It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Boeing spokesperson laughs at the idea of a Boeing 767 going at 500 MPH at 700 feet

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 10:12 PM
I think Jhon Lear can confirm it as well.
Very interesting phone interviews with a spokesperson at Boeing and another engineer. Maximum speed is greatly affected by the altitude at which you are flying making it obviously impossible to fly at those speed at that altitude no matter what. The Dive bomber even stabilized at those speed and pinpointed the tower...

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by piacenza

Boeing has just vindicated John Lear, the Pilots for 9/11 Truth, many other website authors and groups seeking the truth of 9/11, and other ATS posters, including myself, on why a Boeing 767 cannot not realistically fly at 500 mph or more at close to ground level.

It definitely has a great deal to do with changed atmospheric conditions and gravity the closer airplanes descend toward earth. It all involves learning and understanding aerodynamics. That does not require anyone to be a pilot or degreed in physicis, except for physically testing the truth of aerodynamic laws and principles.

Imagine a Boeing engineer giving an answer such as "I don't know. Pretty slow." Which says Boeing board and executives have told all their personnel to be very vague, regarding questions such as that. Yes, I do know from a great deal and many years of inside business experience, in various industries, that to be the case. Boeing board and executives obviously knew there were going to be such questions asked immediately and for years to come.

Thank you for that video. I had the information from SPINE stored in my favorites. I will try to locate it again. I could not remember the name of the website, until your video jogged my memory of storing that website several years ago.

One qualified professional needing mention is Dr. Robert Bowman. His credentials can be found on Pilots for 9/11 truth. I listened to and watched him being interviewed by at least two media sources a couple of years ago. I knew he spoke the truth considering the research I did on his qualified credentials.

This is only one interview with Robert Bowman I found highly interesting:

Please note who maintains objectivity and who does not in the video above.

Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool some people all the time, all people some of the time, but you cannot fool all people all of the time." History validates that is the truth of human nature throughout recorded history.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:47 PM
Well since I'm away from me PC, and this thread since of interest to me, anyone cares to explain why is not possible for an aircraft to do this.

Orion mention some points but I will like more of a detail answer.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:42 PM
I thought this video looked familiar, it was posted awhile back here on ATS.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:47 PM
Lower altitude equates to greater air density therefore increased drag and more thrust required to push the aircraft at a given speed. Maximum speed is dictated by the point where thrust equals drag and Boeing is referring to level flight which applies to AA11 which approached WTC at a relatively level altitude and did indeed strike WTC1 at less than 500mph so there's no problem with anything there.

UA175 got up to a higher speed by diving so it's thrust was increased by gravitational acceleration to a speed greater than the level flight limit. It levelled out relatively close to WTC2 and struck before the drag could decelerate it to the normal limit. Perhaps the pilot observed that WTC1 was still standing and gave it his best shot at maximising the damage, almost missing the building in the process.

Just 40% extra speed would double the force of impact.

Nothing remarkable there really apart from the tragedy of it.

[edit on 5/2/2008 by Pilgrum]

[edit on 5/2/2008 by Pilgrum]

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:57 PM
reply to post by Pilgrum

Thanks for the explanation, let me see if I get this. You are saying that AA11 was under the threshold and UA 175 did indeed exceeded the threshold but level out before impact?

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 04:05 PM
reply to post by Bunch

There was a link to a video posted here a while back showing UA175 approaching in a dive and levelling out before impacting WTC2. That threshold only applies to level flight and if he'd levelled out earlier the plane would have slowed eventually to Boeing's quoted limit. The amount of drag varies roughly as the square of velocity.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 05:03 PM
Oh no! Not another Jeff Hill phone call. Clearly Leslie Hazzard was talking about what speeds a 762 would be permitted to fly at at 700ft, not what it's capbable of. As for Joseph Keith, you can find many other engineers who would disagree with him. The idea a jetliner would necessarily rip apart flying 500mph at 700 ft is nonsense, and proven by the crash of Turkish Airlines flight 981, which plowed into a forest at 497mph, all in one piece, save for the cargo door which had separated some 77 seconds earlier, causing the initial loss of control.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 05:26 PM
The plane would probably disintegrate going that fast that low. Either someone is mistaken or worse making things up to further their agenda, whatever that maybe.

By the way, I don't believe that the cia masterminded this disaster in any way, shape or form. Along with common sense there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest al-queda involvement. They bombed the american embassy in kenya, london and madrid metro, bali nightclubs, etc.

Additionaly, Ossama bin lada regularly makes hate videos taunting the west and especially usa and usually turns them in to al jazeera so people can view them. I really don't understand why people have such a hard time believing the truth. I for one, always question the official story but making a conspiracy were there isn't one only detracts us from other more important pursuits and hating your own government is very unhealthy. I wish people would just let go of this madness.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 05:53 PM
It seems to me, knowing aerodynamics as I came to know them:

There is a major difference in no engine thrust needed to gain momentum velocity speed by weight and mass doing the pushing, when pulled in by gravity,

vs. attempting to pick up velocity momentum using gravity, while fighting against atmospheric conditions (drag much heavier the closer one gets to earth) using high powered engine thrust in diving and turning, particularly when leveling off parallel to gravity.

Simply trying to turn, particularly tight turns at high or low altitudes, creates mandatory slow down in velocity speed and forward momentum. Thus, requires being able to do that without overshooting a target, from momentum push of weight and mass receiving delayed messaging to slow down going into a turn.

Momentum and velocity speed with high engine thrust cut, when going into a turn, and then mandatory increased engine thrust, valiantly trying to drastically pull coming out a turn, plus, slower weight and mass dragging, and then trying to push to equal the pull velocity speed, while gravity is trying to drag a plane toward earth, when trying to level off, are all why one must have the expertise to operate the machinery capable of effectively accomplishing that fete.

767s are not capable of making tight turns or going high speeds the closer they get to earth. 700' is not that high compared to flying or turning through thin air at cruising altitude. Unpolluted cruising altitude at that. Even pollution creates more resistance drag at 700' feet above sea level. NYC is full pollution at that altitude.

Pollution further causes additional drag resistance at 700' altitude. Just because all atmospheric resistance existence cannot be seen with the naked eye, does not mean it is not there in invisible gaseous form. It always is. Then there is the wind coming which can always great low to high resistance as well.

If anyone finds the above to be incorrect, please scientifically explain why it is incorrect.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 07:12 PM
reply to post by L driver

No way. No airplane can suirvive crashing at right under 500 MPH. No way. It would be in shreds from the body and engines and large pieces scattered around the area. I want to see the verification of that tale.

Sure, a Boeing probably COULD supass its limits and perform as seen; except for the multitude of ' inexplicable anomalies ' that scream out for attention one might believe anything, including the obviously staged excuse that Osama planned this grand stand down and DEW effects on the Towers and managed to fool em all!! Just got danged lucky because, like Condi Rice said: " We never imagined that they would use airplanes as bombs!!", and blinked her lying eyes a few times and keeps up the story.

The entire Bush cabal is so rotten, so corrupt, so vile and filthy and lacking in any redeeming qualities whatsoever, that repentence is not even an option; they are remorseless murderers and traitors and they know that one slip up could mean all of them behind bars, or worse. They really deserve to be hung, after exactly the kind of trial that they wrote into law for 'enemy ' terrorists. They fit the bill, so they should suffer the same fate that they gave to so many; innocents beaten and murdered and tortured, most of them totally innocent and just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

No wonder much of the world hates us, look at what we do in the name of freedom: Kill and bomb and steal and lie and murder; and what does the average American think of all this? Huh? What? Who won the game? What day is it? Work or sleep? Politics? Naaaah..

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 07:59 PM

If an airplane in Turkey crash at almost 500mph and remained almost intact, why the plane in Shanksville was completely rip apart?

Can it happens both ways?

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 08:14 PM
reply to post by eyewitness86

What the air traffic controller had observed was the separation of the cargo door, which occured at a height of 11,000 feet over the village of Saint-Pathus - at a point when the cabin pressure should have still roughly equalled that at sea level. As with the American Airlines DC-10, the loss of the door caused a sudden depressurisation, which was followed by the failure the cabin floor. However with the extra weight imposed on the structure, the collapse was more extensive, and six occupants in two triple-seat units were ejected through the opening.

The was serious damage not only to the elevator and rudder cables, but to the no.2 engine thrust levers as well. The nose of the aircraft dropped to about 4 degrees before the DC-10 ploughed into a forest at more than 500 knots, and while banking slightly to the left, disintegrating into a huge fireball. All 346 persons aboard, including 12 crew members perished. The main wreckage was strewn over an area approximately 2,300 feet long and 300 feet wide, some 25 miles north-north-east of the French capital. There were only a few small post crash fires, as there were virtually no pieces large enough to burn.

There are no pictures of it online, but I have a book that disects many air disasters that had some pictures of it that were taken from the scene. The only portion of the aircraft that was found away from the main impact site was the cargo door that caused the crash, and the seats holding the people that were ejected. The rest of the airframe was found at the impact site.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by Bunch

Shanksville was a much steeper impact. Turkish Airways 981 was trying NOT to crash. It hit the ground at a relatively flat angle compared to flight 93.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 08:34 PM

Originally posted by eyewitness86
reply to post by L driver

No way. No airplane can suirvive crashing at right under 500 MPH. No way. It would be in shreds from the body and engines and large pieces scattered around the area. I want to see the verification of that tale.


I agree. In case I was misunderstood, I meant TK 981 (minus its left rear cargo door) remained in one piece until the moment of impact, at which point it was of course ripped to shreds. 90% of the structure was demolshed beyond recognition

edit: for better clarity

[edit on 5-2-2008 by L driver]

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Shanksville was a much steeper impact. Turkish Airways 981 was trying NOT to crash. It hit the ground at a relatively flat angle compared to flight 93.

So if Shanksville was a steeper crash how come an engine was found about 1/4 of a mile away?

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 02:07 AM
L Driver, and Earth Citizen 07, well said

I know individuals at the Pentagon who personally witnessed the plane plow into the building, and to hear so many people call them liars is an absolute disgrace. There is enough evil in the world, and plenty of terrorists who want nothing more than to kill every last one of us, and here we remain bickering over THIS.

It's like the entire "Loose Change" video. I watched it, and debunked every single "Shocker" mentioned in it. All it takes is a little bit knowledge, mixed with some common sense, and an insiders point of view.

I have no fancy videos or commentary to offer you "9-11 Conspiracy Believers", but I know for myself what really occured, and that is enough for me.

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 03:26 AM

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
L Driver, and Earth Citizen 07, well said

I know individuals at the Pentagon who personally witnessed the plane plow into the building, and to hear so many people call them liars is an absolute disgrace.

Wow, a real life person that actually believes in the government twaddle

Anyhoo, so we have eye witnesses that saw an airplane 'plough' into the building and with missile penetrating force and stay intact enough to make a very neat whole? That must have been a sight? Did they also happen to mention the folding/disintegration of the rather large wings (side and tail) and transforming engines that transform to somewhat smaller ones? Oh, and did they happen to wonder at how the grass area directly in front didn't have mangled parts and deep aeroplane furrow marks? What was that news reporter's name, you know the one that must have lied when he didn't see what your “individuals at the Pentagon who personally witnessed the plane” did?

Come on what is your real agenda on here? Are you the 'good' or 'bad' cop amongst the deniers?

A really entertaining insight into TheAgentNineteen's world

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 07:34 AM
Here's the CBS video of the approach and impact.
Remember that the depth of field of the camera lens gives the dive a steeper appearance than it actually was.

UA175 Dive

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 07:55 AM
I'd like to first comment on the Boeing people's attitude that comes out in these two phone calls (especially the second one where apparently the woman just hung up on him).

When I was in college I had a particular assignment in which I was to either take the MD Boeing DC-10 or the Lockheed 1011 (both with the top engine configuration) and work up the height of the laminar boundary relative to the intake of the third engine for the purposes of evaluating when the boundary layer interference could come into play for the engine performance.

At this time I was about 6 or 7 months pregnant and would have to get up every morning for a 7 or 7:30 a.m. class and was going full-time so I would be on campus a full work day. At about 4 to 5 p.m. CT I called out to the Boeing public information people to ask for some spec information that I was finding hard to get (because no one knew how to spell Google yet back then!) I get this guy who is at about 2 to 3 p.m. in his work day and about all he has to do is answer the phone and field questions. (Basically, I'm worn out and he shouldn't be all that stressed - but it was like I had asked him to work overtime just to answer a few simple questions.)

Long story short - he was a frigging A-hole. And about as helpful as both of these women added together and divided by 5.

ANYWAYS - this is what you need to answer this question for yourself. I actually wrote Fortran code while in college that was passed on and used for several years after my graduation by following aero classes that will compute this very thing if you know your plane configuration, power package, and basic design parameters (ceiling, cruise speed, blah blah blah). This CAN be obtained independently is what I'm trying to point out.

You need to establish the Lift/Drag curves for an altitude of 700 feet. Then you need the thrust and horsepower curves for this altitude. And you can answer everything yourself short of whether the plane will vibrate apart. But I don't think you'll actually have to look at the plane breaking up because I think the answer will lie in the L/D curves.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Valhall]

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Valhall]

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in