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.

 

How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

page: 50
13
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
It depends on WHICH variant of the 707 we're talking about. The Dash 80 cruise speed was 550MPH, which is 20 mph difference from the 767-200ER. The -120B, which was a 181 seater that could barely get across the Atlantic had a cruise speed of 591MPH. The -320B, which was the long range variant of the 707 and had about double the range of the Dash 80 was 607MPH.




posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


A tanker? Gee, if people did not want the world to know technology existed to use the facade of commercial passenger jets as spy planes or missiles, why would they announce to the world that technology? Until it was revealed to the public, by them or someone else. Therefore, just because something is not made public until after the fact, does not mean it was not readily available to use long prior to information release to the public.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Have you even looked at the KC-767? Besides the fact that they didn't even FLY until 2005, and NOT ONE plane watcher ANYWHERE, or one airshow ANYWHERE, including Riat, Dubai, and Farnsborough have seen one, there are some SERIOUSLY obvious differences between a 767 and a KC-767. Like the boom under the tail.


I certainly have because I have a photo of it in a book detailing the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. The book also includes the many representative designs of drones. The KC-767 looke like any other 767 on the outside.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Double posted in error.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by OrionStars]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Since 9/11 happened, I have always been deeply curious as to how a plane can be exploding and still remain intact to be completely inhaled by a building? Do the supporters of the "official" version have any science that can prove such occurrence has happened?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


A tanker? Gee, if people did not want the world to know technology existed to use the facade of commercial passenger jets as spy planes or missiles, why would they announce to the world that technology? Until it was revealed to the public, by them or someone else. Therefore, just because something is not made public until after the fact, does not mean it was not readily available to use long prior to information release to the public.


The reality here is we cannot debate secret technology that may or may not exist. We can only present evidence that we currently have. If we start talking about what the government may or may not have, we'll end up talking about phase cannons, warp drive, photon torpedoes, etc...

So unless you can prove that those tankers were available much earlier then stated, lets simply move on.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Except for the fact that ALMOST EVERY SINGLE USAF TANKER EVER BUILT was designed on a CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT, and NOT ONE of them was EVER Top Secret.

The KC-97 was based on the Boeing 377 passenger plane.
The KC-135 was based on the Boeing 707-80 prototype.
The KC-10 was based on the McDonnell Douglas DC-10.

Those are the ONLY three tankers produced to date as dedicated tanker aircraft. NOT ONE OF THEM was classified before going into production. In fact it was widely broadcast that they were being developed before they ever flew.

Again, the 767 first flew in 1981. Unless Boeing was building and flying the KC-767 at the same time, and no one saw them testing or building them there is no way that they could have been around for 20 years. And there is no way that the military would keep them totally secret for that long. Right now the KC-135s are FORTY YEARS OLD, and the first KC-10s are almost 30 years old. The last KC-10 was built in 1986. The last KC-135 in 1965. They are older than most of their flight crews.

We need a MINIMUM of 520 tankers. There are currently about 500 KC-135s, and 39 KC-10s. The KC-135R fleet has flown ELEVEN MILLION FLIGHT HOURS. There are a number of them at McGuire AFB in New Jersey that are towed once a week to keep the tires from going flat. They are towed once a month to engine run spots to run engines, to keep them on a standby status in the records. They are totally incapable of flying. There are 145 KC-135E models that NEED to be retired by 2010, because they're going to be too maintenance intensive to keep flying, and will save $6.1 BILLION.

There is NO WAY that the military would keep a tanker based on a civilian plane (since ALL OF THEIR TANKERS HAVE BEEN) under wraps and hidden for this long. They NEED the new tankers too badly to keep them this secret for this long.

[edit on 12/22/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Except for the fact that it has a refueling boom, and several extra antennas, and director lights, as I said in an earlier post. ANY of those things would be OBVIOUS to anyone who knows planes.

767-200ER:



KC-767A:



Notice under the tail. There is a long metal tube sticking out. That's the refueling boom. Even if you removed it, look ahead of it. That's the camera to control the boom.

Underbody of KC-767A:



See those two black strips? They're director lights to tell a receiver where to move during radio out refueling. Not ONE of these things were noticed on either 767 on 9/11.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars
 



on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’

Good info. Notice where it says, "SLOW-MOVING AIRPLANE" ???


Did you read what I posted from Les Robertson? He stated nothing should have brought the towers down whether it was a bomb or a "slow moving" plane, whatever slow moving means to him. Others involved in the planning have stated 707 at top speed. I would venture to say the impact of a much faster moving, more powreful bomb would be far more destructive, than the impact of any commercial jetliner. Be it a 767 or a 707 travelling at "top speed" doing the impacting.

I did mention the closer to sea level planes get,the slower they are going to move due to increased change in gravitational pull and air pressure. They are fighting more resistance trying to maintain speed. The heavier something is the more resistance to maintain speed. Thus, cutting the effect of velocity impact from resistance already there bogging down the plane.

If anyone does rapidly accelerate a 767 at close to sea level, that is going to add additional resistance for velocity and velocity impact, and the plane will definitely let the pilot and everyone else on the plane know, how stressed for stucture it is becoming.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I am certain there are aviation forums for people interesting in going into vast detail on the 707 vs 767. This not the forum. The information we need, directly pertaining to both planes, has nothing to do with all the specs of either plane. The plane information we do need has been presented more than a few times. I am not becoming distracted with meaningless red herrings.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Oh right. YOU can post that it's been around since the 1980s, but anything proving that there's no way that it could have been is a red herring.
As for the different models and speeds, that shows quite nicely that there were multiple speeds for the same aircraft. But again, just a red herring.
Sure, if you say so.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh right. YOU can post that it's been around since the 1980s, but anything proving that there's no way that it could have been is a red herring.
As for the different models and speeds, that shows quite nicely that there were multiple speeds for the same aircraft. But again, just a red herring.
Sure, if you say so.


Your arguments are headed off into tangents of information not necessary for this discussion. Again, the pertinent specs necessary have repeatedly been posted.

The proof is easily available on the Internet. I cannot post words from a book with copyright, because it is against copyright law without the author's express permission. What the author, of the book, stated was that the remote control technology for commercial jetliners was indeed successfully available during the date I stated.

He specifically placed a photo of a KC-767 in his book and referred to that photo in his statements. If anyone should know, it would be an ex-USAF military officer, whose duties included investigation of military air crashes, plus, he is a physician. That means he is quite well versed in proper forensic investigation methodology.

Below is information on how long the technology has been available for remote control flying of commercial passenger jets. Though the information is specifically on the Boeing 720, that technology can easily be transferred to any model of commercial passenger jet, and was confirmed by the author of the book. The site has photos of a UAV commercial jet impacting. That was part of the test. Sucessfully impacting a target by remote control. Quite interesting and pertinent to 9/11 in those photos:

en.wikipedia.org...

"On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base, California, made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. All fuel tanks were filled with a total of 76,000 pounds of AMK and all engines ran from start-up to impact (the flight time was 9 minutes) on the modified Jet-A. It then began a descent-to-landing to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake. Final approach was along the roughly 3.8-degree glideslope. The landing gear was left retracted."

If anything is stated to this effect, "But it isn't a 767.", I will not respond to that because I already explained above why the website is highly pertinent to 9/11 although not a 767 or 757 discussed on the website.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
And I have books showing drawings of 747 tankers, and C-5 tankers, and both of them launching ALCMs out modified cargo doors. Does that mean they existed? NO, it doesn't. And all of the things I posted go to prove that they were NOT KC-767s on 9/11. Just because they could remote control airplanes in 1984, and he has a picture of a KC-767 in his book doesn't prove anything about it. When was the book written? Is it an artists conception or an actual PICTURE? These are all relevant questions. What's the book? I'd like to see for myself what it says and shows. Because the KC-767 has NOT existed prior to 2005, and all the information I have posted shows that.

If you're going to claim that they used something other than a passenger 767, or that they used it under remote control, you're going to have to supply more proof than "I saw it in a book." There is a lot more information AGAINST the KC-767 existing before 9/11 than there is of them having them already for 20 years.

As for experience, I spent 25 years on an Air Force flightline and never ONCE saw anything based on a 767 as a tanker, or anything but an AWACS until Japan bought the E767 in the late 1990s. There were only four of those built, and all four went to Japan. Those were the ONLY military 767s that I saw go through, and none of them were tankers.

[edit on 12/22/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



Did you read what I posted from Les Robertson? He stated nothing should have brought the towers down whether it was a bomb or a "slow moving" plane, whatever slow moving means to him.


Well we either need to take this statement at face value and agree that NOTHING could have brought the towers down or accept the statement for what it was.

1. His statement says NOTHING could so....
A 10 mile wide asteroid could not have brought the towers down.
A 500 mega ton nuclear bomb could not have brought the towers down.
etc..

So we either take him literally or we need to interpret what his statement means.

Lets go ahead and assume he didn't mean what he said literally as this is just common sense.

So from his frame of reference and experience with aircraft of the day and conventional explosives of the day, maybe he simply didn't understand what could happen in the future to the extent needed for an accurate PREDICTION. Maybe he didn't put any thought into what a bunch of crazed, radical islamic terrorists could do. You can't blame him because nobody did or it wouldn't have happened in the first place.

So the problem here is you are taking his statement out of context.

So which is it?
NOTHING could have taken those towers down? And if that were really the case, they would still be standing regardless of whom was responsible for attempting to destroy them.

or

From his frame of reference, he thought the towers were very well built.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   


If anyone does rapidly accelerate a 767 at close to sea level, that is going to add additional resistance for velocity and velocity impact, and the plane will definitely let the pilot and everyone else on the plane know, how stressed for stucture it is becoming.


Point is if you intend to smash the aircraft into a building you don't give a
!@#$#% if the airframe is being overstressed by flying too fast at low level or
if the increased vibrations or buffeting is disturibing the passengers



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Regardless of what went in, I know this fact backed by the laws of physics. If supports are not symmetrically cut in split second succession, no building is going to drop down into its own footprints. No commercial aircraft or bomb was big einough to symetrically cut all the necessary supporting core supports in split second succession.

I also know another fact backed by the laws of physics. Since the center cores carried both primary gravitational load (center of gravity) and greatly assisted in laternal loads, that means, unless those cores were cut symmetrically in rapid succession, neither of the twin towers would have fallen at free fall speed into their own footprints.

I also know yet another fact backed by the laws of physics. A plane cannot both explode and remain intact. That plane will not be doing much of anything substantial other than sending pieces and parts of a plane and contents in all directions. That massive ball of orange fire and smoke is indicative of a massive explosion on impact from carbon based fossil fuel.

The spooky part is not any plane parts or contents fell or blew outside either twin tower building on the smoke and flame side, which defies the laws of physics. Although, it was indicative a massive explosion of something very large, with a great deal of carbon based fossil fuel, had indeed taken place, because I saw the evidence of that, from the massive orange flames and dense carbon smoke from the burning of carbon based fossil fuel.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman




Point is if you intend to smash the aircraft into a building you don't give a
!@#$#% if the airframe is being overstressed by flying too fast at low level or
if the increased vibrations or buffeting is disturibing the passengers


Point is,when the plane is being unduly stressed it cuts the kinetic energy of velocity force being dragged down by weight and mass.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So I guess there indeed was "thousands of gallons of fuel".


You might want to sharpen up on your reading comprehension along with your research skills.

My statement was that there were no thousands of gallions that made it into the building. Since most of it was burned off in the intial explosion.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   


Did you read what I posted from Les Robertson? He stated nothing should have brought the towers down whether it was a bomb or a "slow moving" plane, whatever slow moving means to him.


Well if we are going to start quoting Les Robertson, lets look at what he has had to say since 9/11...




Robertson remains deeply affected by the towers’ collapse. “The World Trade Center was a team effort, but the collapse of the World Trade Center is my responsibility, and that’s the way I feel about it,” he told a New Yorker reporter in a Nov. 19 article, “The Tower Builder.”



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
The spooky part is not any plane parts or contents fell or blew outside either twin tower building on the smoke and flame side, which defies the laws of physics. Although, it was indicative a massive explosion of something very large, with a great deal of carbon based fossil fuel, had indeed taken place, because I saw the evidence of that, from the massive orange flames and dense carbon smoke from the burning of carbon based fossil fuel.


Basic laws of physics weren't violated there either if we consider the source of the explosion which strongly indicates jet fuel (no surprise) and no sign of high explosives. A large part of the fuel from the ruptured tanks was atomised so what we see is a crude fuel-air explosion ignited by the flames from the smashed engines although, I'm sure, there were plenty of other sources of sparks in all that chaos.

As to why the explosion seemed biassed in the direction of plane travel, how fast was the fuel moving? IE it was far from stationary and if it was travelling at say 400mph forward and the explosion propagated omnidirectionally at 400mph then the rear end of the explosion would have a net speed effect of exactly zero, effectively stopping any debris behind it without blasting it in a reverse direction (and out of the entry hole).

The design and construction of the buildings lived up to claimed capability by not immediately falling even partially on initial impact allowing many people to escape. I still suggest that the size (energy) of impact exceeded the design considerations by a factor of at least 4x the hypothetical slow moving 707 lost in the fog scenario. It doesn't really matter what model of 767 it was or how it was flown or even if it was a 767 at all. If it was the size and mass of a 767 moving as fast as a 767 it would do the same amount of damage as the supposed 767 wouldn't it? Bernoulli effect, Coanda effect, lift & drag, thrust factors, air density & pressure are all redundant considerations if the objective is to hit a building at max speed.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join