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.

 

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

page: 12
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Actually, I did. I said it was impossible to cram that many people in the cockpit of a 767 and still have free room to move. .


There is no evidence that there were 8 people in cockpit. I do not where you came up with that fantasy.

Even the official (conspiracy) story does not state that anywhere.




posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Is there anyway possible you guys could get back on topic?


I wonder why people want a good thread to go off topic?


A few reasons:

1) Members get passionate about proving their points and get distracted

2) Disrespectful to the OP and not caring what is posted.

3) Dis Info Agents trying to derail a thread.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by OrionStars
Actually, I did. I said it was impossible to cram that many people in the cockpit of a 767 and still have free room to move. .


There is no evidence that there were 8 people in cockpit. I do not where you came up with that fantasy.

Even the official (conspiracy) story does not state that anywhere.



The "official" report, fed to the media and from the WH, was 5 alleged hijackers rushed the cockpit. That makes 7 to 8 people all in an alleged 767 cockpit at the same time with the door closed. 2 to 3 flight crew, who are supposed to be in a cockpit to fly the plane, plus, 5 alleged hijackers rushing to get in and shutting and locking the door from the inside as well.

I did not say it was true. I only stated that is what we were told was supposed to be true. Obviously, it is not by logical analysis on cockpit size, plus, how many people can reasonably fit in a 767 cockpit and still have room to freely move.


If all the alleged hijackers were not in the cockpit, where were they located from alleged rush on the cockpit to the alleged end?



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Regardless of where the hijackers were, who was piloting the plane or indeed if there were any 'hijackers' at all really is not significant here as the thread is about the absolute capabilities of the aircraft and how that relates to published studies of the available evidence.

The necessary data seems very hard to obtain and all I can find are general figures like the optimum L/D ratio at maximum cruise altitude and speed of 18 (570mph @ ~36000'). At maximum operating altitude the absolute maximum speed is limited by the buffeting caused by approaching mach 1 but at much lower altitudes it becomes a matter of brute force thrust related to drag and mach 1, which is faster at those lower altitudes, is not a realistic limiting consideration in such a design where economy is the major constraint. I also came across a 'rule of thumb' figure of approx 5mph reduction in maximum speed per 1000' reduction in altitude.

I analysed some the videos of UA175 frame by frame just before it struck the building and got consistent results of approx 5 frames at 25fps or 0.2 seconds for the plane to pass through its entire length of 159'. Allowing a 1/2 frame tolerance in this measurement (0.22S) it equates to an impact speed of at least 723 ft/sec or ~490mph (~430kt) and the smoke from WTC1 indicates a headwind of ~10mph at an angle of ~45 degrees so add 5mph to get an observed true airspeed of ~495mph minimum (probably much faster as 0.20S equates to ~540mph). As the plane was extensively observed doing that speed at that altitude it's obviously within its capabilities (but by how much?) and remember that it was still descending at that time (nose down attitude) so gravity was a factor as well.

Note that 570mph fits within the limits of this rough measurement where 0.18S would equate to ~600mph.

[edit on 12/2/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
That is echoing like the words of FEMA, NIST, and Purdue personnel: "We don't need no stinkin' facts. All we need is the Eagar report, and we can make it fit just fine. No problem."



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
The "official" report, fed to the media and from the WH, was 5 alleged hijackers rushed the cockpit.


But wasn't there only 1 hijacker that was trained as a pilot, the other hijackers were there to keep the passengers out of the cockpit. I mean someone had to spray the mace or pepper spray to keep the passengers back from the cockpit, as per reports.

So i am still wondering where the idea came from for 8 people to be in the cockpit.

Wasn't there also report of passengers seeing the pilots being drug out of the cokpits ?



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


But wasn't there only 1 hijacker that was trained as a pilot, the other hijackers were there to keep the passengers out of the cockpit. I mean someone had to spray the mace or pepper spray to keep the passengers back from the cockpit, as per reports.

So i am still wondering where the idea came from for 8 people to be in the cockpit.

Wasn't there also report of passengers seeing the pilots being drug out of the cokpits ?


How is one person going to overcome three people already in the cockpit and throw them all out?

If mace was sprayed, would that not also affect anyone who was not in the cockpit with the door shut before and after spraying, when staying out with the passengers?



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 04:47 AM
link   
How many times are we going to have to tell you that the 767/757 are both TWO PERSON cockpits. Or is that just another point where we're speculating? There hasn't been a navigator on a new aircraft in a long time now.

As for overpowering the crew, first of all they were strapped in and barely able to move. Secondly that was what one of the muscle hijackers was for as well. To assist the hijacker that flew the plane.

Pilgrum nice job on figuring that out. One of the reasons you won't find much on the low altitude speeds is that planes don't fly that fast that low, so they don't have a need to release the speeds they can go at 700 feet. The FAA doesn't allow more than about 250mph except in special cases, such as an airshow. It's not that the planes CAN'T do it, it's that the pilots aren't ALLOWED to do it.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
If the "official" reports are going to be credible, they better know for certain where everyone was located, and what they were doing up until the alleged end. Or the report has no credibility, and, thus, no justified reason for belief by anyone.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How many times are we going to have to tell you that the 767/757 are both TWO PERSON cockpits. Or is that just another point where we're speculating? There hasn't been a navigator on a new aircraft in a long time now.


According to you, there were 7 people, Exactly, where were all those 7 people located at all times? Betty Ong, nor anyone else, ever said except in vague generalities. Yes, it does matter, and goes directly to credibility of "official" reports.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How many times are we going to have to tell you that the 767/757 are both TWO PERSON cockpits. Or is that just another point where we're speculating? There hasn't been a navigator on a new aircraft in a long time now.


According to you, there were 7 people, Exactly, where were all those 7 people located at all times? Betty Ong, nor anyone else, ever said except in vague generalities. Yes, it does matter, and goes directly to credibility of "official" reports.


7 people, not all of whom need to be in the flight deck at any one time. Did any report say all the hijackers entered the cockpits? So why claim they did unless you can give us a quote where someone said that.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex

7 people, not all of whom need to be in the flight deck at any one time. Did any report say all the hijackers entered the cockpits? So why claim they did unless you can give us a quote where someone said that.


The alleged hijackers were stated to rush the cockpit. What exactly does that mean? How many would it take to remove those alleged to already be in there?

So where were all those alleged hijackers located to the end? Particularly, when alleged Betty Ong stated on tape, she had a report from the front mace was being used up front by the cockpit. Hiding in a closed door bathroom? Hiding in a closed door cockpit? Where were they if what was stated was happening?

We have no way of knowing for certain it actually happened as reported on tape. We have no way of knowing if anyone actually named Betty Ong was reporting anything on voice tape. We were not present to witness it. It is all hearsay, as is everything on the tapes and in any "official" reports.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by OrionStars]



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Since I still do not know how to 'snip' something from an outside source, I will have to explain something I found on the NTSB website...

If you google 'EgyptAir crash' you will find the link to the report on EgyptAir 990, from October 1999. This was a B767-300. ON page 28, figure 3c is a graph showing the DFDR readouts up to the end of the recording. I found it compelling that the scale of the ability of the Flight Recorder to record A/S data went all the way up to 500K. The graph shows the accident airplane was doing 460K at impact in the ocean.

(460K is equal to 529MPH...) Conversion factor from knots to statute MPH is 1.15.

The airplane had a lot of altitude to lose as it accelerated...yet it got going pretty fast, 'downhill'... dontcha think??? The data also show the thrust levers had been moved to flight idle (probably by the Captain, attempting to reduce airspeed. He DID NOT want to die...



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I found the following to be quite interesting, particularly the speed and altitude, concerning EgyptAir 990. The balance of the article is quite informative, as well, when compared to Boeing spokespersons and pilots stating no Boeing 767 is going to fly at high speed at 700' above sea level, without beginning to break apart diving or not or banking and turning or not:


www.theatlantic.com...


It was the last instant captured by the on-board flight recorders. The elevators were split, with the one on the right side, Batouti's side, still pushed into a nose-down position. The ailerons on both wings had assumed a strange upswept position, normally never seen on an airplane. The 767 was at 16,416 feet, doing 527 miles an hour, and pulling a moderately heavy 2.4 gs, indicating that the nose, though still below the horizon, was rising fast, and that Habashi's efforts on the left side were having an effect. A belated recovery was under way. At that point, because the engines had been cut, all nonessential electrical devices were lost, blacking out not only the recorders, which rely on primary power, but also most of the instrument displays and lights. The pilots were left to the darkness of the sky, whether to work together or to fight. I've often wondered what happened between those two men during the 114 seconds that remained of their lives. We'll never know. Radar reconstruction showed that the 767 recovered from the dive at 16,000 feet and, like a great wounded glider, soared steeply back to 24,000 feet, turned to the southeast while beginning to break apart, and shed its useless left engine and some of its skin before giving up for good and diving to its death at high speed.




[edit on 13-2-2008 by OrionStars]



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Please show me exactly where I said there were 7 people in the cockpit. Not the "You believe the official story so you have to believe there were 7 people in there" logic. Show me EXACTLY where I said there were 7 people in the cockpit. Give the the DIRECT QUOTE. Otherwise stop putting words in my mouth immediately.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


And you're completely ignoring the fact that they were putting 2.4Gs on the airframe. A 767 wasn't really designed for a 2.4G maneuver, and that CAN cause it to break apart, as we saw there. So yes, a 2.4G maneuver at 500+ mph WILL cause it to break apart, no matter WHAT altitude you're at.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by OrionStars
 


And you're completely ignoring the fact that they were putting 2.4Gs on the airframe. A 767 wasn't really designed for a 2.4G maneuver, and that CAN cause it to break apart, as we saw there. So yes, a 2.4G maneuver at 500+ mph WILL cause it to break apart, no matter WHAT altitude you're at.


You can either accept or reject the reality of aerodynamics and aeronautical design capability. That is up to you.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
So according to you, a maneuver that makes the plane weigh TWO AND A HALF TIMES it's normal weight has NO EFFECT on it, and had NOTHING to do with the break up of the fuselage. Right then. There's no point in any further discussion with you.

And I'll still be waiting for you to either apologize for putting words in my mouth, or to prove to me exactly where I said that there were 7 people in the cockpit.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So according to you, a maneuver that makes the plane weigh TWO AND A HALF TIMES it's normal weight has NO EFFECT on it, and had NOTHING to do with the break up of the fuselage. Right then. There's no point in any further discussion with you.

And I'll still be waiting for you to either apologize for putting words in my mouth, or to prove to me exactly where I said that there were 7 people in the cockpit.


I never did say anything of the sort. I never commented on it. Therefore, it is not according to me.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Then you had absolutely no point there then. Because I'm NOT ignoring the laws or rules of aerodynamics. The airframe was stressed beyond the breaking point by a 2.4G maneuver at 500+ mph. It broke up. How is that ignoring anything?


Btw way to totally ignore my demand for proof, and to shove words into my mouth with the 7 hijackers in the cockpit.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join