumbo jet is this massive endever that takes years to learn and such. I've seen a cockpit, I've seen these contorts. It's not hard. Pull up, and turn sideways. C'mon. Half the crap is labeled anyway.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   


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.

roflmao.

We're not talking about VW Bugs, we 're talking about profound diferances between a Cessna 172 and a Boeing 767. Tell me the diferances.


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.

We're not talking about virtual Ferrari, or virtual guns, we're talking about Aircraft. This is a level-D simulator:


That's exactly the same as flying the real thing minus the graphics and g-forces. And if simulators cannot possibly train pilots, then you may as well go on to explain why the USAF lets pilots fly there 350 million dollar F-22A with no prior flight time in the aircraft; only simulator time.





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!

I saw them aaggesss ago.





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”?

I don't understand.

In the video of the planes hitting you can see two smoke trails arching to the ground in the same direction the plane hit. The only part of an aircraft that could do that is the engines. The fact that you can see this and there just happens to be engines laying on a street near the towers, tells me that they must be engines from the plane that hit.


Verifying the engine type would help though.




[edit on 26/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard
I'm pretty sure if a tornado can embed a piece of straw through a wooden telephone poll, then a jet liner can fly into a steel building and cause it's destruction. If you think it doesn't obey the laws of physics then please give me a physics proof that proves within the laws of physics that an aluminum chassis Boeing aircraft can't crash into a steel and concrete building, otherwise you're either talking smack or being lied to.
[edit on 26-9-2007 by yellowcard]



The videos do not show a plane "crashing into a steel and concrete building". It shows a plane image gliding into it just like in a video game.

You want solid proof it's a cartoon?

Here's the proof:

Newton's 3rd Law of Motion: To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

An aluminum tube is not going to glide through steel and concrete.

Any questions?

[edit on 26-9-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
 


Of course , you do realize a great deal of those buttons are fail safes for auto controls?

Most of the crap lights up when it needs to be pressed any how. Planes are easy to fly, even the big boys.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn



The videos do not show a plane "crashing into a steel and concrete building". It shows a plane image gliding into it just like in a video game.

You want solid proof it's a cartoon?

Here's the proof:

Newton's 3rd Law of Motion: To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

An aluminum tube is not going to glide through steel and concrete.

Any questions?


[edit on 26-9-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]


Yea, what did I see miles away slowly approach for the second explosion. It had wings, engines, and flight, no a cartoon to me.

Although i agree most vids are fake from the gov to make you want war, what I saw is what I saw: a plane.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by b309302
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]



I wonder how these engines wound up underneath scaffolding???

(scroll down a little)

nomoregames.net...



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   


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.

Actually, in tests before they fly a plane for the first time, they stress the wing to 150% design load. Design load is typically 2.5g's and they need to take 1.5 times that. That's 3.75g's.

That would mean that you would have to pull back on the stick still you're almost 4 times your usual weight, or load the 767 down till it weighed 671887.5kg till the wing snaps.

uk.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Yea, what did I see miles away slowly approach for the second explosion. It had wings, engines, and flight, no a cartoon to me.

Although i agree most vids are fake from the gov to make you want war, what I saw is what I saw: a plane.



It's possible a real plane was used but veered off near the tower using optical camouflage. See here for some information I put together...
www.911researchers.com...



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:57 PM
link   




Anyone who actually believes in science and isn't just a narrow minded individual with an agenda, would use the scientific method, which you of course failed to do. Now I am giving you another shot, if you can prove within the laws of physics with a proof (aka an equation) then I will give you kudos, until then you are just spewing "facts" that you are either ill informed about or have no clue about.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
The videos do not show a plane "crashing into a steel and concrete building". It shows a plane image gliding into it just like in a video game.

You want solid proof it's a cartoon?

Here's the proof:

Newton's 3rd Law of Motion: To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

An aluminum tube is not going to glide through steel and concrete.

Any questions?


I'm a physicist and engineer. I have two degrees in the subjects and I can tell you that you don't have the first clue about what you are talking about. There are plenty of textbooks on the subject so I don't see a need to re-write one here, but I suggest you may want to have a look through a few of them. I don't believe for a second that 19 arabs, acting alone, hijacked those planes and magically evaded the most sophisticated air-defence system in the world, but what you're talking about is just silly.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Newton's 3rd Law of Motion: To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

An aluminum tube is not going to glide through steel and concrete.


Show the math.

You figure the shear strength of the perimeter columns and the bolts connecting them, and you show me that the ~25 and ~36 of them in a grid, across about 4 or 5 floors that were knocked out, could support the dynamic load of an entire 767 coming in, not just aluminum but a titanium frame and heavy engines made of various materials, and landing gear, you have some mass to these things. It's not going to bounce off like a ball. And steel is relatively strong but those bolts between the columns are small and pretty easy to stretch to their breaking point with a horizontal deflection in the columns from being pushed inwards. Pretty much the bolts between columns would have to support the load of the plane impacting, and that isn't going to happen. But you do the math, and show me where exactly I'm going wrong here.

I guess I'm being rhetorical because I know I'm not going to see any math from CB, but it never hurts to ask either, I guess, in the off chance that s/he would actually care about the validity of his/her statements.

And Newton's third law is not violated in any way. I don't understand how just stating his 3rd law is supposed to be any kind of argument. A plane slamming a steel building, and penetrating the outer columns, has an equal and opposite reaction between the plane and steel. Energy transferred to the steel from the plane tears the perimeter columns apart from the bolts, and energy transferred to the plane by the building destroys the plane and helps bring it to rest. Both destroying the plane and bringing it to rest require energy. There is no violation of physics when a plane flies into a building.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
That's exactly the same as flying the real thing minus the graphics and g-forces. And if simulators cannot possibly train pilots, then you may as well go on to explain why the USAF lets pilots fly there 350 million dollar F-22A with no prior flight time in the aircraft; only simulator time.


First, the F-22A pilots were already experienced fighter pilots who had a wealth of experience flying real, high-performance aircraft. The simulator familiarised them, no doubt, with the specifics of flying the F-22A and probably gave them a heads-up as regards any nuances of its flight characteristics, but they were by all measures extremely competent pilots to begin with.

Flying a D-class to learn operations, take-off and landing, routine flight, etc, is fine, but these guys couldn't have had access to a D-class without supervision, which means they couldn't have been doing any sort of hot-dog flying in the thing - just easy-does-it, everyday flying that you would expect from a pilot who would be ferrying around civilians. This means that their first time in the real thing they're out pushing it to the edge of its performance envelope, flying a 767 in ways that even experienced pilots will never have flown it.

The g-forces are nothing to scoff at when you're pulling hard banks at 500 knots in sea-level soup. The avionics totally change at those speeds since the computers start throttling deflection limits to avoid damage - the dynamics and response of the plane change, the wind noise would be extreme and intimidating, vibration and turbulence would be magnified like crazy - this isn't a cakewalk we're talking about. Not to say it would be completely impossible, but for three completely amateur pilots to hit three extremely difficult targets at maximum velocity with flawless precision defies belief.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by justin-d]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by justin-d
...crazy - this isn't a cakewalk we're talking about. Not to say it would be completely impossible, but for three completely amateur pilots to hit three extremely difficult targets at maximum velocity with flawless precision defies belief.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by justin-d]


Dear justin-d,

That's exactly what I was getting at. Although you put it much more eloquently. THANKS :-)



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Thousands of pilots with little to no training did exactly that in World War 2.
The Japanese used pilots who were little more then school children by the end of the war; not to fly into a huge stationary building using a very stable aircraft, but rather to fly into small, difficult to find (in the vast ocean), moving, armored, targets which shot back at them. They did this flying prop driven, lower wing fighters, which were prone to stalling, engine torque, prop overspeeding, and highly unstable. The Japanese were trained using a fake wooden aircraft with a stick , as opposed to having hundreds of hours in small aircraft and flight simulators.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Yes, and in WWII that was likely effective, purely on statistical grounds. Throw enough macaroni at the wall and some is bound to stick, so to speak. A snippet about the Kamikaze, for example :

A total of about 5000 Kamikaze pilots were launched, mostly in the Battle of Okinawa, consuming much of the remaining human and material resources of Japanese air power. The result of their effort was 36 sunk American ships and landing craft, and 368 damaged. The ferocity of watching wave after wave of Kamikaze pilots hurtling down through a dense hail of anti-aircraft fire, and the enormous fiery explosions which followed, terrorized the Americans, but the Kamikaze campaign failed to achieve its strategic goal of stopping the American advance, and American air attacks were launched against the Kamikaze air bases in southern Japan in order to reduce their numbers. Japan lost its last battle despite the enormous sacrifice of its fanatic warriors, and lost the war.

I maintain my position that what these so-called "arab terrorists" achieved was highly unlikely.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:07 AM
link   
If the Japs with no prior flight time and poor training managed to fly into moving ships when flying Zeros being shot at, how can one possibly miss a target way bigger than a ship, when you HAVE atleast some training, and you're in a stable, easy to fly, Boeing 767?

There is no fundemental diferance between the flying dynamics over a Cessna 172, besides the fact that the Cessna 172 had torque and P-facter, that a 767 doesn't have. Sure, the 767 may be faster, but why does it matter? They handle the same, and with such a large target it's not like you're going to see it at the last minute.

Give me a break, not only is it possible to fly a plane into a building with little training, it's easy. The Japs did it, F-22A pilots can do it with only simlator time. What is stopping the hijackers who HAD time in simulators and experiance in other aircraft from doing it? I tell you what, go to a Level-D simulator for ANY large aircraft, and see if you can fly directly above the runway at 200 knots, say, 50 feet high. Try again, at say 350knots at 50 feet high.

Did you notice any fundemental diferance in how the aircraft flew? If you were already pilot who had time in that same simulator, don't you think that they have a chance of hitting something significantly wider and taller than a runway?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Out of that 5000 launches not all missions involved the pilots not coming back. Pilots were allowed to return up to 9 times before being executed. Believe it or not the ocean was not crawling with ships so thick that they found a target every time they flew a mission. They also had to reach the target through a hail of flak firing up at them which would cause the aircraft to lose control and miss the target.

All in all, I’d say that you’re proving my point. These guys did nothing that a bunch of trained Japanese school children weren’t able to do, and actually with more training and better circumstances.

Either way, what does this have to do with the original topic of this thread?
Is the idea that when someone shoots down a truther topic, we switch to another topic to prove our point? Kind of like throwing up a wall of flak against those not buying into these outlandish theories.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:58 AM
link   
I've never maintained that the planes couldn't fly that fast. In fact, I provided pretty good evidence, I think, that they probably could. This isn't about "truther topics" so much as it is about discussing what is and is not reasonably possible. I'm a scientist, so I examine evidence and see what conclusions I can draw from it, not the other way around. I maintain that the planes most likely could have flown the way we saw them fly, but that at those speeds you would be pushing the edge of flying the plane apart. Flying a simulator at 350kts is NOT the same as flying the real thing at 500kts - the last bit of speed makes a whole lot of difference. Imagine driving a car at 250mph vs driving at 150mph - there are significant, non-trivial deviations from nominal performance and handling which no simulator could adequately train a person to deal with - especially when we're talking about a one-shot deal. The first try was the only try for these guys and they nailed it three for three. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, but my scepticism makes me think twice before simply saying "yeah, it would be a piece of cake".

The kamikazes had less than 8% success rates. Let's give these guys the benefit of the doubt and say they would each have had a 50% probability of hitting their target. Over three planes, statistically, it means the aggregate probability of 100% success is 12.5% I'm not a betting man, but if I was...

[edit on 27-9-2007 by justin-d]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join