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.

 

Flight 175; The Impossible Speed

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The claim was sourced earlier in this thread and the information is from Capt. Gordon Wilson, Aeronautical Engineer and Aviation Consultant.


Gordon Wilson is not a member of P4T or their forum as you claimed in this thread. Please stop spreading disinfo about Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

Edit to Add: My apologies if i missed it. But could you please link to the specific quote from "Gordon Wilson" in this thread where he claims an aircraft at altitude can maintain the same 500 mph speed near sea level?




Originally posted by RockHound757
BoneZ, keep it up. You'll only bury yourself deeper into the discredited hole.

I don't think I have to worry about that.


Ignorance is bliss i suppose....


[edit on 28-3-2009 by RockHound757]




posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
"Gordon Wilson" isnt even listed at Patriots


Wow....



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by RockHound757
 


BoneZ, keep in mind, if UA175, a 767-200, cannot obtain such a speed, it doesnt automatically mean that "no plane" hit the WTC. It only means that once again what we've been told by our govt has been proven to be a lie...


If a Boeing 767 cannot exceed its 360 knot maximum operating speed, as you claimed in another thread, then what hit World Trade Center 2?



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
If a Boeing 767 cannot exceed its 360 knot maximum operating speed, as you claimed in another thread, then what hit World Trade Center 2?

Who knows what hit?

I've not yet seen any evidence that identifies any airplane hitting WTC 2. Once we get some part numbers to identify the scrap wreckage, then we may be on to something, right?

[edit on 28-3-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


I'm not sure where 360 knots came from because the 767-200's cruising speed at 35,000 feet is 470 knots and it's max cruising speed at 35,000 feet is 493 knots. And it could easily have been doing at or near that speed as it plowed into the south tower.

More than likely there were no passengers in those planes as there probably would've been body parts scattered all over the streets below along with the plane parts.

The last FAA data showed alleged FL.175 at 31,000 feet within 60-80 miles of NYC and turning towards NYC. Plenty of time and descent to get up to and maintain 470+ kts. before slamming into the south tower.

Nice pic of the A-10, by the way.


[edit on 28-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
If a Boeing 767 cannot exceed its 360 knot maximum operating speed, as you claimed in another thread,


I said that? I dont believe i did. Matter of fact, i believe i said it can. And is the reason you fail to source such a claim.

Poor form as usual Boone.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Who knows what hit?


It certainly looks like a Boeing 767-200.




Would you agree?



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
It certainly looks like a Boeing 767-200.
Would you agree?

I don't know what hit, I wasn't there to see it.

If it looks like a Boeing 767-200, then you'll be able to show me that the alleged wrecked parts are from a Boeing 767-200, more specifically UA 175?



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by Boone 870
 


I'm not sure where 360 knots came from


Need to talk to a 767 pilot? Email Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

Until then, click here and here.

Need a 767 manual to verify? Try ebay.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Good luck on that. We're all waiting for that. It was a 767-200 that hit, but FL.175, probably not.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
It certainly looks like a Boeing 767-200.


It certainly does.

What type engines can you see there? Are they Derated? Are they modified? Any extra vortex gens to prevent boundry layer seperation at high speed? What is CG, What is Weight? What is Mcrit? How many secondary flight control surfaces operating? How many IAC's on board compensating for speed excessive of Vmo? What is exact true airspeed? Can you see that in those photos?

Boone, you are another who is lost.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Good luck on that. We're all waiting for that. It was a 767-200 that hit, but FL.175, probably not.


Care to debate a real pilot head to head regarding such a claim?

Nah.. .you already have shown you prefer to ignore qualified experts and prefer to defend JREFers.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by RockHound757]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by RockHound757
 




originally posted by RockHound757
A 767-200? Highly unlikely. Boeing refuses to provide wind tunnel data according to Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Boeing places limits on aircraft for a reason. 767-200 Max operating is 360 knots. Period. Link



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


I can't believe the co-founder of P4T would make such a mistake as that.

Good find Boone!


[edit on 28-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by RockHound757
 




originally posted by RockHound757
A 767-200? Highly unlikely. Boeing refuses to provide wind tunnel data according to Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Boeing places limits on aircraft for a reason. 767-200 Max operating is 360 knots. Period. Link


Boone,

Actual critical thinkers dont place all their eggs all in the photo basket if you havent noticed.

"A stock 767-200? Highly unlikely."

I fixed the above quote with a bolded word. Capsice? Perhaps not.

Boone, we already know that anything the govt tells you, you take at face value and gospel. But the facts remain, Boeing sets speed limitations on their aircraft for a reason. Its not due to service life.

Anytime you would like to point out the various possible modifications for a 767-200 that can be seen in your photo to obtain such speed, please.. feel free. Im sure im not the only one waiting.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Hell yeah, I've suggested this before with the planes. and The cause of collapse could easily be pin pointed if only the impact areas are restructured. I would like to know if the fires were steady on the inside because I completely missed the raging fires seeping through to the outside of all 3 NYC buildings. The FBI,FEMA, CIA or whoevers in charge can take a lesson from the Forensic Scientists on basic cable.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Who knows what hit?


It certainly looks like a Boeing 767-200.




Would you agree?




Why do you post photo shop/fake pictures, posing it as to be genuine?

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by D.Duck
 


I'd like to see a full, detailed analysis that proves this picture to be faked.

Thanks.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by RockHound757
 




Boone,

Actual critical thinkers dont place all their eggs all in the photo basket if you havent noticed.
Actual critical thinkers don't place all their eggs in the Vne/Mmo basket if you haven't noticed.



"A stock 767-200? Highly unlikely."

I fixed the above quote with a bolded word. Capsice? Perhaps not.
You didn't fix anything, you added stock to the quote which was not there originally. That is why I provided a link. I would've expected more discipline from a genius!



Boone, we already know that anything the govt tells you, you take at face value and gospel.
RockHound, we already know that you will dismiss and hand wave away anything that the government says simply because it does not perpetuate your theory.



But the facts remain, Boeing sets speed limitations on their aircraft for a reason. Its not due to service life.
I will consider this hearsay until you provide a source from Boeing.



Anytime you would like to point out the various possible modifications for a 767-200 that can be seen in your photo to obtain such speed, please.. feel free. Im sure im not the only one waiting.
Anytime you would like to point out where Boeing claims that a 767-200 would have to be modified in order to achieve a speed greater than Vne/Mmo, please... feel free. Hurry, aerospace engineers around the world are waiting!




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join