Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by L driver
 


Hey, L driver,

OK, got your last post. I have seen the track of F77, as presented from a 'satellite' view...and no, it did not seem absurd. As I pointed out in my post above, rate of turn, and the resulting ground track, will depend a lot on airspeed.

I lived quite near the Pentagon on that day, I was home. Later, I talked to a friend who lived in an apartment on Columbia Pike (a major Highway in Virginia). His view, from his balcony, allowed him to SEE F77 pass by. It was NOT down at 'tree level' then, but he did think it odd, since it was lower than normal, and not anything he'd seen before. Remember, National Airport is right there, and even non-pilots are used to the paths taken in and out of National.

You can Google a map, look at Columbia Pike...you will see that the Arab in F77 lined up on that highway and aimed at the Pentagon.....

BTW, I know friends of the First Officer of AA77, so I am not a dispassionate observer...




posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


First of all, I googled for a 762. I got anything with the number 762 but an airplane. Yet, if I googled for a 767-200, I got the exact plane for which I was searching.

As far as banking, depending on the angle of bank, if we were in the aisles for any reason, we could end up lying across the people in their seats, when a pilot starts to bank the plane. So we had to keep an eye on the seatbelt sign and listen for the announcement to be seated and buckle up, in case a pilot decided to the bank the plane for any reason. If the overhead carry-on luggage compartment door was not latched, we could end up with that luggage falling on our heads. It should be obvious how I know what happens depending angle of the bank.

In the future, if you wish to patronize people, please be certain they wish to be patronized. I do not wish to be by you or anyone else.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by L driver
Orion,

If you'd like, I'd be interested in asking your question to the next 757/67 pilot I run into at Logan. If you want to take me up on this, please give me the exact wording of your question, because I'm not sure of the distinction you are making. If you live near a major airport, maybe you could ask it too. Then we could compare notes.


Cheers
Chris


Exactly which question would that be, and exactly how will you word it? Otherwise, it will not be my question unless whatever question it was is worded exactly the same way I worded it.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1



Its just too bad there are dozens of other pilots and engineers who say it could not be done.


I don't know why it's too bad. All it shows is that you can find pilots on both sides of the issue. I contend, based on my limited personal experience, that such pilots are in the minority. Are the dozens of pilots you speak of more or less a random sample, as in my casual encounters? Or are they a self-selected few who have chosen to speak out? A few dozen pilots/engineers may or may not be representative, given how many thousands of pilots and engineers there are. So all it proves, without knowing much more, is that you can find 9/11 skeptics in all walks of life, including pilots.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Well, thanks for reading, hope I've educated someone....

Adding from edit...sheesh!! I should get paid for this! I am giving it out for free...oh, well....

It certainly wasn't lost on me and thanks for the valuable insight


That idea of the passengers leaning in their seats during a turn - centrifugal force should keep their butts firmly in place especially during a tight banked turn.

And I guess you noticed the subtle derailment going on, away from the accepted meaning of 'rotation' in flight terminology.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

OrionStars,

I will continue with another aspect of your post, regarding a 'hairpin' turn. No, airliners cannot execute a 'hairpin' turn. Not even sure why you mentioned this, I am having trouble following your logic...


Because from the description of alleged Flight 175 turn, it looks like a hairpin turn. I know that cannot be done with a commercial jetliner. Since there are so many stories, concerning alleged Flight 175, perhaps it needs to be narrowed down to the exact one touted by the "official" report from the WH. Then possibility or impossibility can more easily be determined. Yes?



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars



Exactly which question would that be, and exactly how will you word it? Otherwise, it will not be my question unless whatever question it was is worded exactly the same way I worded it.


The one dealing with this point: "It has everything to do with the whether or not the 767 is capable of doing a high speed sharp banked angle turn, while not drastically reducing higher speed, particularly close to sea level at 700'. Whoever contends that it can, the onus lies on that person to prove it in real time."

Is this your main question concerning the maneuvering of the alleged flight 175? If so, let me know if that's the best way to ask it. For example: "Can a 767-200 perform a high speed sharp banked angle turn, while not drastically slowing down, particularly close to sea level, at say, 700 ft?"



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:45 AM
link   
cont'd. . .

I just want to make sure I ask the best worded question that would capture all the nuance of your thinking. Just giving you an opportunity to enhance, change or modify what you would consider the one best question you'd have, if asking a 767 pilot. That's the only reason I asked. If you want to re-word or change, let me know. Otherwise, I'll go with the question I just wrote.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 

then why won't the FBI just release all of the security cam film that was confiscated from all the different cameras around the area that would have caught the image of the plane crashing into the pentagon? it's the questions not being answered that will keep this going. i lived through the JFK assasination...same crap...different decade. but you know what? nobody in government cares, mission accomplished, water under the bridge, the people have been fooled again. and since i can't anything to change it...i'm going to join the club by amassing all the money i can, and getting the hell out this country. it has turned into a cesspool of corruption and besides, money is the true freedom, and all this democratic crap is just the way to keep the masses in line. remember the old saying from a wealthy industrilist from a long time ago..."give the commoners just enough to keep them from stealing from me or killing me"



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by L driver

The one dealing with this point: "It has everything to do with the whether or not the 767 is capable of doing a high speed sharp banked angle turn, while not drastically reducing higher speed, particularly close to sea level at 700'. Whoever contends that it can, the onus lies on that person to prove it in real time."

Is this your main question concerning the maneuvering of the alleged flight 175? If so, let me know if that's the best way to ask it. For example: "Can a 767-200 perform a high speed sharp banked angle turn, while not drastically slowing down, particularly close to sea level, at say, 700 ft?"


That is fine. Thank you. Any commercial jetliner, with the 767 in particular, can apply to that question. It is a general question concerning maneuvering capablities of commercial jetliners. Of what are they capable? Of what are they not capable?



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Hey, Pilgrum

No, I wasn't going to let your point about 'rotation' get lost, I jsut forgot.

To OrionStars...

This is how we fly modern jets: We are now lined up on the runway, and have been cleared for take-off (I know, sounds silly, but that IS the terminology).

The PF (Pilot Flying) advances the throttles...we wait a bit to make sure all engines are 'spooling up' together, then we click on the Auto Throttle button, and our hand stays on the Thrust Levers as we allow the auto system to take over and bring the thrust up to the level calculated by the computers...at all times we have control!!

At my airline, the PF calls 'check power'. The NPF responds, 'set, X percentN1' (he announces the N1 value). The Non-Pilot Flying announces '100 knots'. (The engines MUST be stabilized at this point, or the take-off will be rejected. Also, this verifies that BOTH airspeed indicators are functioning, and in agreement).

Up to the call of "V1", the take-off can be aborted for any reason, at the discretion of the Captain. (because, regardless of the PF, the Captain has control of the throttles after the initial power is set, early in the take-off).

AFTER the 'V1' call, the take-off is committed. 'V1' is the 'decision speed', predicated on temp, altitude, runway length, and gross weight of the airplane. It is called, sometimes, a 'balanced field length' number, but that's old. Simply put, below that speed, there is sufficient runway ahead to make a successful stop in a rejected take-off. After that speed, you are committed, and even IF an engine fails, you are guaranteed aircraft performance and obstacle requirements are such that a successful take-off will be accomplished. This is engineered, and based on computer models. AND, there is usually a margin of error built in...

Back to the take-off...there is the 'V1' call, and the next speed, already calculated back at the gate even before we taxiied out, as all of these numbers are, the Vr, or 'rotate' speed. This is called by the NPF. This is when the PF begins back pressure on the controls to raise the nose at about 2 to 3 degrees per second...and the initial pitch attitude in this is about 15 degrees, nose up. Depending on the airplane, this has to be a fairly precise maneuver, since too rapid rotation would result in a 'tail strike'...and that is bad. Damages the airplane, naturally...and damages the reputation of the crew...and requires a return to the airport of departure, if the damage is severe enough to prevent pressurization, which is usually the case. (If the aft pressure bulkhead has been compromised...)

Adding...next is, announced by the NPF, 'positive rate' (he is looking at the IVSI, aka the Instant Vertical Speed Indicator) and the PF calls 'Gear Up'. The NPF then accomplishes the command, that is, he retracts the landing gear, using the landing gear lever...it's on the instrument panel.

Very shortly after this, the Tower tells the guys to 'contact departure', and this frequency has been pre-tuned already, since we got that in our pre-departure clearance info at the gate...so we flip the button to the new frequency, and say...XXX, XXX123 Heavy, out of a thousand, climbing to 4000...or whatever the initial altitude limits in the initial clearance were.

We verify, on initial contact, every time we change frequencies, what our altitude is. This tells the contoller that what he sees on his 'scope confirms the altitude we are really at. Make sense?






[edit on 7-2-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 

then why won't the FBI just release all of the security cam film that was confiscated from all the different cameras around the area that would have caught the image of the plane crashing into the pentagon? it's the questions not being answered that will keep this going. i lived through the JFK assasination...same crap...different decade. but you know what? nobody in government cares, mission accomplished, water under the bridge, the people have been fooled again. and since i can't anything to change it...i'm going to join the club by amassing all the money i can, and getting the hell out this country. it has turned into a cesspool of corruption and besides, money is the true freedom, and all this democratic crap is just the way to keep the masses in line. remember the old saying from a wealthy industrilist from a long time ago..."give the commoners just enough to keep them from stealing from me or killing me"


One thing I agree on is, I'm frustrated by the FBI's lack of sharing basic information with the public. That said, it's not exactly suspicious that they wouldn't. Since when did the FBI give a damn about the public? In addition, posters on 9/11 discussion boards often forget how few people question the Pentagon crash. The latest poll shows only 4.6% of the US pop believing in an inside job. Given this, why would the FBI feel compelled to cater to that sliver of the skeptical public representing 9/11 skepticism? Also, it's quite possible none of the videos they have would be any more useful, or have greater clarity, than what's already been released. Does anyone really think the FBI would have released any more videos even assuming no Grand Conspiracy? Of course they wouldn't have cared. So far from being suspicious, it's to be expected.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by L driver
I don't know why it's too bad. All it shows is that you can find pilots on both sides of the issue. I contend, based on my limited personal experience, that such pilots are in the minority.


Well you have a website just for pilots who are speaking out against the official story.

Also you have pilots like Jon Lear, who has 1 of the best avaition backgrounds.


Originally posted by L driver
One thing I agree on is, I'm frustrated by the FBI's lack of sharing basic information with the public.


Well the problem is that the FBI and FAA have been refusing to release information even with a FOIA request, and they do not give good reasons.



[edit on 7-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA1,

I have yet to go to the website you mention...I know which one you refer to.

As to Capt Lear...well, let's just say I didn't always get along with every pilot I flew with during my 30+ years...

(I never met John Lear, let me be clear. I just find some of his claims a bit 'out there'...my opinion...)

I believe I will take the challenge, and investigate the site you mentioned. Perhaps I will be educated, perhaps not. Either way, it should be enlightening....



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by L driver

The latest poll shows only 4.6% of the US pop believing in an inside job.


May I ask from where you got those poll numbers? Because the following websites have polls stating quite differently:

www.prisonplanet.com...


According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"

The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job.

A recent CNN poll found that the percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington rose from almost a third to almost half over the past four years. This latest poll shows that that figure has again risen exponentially and now stands at well over three quarters of the population.


If going to the website above, the links to the polls listed are on another page. Then there are these websites also saying quite differently:

www.zogby.com...

www.911truth.org...

www.globalresearch.ca...



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(I never met John Lear, let me be clear. I just find some of his claims a bit 'out there'...my opinion...)


Well even if you find some of his claims 'out there' you cannot dispute his aviation background.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

To OrionStars...

This is how we fly modern jets: We are now lined up on the runway, and have been cleared for take-off (I know, sounds silly, but that IS the terminology).


Is it all somehow different than the way they used to do that from when I first flew in a military cargo plane in the 1950s, until I last flew in commercial jetliner in 2003?



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA1,

No, I will NOT dispute Capt John Lear's aviation background. It is well documented, and indisputable.

Unfortunately, I cannot promote myself as an 'expert', if you wanna call it that, in aviation since I don't have a famous name, nor do I have a list of records in the Guiness Book...

I attempt to qualify myself, by posts...you can read many of them...where I can explain things that relate to flying airplanes that wouldn't be known or understood by someone who just uses Google or a PC flight simulator...

There is only so much that can be explained, in a written post, without benefit of visuals...and, while I like to educate, I am not here to do it as a full-time career...since this is pro-bono, as they say. (shout out to the Mods!)

My posts are my way of showing that I know what I am talking about. If you want more, then I guess I could photocopy my licenses as Capt Lear did...he has many, many more type ratings than I do, (because he had access, and money, to acquire them) He has lived a fuller life than I...heck, he's like 15 years older than me!! So one would expect that...

But, Capt Lear and I took very different paths. I flew for a major passenger airline for 22 years. Capt Lear flew L-1011s at a non-scheduled outfit that carried cargo...noting wrong with that, of course. I'm no better than anyone else, we all have to comply with FAR 121...

I got pretty far along, without a rich Dad...or a rich Dad's name...to propel me....



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by weedwhacker

To OrionStars...

This is how we fly modern jets: We are now lined up on the runway, and have been cleared for take-off (I know, sounds silly, but that IS the terminology).


Is it all somehow different than the way they used to do that from when I first flew in a military cargo plane in the 1950s, until I last flew in commercial jetliner in 2003?


OrionStars,

I have tried and tried to give you information. Now, you come along, and 'snip' a sentence or two out of a very long and informative post I wrote, in order to make another unrelated point?

On another thread, I have suffered a penalty...a Mod took 500 points away because I accused you of 'trolling' for points. Actually, I didn't accuse you, I just suggested the 'idea' of trolling...and this is because, no matter how hard I try, no matter how logical I write, it seems that whatever I say is ignored, and then nonsense is thrown back.

I have seen you do this repeatedly, not just to me, but to many others.

This is a prime example...I would invite all who are reading this now, to scroll up and see my original post, in its entireity, and see how the 'snip' by OrionStars was used to his advantage, while ignoring the rest of my post.

There should not be 'drama' in public at ATS, I know. But, there should be a level of scholarly discussion that is not subject to continued derailment....by certain members, who will not be named.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

OrionStars,

I have tried and tried to give you information. Now, you come along, and 'snip' a sentence or two out of a very long and informative post I wrote, in order to make another unrelated point?


Because you start out with words I heard from the time time I was a child. And then proceed to address me as if I know nothing about what goes on at airports or with airplanes.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join