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

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Oh really then please explain what “Beware of cockpit intrusion" means.

I would think that means hijacking. I also believe that what the pilots would take it to mean.

I would think that you're wrong. If that's what the pilots thought, then they would probably still be alive. You're using 20/20 hindsight again.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

So again, please explain how hijackers took over 4 planes without any of the pilots getting off an emergency call or signal?

Flight 93 got off 2 calls. Here's the link. I've shown you this transcript on at least two separate occasions. Did you forget about it or are you intentionally ignoring it?

As far as the transponders go, John Lear posted that it would take two to four seconds to change the transponder code to hijack under ideal conditions, do you think having hijackers burst into the cockpit is ideal?

Being killed is not hijacked; what is the code for cut throat? You got it right, if I tried to put in a code for hijacking you could cut my throat before I could; fact!.

Plus the one crew did call may day, as they were butchered. 9/11 truth is the most pathetic group as they make up information and the victims of 9/11 are disrespected by such shallow research and fact less forays into fantasy.

The speed stuff was funny. Too bad they never talked to an engineer who designed the 757/767 series. 175 impacted at 590 mph, makes the whole idea a plane can't false/wrong.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Contrary to popular belief, an airline pilot is expected to make a 'reasoned' decision, not a 'snap' decision, in most cases that we trai for. Exception being a engine failure at or near 'V1' (Take-off decision speed) where prompt recognition and action are practiced...over, and over, and over, trust me.

But pilots are trained to make emergecny decisions. So if you received a "Beware Cockpit Intrusion" would you just sit there or would you prepare to protect yourserfl and paseengers ?

Originally posted by Boone 870
I would think that you're wrong. If that's what the pilots thought, then they would probably still be alive. You're using 20/20 hindsight again.

Please explain to me what you would consider "Beware Cockpit Intrusion" to mean?

I do not think it means you are getting a visitor.

[edit on 22-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Boone 870
Flight 93 got off 2 calls. Here's the
As far as the transponders go, John Lear posted that it would take two to four seconds to change the transponder code to hijack under ideal conditions, do you think having hijackers burst into the cockpit is ideal?

They did not get off 2 calls, there was just some conversation heard over the radio. Thats a big difference.

So your saying the hijackers got into the cockpits and subdued the pilots on all 4 planes in under 4 seconds ?

reply to post by ULTIMA1

They did not get off 2 calls, there was just some conversation heard over the radio. Thats a big difference.

We've been down this road before ULTIMA1. ATC recorded the transmissions, other pilots heard them, and the pilot's wife believes that it was her husband's voice. Do you believe that they were fake?

So your saying the hijackers got into the cockpits and subdued the pilots on all 4 planes in under 4 seconds ?

Nope. The two transmissions from flight 93 were 32 seconds apart, why would I think that it would take less than four seconds?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
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.

That's very circular logic, you can find evidence for intelligence agency involvement in all cases probably, I don't know about kenya.
I think it's safe to assume that in case of 9/11 the majority of the evidence points to government involvement at the very least. The patriot act being written before 9/11 aswell as the preparation of the invasion of Afghanistan, the blatant calls for just such an event, the insider trading and blocking of Al-Qaeda investigations show that there is FAR more evidence than one sanely can deny exists.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
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.

Listen to yourself for god sake, Osama makes "hate videos"?
Have you ever listened to them? I'm not a fan by a long shot, but the guy makes 10 times more sense than Bush or 90% of the candidates, make it a 100% if you count Ron Paul out of the race. Try to listen objectively, instead of assuming you're listening to the beast the media portrays him to be. And have you ever wondered why they broadcast them? Have you ever stopped to think that this whole war on terror might just be about rule by fear?
Do you really think George Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and all the others are the kind of guys who would spend trillions, just so Iraqi's could live in a happy environment? Don't kid yourself, you're smarter than that.

Don't forget that this group of people were called "the crazies" decades ago already.

reply to post by beachnut


beachnut, thanks for trying to get the thread back on line, at the end of your post. Guessing, though, based on your point count, you fell afowl of a Mod recently, so some will take that as a sign that you should not be listened to, and that is a shame.

OK, I'm going out on a limb here, and posting something that it seems everyone has begun to lose sight of ( 'lose' not "loose" ).

Page 1, YouTube link.....GONE!! The premise of the OP is missing...but I think a lot has been presented here, when you separate the wheat from the chaff, to indeed show that UA175's speed could be produced by suicidal maniacs intent on inflicting as much destructive force as they could.

needed to add, here...if you have a few thousand to spend, you can probably still find an Operator of a Sim that will let you fly for an hour or so...I can tell you, depending on who owns it, it may be very busy...at my airline there was very little 'down time', they were scheduled from about 0800 to 2300...and then the MX guys come in to do the overnight maintenance...things break, light bulbs burn out, the hydraulics need to be checked, etc, etc...

Here's a typical day for a pilot in the Sim building...we have a 'show' time, say 0530. There is a 1 & half hour briefing, and the Sim is ready for us at 0700. They block 4 hours for the session, 2 hours for each pilot. SO, at 1100, there are another two pilots to use the Sim, they 'showed' at 0930..., ant etc...just an example of a busy simulator, at an airline that has a lot of pilots going thru...OH, and we have to debrief afterwards...all fits into the max '8-hour' day of work, and various union rules will vary between airlines...

The foregoing was just fun info, for anyone who still cares to read this thread.

Point is, there are Sims around the world, probably few in the USA though, that have some time for sale...so, if you have the dough, go for it! Fly the darned thing at 500 MPH (or, about 435 Knots, indicated airspeed [IAS]).

Remember, airplanes in the Western World use Knots, not MPH...technically, a 'knot' is a 'nautical mile per hour'...so the 'PerHour' is just dropped, and the term becomes 'KT'...or 'Kts'...

Just so you don't have to run off to Wiki...a 'Statute' mile is 5,280 feet. A 'Nautical' mile is 6,060 feet. If you want to convert Knots to MPH, since you are used to MPH, you multiply by 1.15

Like, if you want to convert MPH to KPH, you use 1.6

100 KPH = 160 MPH (approx)

100 KPH = 62 MPH (approx)

This is why, '500 MPH' sounds like an insane speed...and it is, at low altitudes, because it violates FAA regulations, obviously, for multiple reasons...but the guys at the controls could be, charitably, qualified as 'insane' anyway...

I cannot remember the top number on the Airspeed indicator we had onboard...it was a point where the needle would 'peg', my best memory is it was labeled at about 420K...of course, we never wanted to exceed the 'barber pole', that was Vmo at lower altitudes, and was 340K in the B767. Somewhere on the web is a photo of the instrument, I am sure...I'll look....

Of course, the DFDR could record higher speeds, so I'm assuming the ADC could too, since that's where the DVDR got the data....



[edit on 23-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Boone 870 Nope. The two transmissions from flight 93 were 32 seconds apart, why would I think that it would take less than four seconds?

Becasue none of the planes were able to get off an emergecny call or signal. (which would take about 4 seconds)

Flight 93 did not get off an emergency call or signal there were just some voices over the radio. (not an emergency call)

reply to post by ULTIMA1


AM I allowed to point out that the last post from ULTIMA, in response to Boone, came about 7 hours after Boone's post? Yet, ULTIMA ignored all that was posted in between?

I mean, we all can see the date and time of the posts! I have mine set to EST, just so I don't have to do the math...


When a good discussion deteriorates into an off-topic slug-fest...well, finish the sentence....

[speaking of off-topic, my left hand is going numb...can someone start a thread to address THIS issue?!?] [makes it very difficult to type on the standard QWERTY keyboard....]

Thanks to all....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AM I allowed to point out that the last post from ULTIMA, in response to Boone, came about 7 hours after Boone's post?

Maybe it was becasue was not on for a while. Did you ever think of that ?

[edit on 23-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Flight 93 did not get off an emergency call or signal there were just some voices over the radio. (not an emergency call)

MAYDAY is an emergency code word used internationally as a distress signal in voice procedure radio communications

The very beginning of the hijacking was heard on Tuesday, on recordings picked up by air traffic controllers. "Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!" a crew member shouts at 9:28 a.m. "Mayday! Get out of here! Get out of here."nytimes

reply to post by weedwhacker
Sorry for derailing the topic weedwhacker.

Maybe a non-mathematically challenged individual can find the Mach limit of a 767 and then do the figures to see if either one of the 767's exceeded that number on 9/11.

500mph, 600 mph, doesn't really matter because Mach number is relative to airpressure, temperature and airspeed among other things. Correct?

If a 767 can fly at Mach .94 at 35,000 ft, it could also fly at Mach .94 at 600ft..

Boeing 727 exceeds Mach 1

reply to post by Boone 870


Boone! No, it was great stuff you contributed!

I am just wondering where the YouTube link went, from page 1?

Originally posted by Boone 870

The very beginning of the hijacking was heard on Tuesday, on recordings picked up by air traffic controllers. "Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!" a crew member shouts at 9:28 a.m. "Mayday! Get out of here! Get out of here

Do we know it was flgiht 93 and do we know it was a pilot?

[edit on 24-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA, you must be kidding, right, with that last question???

I'm serious, the Towers were hit before 9 AM. The UA 93 timeline YOU keep pointing out re: the ACARS message uses 0924 and 0926...get it yet?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm serious, the Towers were hit before 9 AM. The UA 93 timeline YOU keep pointing out re: the ACARS message uses 0924 and 0926...get it yet?

So by your timeline of when the supposed "mayday" call was made was after the hiajckers had already taken over the plane.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Sorry, last time I will post off-topic.

For ULTIMA, I was trying to point out that an ACARS mssg was sent at 0924, and respopnded to at 0926, and 'Mayday..' was recorded on ATC tapes...at 0928. You asked how do we know it was UA93, I said becauuse UA175 and AA11 were down already, AA77 I don't know what time...let's see, if you found out which ARTCC had the 'Mayday' recording, it would go a long way to narrow down the possibilities...but, that should really be discussed on a thread devoted to UA93, I think.

So, thanks for your comments, but how about my question? Where did the link from page one go? Something about 500MPH?

About the video that started this thread - it seems YouTube has removed it due a violation of the terms of usage which is a puzzle considering all the videos they haven't removed.

Perhaps Boeing applied a little quiet pressure.