An UNMODIFIED Boeing 767 cannot fly @ 510 knots @ Sea Level. (hoax)

reply to post by InTheFlesh1980


Go to FDNY Ladder 10 and do your survey....

So it seems that airspeed of the planes is the new thing to try to say is the reason that 9/11 could not have happened. It was the collapse for years but the truthers had to move on.

WTC 1 hit at @ 440 mph, the WTC 2 was hit at over 580 mph. Why were they not both going the same speed? Can anyone answer that one? Because one came in over the city straight on and the other was in a major decent. He was going so fast he almost missed it. Watch the video...he was hauling ass...



Typical cruise is about 520-540 mph so enough already with the numbers game...just look at simply facts. Simple facts folks...

What i find funny, is that most people who will tell you to "get a grip" and "stop being silly" actually don't involve themselves in any way with any view of the incident, or familiarise themselves with basic research.

People who do their research and align with the official story should theoretically be such a small minority, that they would be the ones worried to voice their opinions - worried about being critisized.

However, the general population who accept the official story continue to downplay the biggest attack on the home land of the largest superpower, as if it's not really an issue worth debating, while maintaining the ABSOLUTE view that it was a genuine attack - sort of like nodding your head and signing a contract without reading anything, because all the small writing "must be relevant to my interests...".

Moreover, those with informed beliefs usually show a bit of humility and refrain from the immature "you're stupid" posts.



Tldr: Sheep

kix
The 767 manual states very clearly this maximum speeds and curves related to altitude and barometric pressures, any pilot who pushes the aircraft beyond these published VMAX are just trying to commit suicide.

OK.

And the 9/11 pilots weren't?

ETA... a 17,000ft/minute drop isn't severe just because the engines were throttled back? We're being told the airframe can't stand such stresses at 4800 ft a minute?

reply to post by choos

choos

i dont get this..

mach 0.86 at 23000 feet is eas of 360

but mach 0.86 at 1000 feet is eas of 559..

and saying Vd is 420 knots.. but at what altitude?? 420 knots eas at 40000ft is a markedly different mach number than 420 knots eas at sea level..

from what i understand most of the buffeting and damage comes from the shockwaves of near and breaking the sound barrier.

Turns out that Mach .86 at 1000 feet has an EAS of 559 is about right (I'm still learning this stuff and have been gathering much if not almost all my information from professional pilots with whom i'm consulting).

But 559 at sea level, you see, is the equivalent of 792 knots or Mach 1.30 at 22,000 feet.

Remember, EAS is a sea level airspeed. It is the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure as the true airpseed of an aircraft at altitude.

Do you think a 767 can travel at 792 knots or Mach 1.30 at 22,000 feet?



in answer to your next question, i addressed it here (below), as to your statement about buffeting and damage arising almost exclusively from the transonic effects of neat Mach 1.0 flight, that's mistaken, as the phenomenon of flutter is a function of airspeed and aerodynamic pressures, which can just as easily take place at lower altitude should the airspeed exceed the Vd limit by any appreciable margin within the order of 5 or maybe 10 knots, although it cannot be exceeded at all without running the risk of failure, whereby we have the south tower plane clocked at NINETY knots over it's Vd limit and 150 knots over it's VMO although it's the Vd limit which is the crucial threshold
that must be factored.

NewAgeMan

Altitudes for Vd is listed in the Boeing 767 Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS). 420 knots Vd is from sea level to about 18,000 feet.. then .91 Mach above 23,000 feet.. linear variation between those points, whereby you may note from the Airbus380 flutter test example from the OP that in that case the Vd/Md of Mach .96 was at a ceiling of about 38,000 feet.

You're right..it can't fly....it crashed

Flatcoat
reply to post by bbracken677

 

Under no circumstances is Mach 1 at sea level under 500 mph or knots, let alone 411? Really? We would be hearing sonic booms continually if that were true. Another case of building an argument on false data (scuse me...BS data)

I was under the impression that the most important factor here is air density, not whether the aircraft achieved mach speeds or not. Lower altitudes means denser air thus reducing maximum safe airspeeds the lower you descend.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that mach speeds had been reached. In fact the paragraph was written based on a misunderstanding of data I went back and looked at as presented by another member. I misread the 411 knots as representing mach 1, or rather .86xmach1. Such was not the case. The 411 was the maximum airspeed of the craft at or near sea level.

My point, regarding my whole post, was that the speeds reported as well as the so-called "max" of .86 x mach 1 were consistent and not impossible. I still maintain that.

Aircraft maintenance (and operation) is solely based on staying safe. If a particular part (say a generator) is rated for an overhaul at 1000 hours, then that 1000 hours is a very safe number and does not even approach the actual expectation one would reach if, for example, the part was for a car which we would leave the part on until it failed.

Same with regards to structural parts that are replaced based on a schedule. To exceed the limits, in terms of speed, of the craft's rating is to stress the craft's components to levels where the scheduled maintenance no longer applies....something that a commercial airline (and the FAA) would severely frown upon. It does not, necessarily, mean that the craft would break apart but rather that hazardous conditions which could result in failure of components resulting in a crash.

If an airline pilot were to exceed the craft's safe limits while in a maneuver of some kind, the craft would have to be taken out of operation for an indefinite period of time in order to inspect and replace, as needed, the components most likely to be stressed by the maneuver.

In one breath I read someone remark or question why, given their mission, would they take such risky maneuvers to reach their goal, and then in the next breath claim that they were amateurs and would be incapable of performing such maneuvers. Perhaps Occam's razor applies in that they just didnt know that they were exceeding safety limits. Perhaps the 3 successes were merely a testament to the abuse the planes could take and continue to fly.

Perhaps had the planes been landed safely after the maneuvers they would have been junked haha

I wasn't there...so I really do not know. I do know that, on the one hand, it doesn't take much to down a plane, but on the other, planes have been known to land safely after taking damage well exceeding what would be thought to be their limits.

miniatus
These posts will keep coming until the end of time... happy almost 2014... 9/11 conspiracies will never die

Because everything that is causing us so much ire stems from this day and until we reach a conclusion we can all live with we will not have peace.

reply to post by neformore



You are confusing rate of decent with airspeed or TAS.

The EA flight defended from cruise and United flew quite a while at lower than 10k feet.... different scenarios.

Most airliners will withstand a lot of abuse, but in my view that 767 takes the cake, maybe it survived but if I had to guess Id say NO exceeding VMAX for more than 50 knots is in most cases cause for breakup.

Phage
reply to post by jhn7537

 

I don't find ignorance amusing.

Phage, now you know that ignorance is bliss..., Thomas gray.....

The Bot

NewAgeMan
Here's the calculater

www.luizmonteiro.com...

420 knots (EAS) is the Vd limit according to wind tunnel and flight testing for the Boeing 767.

425 knots at Sea Level is an equivalent airspeed (EAS) of about .99-1.0 Mach, at 22,000 feet.

VD is the max design dive speed, so at what speed does the wings come off?

bbracken677
To exceed the limits, in terms of speed, of the craft's rating is to stress the craft's components to levels where the scheduled maintenance no longer applies....something that a commercial airline (and the FAA) would severely frown upon. It does not, necessarily, mean that the craft would break apart but rather that hazardous conditions which could result in failure of components resulting in a crash.

If an airline pilot were to exceed the craft's safe limits while in a maneuver of some kind, the craft would have to be taken out of operation for an indefinite period of time in order to inspect and replace, as needed, the components most likely to be stressed by the maneuver.

\

That is what most thinking people realise, however truthers somehow believe that the plane will fall apart as soon as that speed is reached.... plane is flying along close to that speed, it hits a 20mph wind gust, plane flies apart! Really crazy thinking!

kix
reply to post by neformore

 

You are confusing rate of decent with airspeed or TAS.

The EA flight defended from cruise and United flew quite a while at lower than 10k feet.... different scenarios.

Most airliners will withstand a lot of abuse, but in my view that 767 takes the cake, maybe it survived but if I had to guess Id say NO exceeding VMAX for more than 50 knots is in most cases cause for breakup.

VMO is about 400 MPH at sea level. VNE (VMAX) has never been posted, but it would be about 30% higher, so basically a 767 can exceed 500 MPH at sea level and not breakup.

WWJFKD

miniatus
These posts will keep coming until the end of time... happy almost 2014... 9/11 conspiracies will never die

Because everything that is causing us so much ire stems from this day and until we reach a conclusion we can all live with we will not have peace.

How can everyone in the fullness of time and history agree on what is quite obviously in self evident terms, a Big Lie and a murderous hoax perpetrated to realize a policy objective, as a false flag, black-op spy-op, who's cunning genius nevertheless contained embedded within itself it's eventual downfall in light of observation in accord with the basic laws of physics, both in regards the the destruction of the twin towers (and building 7), AND, as it turns out the plane's rate of speed and maneuvering, which we can then see very clearly was the intended apparent causal mechanism of the destruction of first the south tower, which although hit later was impacted further down, and then, as if by some sort of magic, the north tower also, in precisely the same way about a half hour after that.

Taking BOTH events together then, running the tape back and what do we see with these planes?

Stay tuned... more to follow.


i will be addressing every objection that's been raised here, in as clear and concise a manner as i can muster.


Best Regards, and HAPPY NEW YEAR one and all, may it be a good one all 'round.


P.S. It would be sure nice to put this entire historical fiasco and nightmare behind us, and since it has no value and no more power to mold, seer or shape policy or history, based in a proof comprised of nothing but physical reality i.e.: truth, why then that's good news as a starting point isn't it, in a tragic and sorrowful manner on the other side of which resides all happiness for mankind, and peace and spiritual tranquility.

We can't move forward on this thing until it's recognized and professed for what it really is and represents, in hindsight, and the victims deserve so much more than the quicksand quagmire or apex of hypocrisy (pick either) that we've been given and have seen in the wake of 9/11.

This info ought to evoke some very deep scrutiny, on the part of many, in all spheres and walks of life no matter their "station", but it really cuts to the very heart of the degree and level of corruption and abuse of power that represents the entire historical causation of that day, to this day... God and people willing a new day, which will allow us to move forward while also doing some major work of forgiveness of ignorance, and insanity.

The OS cannot be believed. It would defy all reason and logic in the face of the actual occurrence and phenomenon under observation.

9/11, who did it?

Who benefits?

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Nobody cares man! All the evidence is there. You people just dont have what it takes to seek justice. Just admit it! Do you reaaally think a few more peaces of evidence will make a difference? Do you think those evidences are needed as "proof"?!
Its over! The population is under hypnoze and they love it.
Thing is, some people still seek the truth, pointing all evidence at a group of criminals..but the truth is all evidence needed is there. You who let them do this are the criminals, you are paying a fair price, your freedom is taken and you fracking love it.

NewAgeMan
The OS cannot be believed. It would defy all reason and logic in the face of the actual occurrence and phenomenon under observation.

According to truthers it is much better to believe in modified planes, silent explosives, nanoo nanoo thermite, holographic planes, beam weapons, a substituted plane, drones, using tanker aircraft that did not even exist at the time, planes filled with incendiaries, a plane carrying a flame throwing device...,

Boeing also does not recommend that you roll a 707, but it most assuredly can be done:

hellobruce

NewAgeMan
The OS cannot be believed. It would defy all reason and logic in the face of the actual occurrence and phenomenon under observation.

According to truthers it is much better to believe in modified planes, silent explosives..

reply to post by maxella1

Here's a couple more dealing with the first hand accounts.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by maxella1
What would they (rescue workers at Ground Zero) find in the wreckage if bombs were?

Active thermitic material, and high temperatures.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
from www.benthamscience.com...

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
(pdf) www.journalof911studies.com...

Additional research also worthy of evaluation

The Journal of 9/11 Studies

"History is nothing but assisted and recorded memory. It might almost be said to be no science at all, if memory and faith in memory were not what science necessarily rest on. In order to sift evidence we must rely on some witness, and we must trust experience before we proceed to expand it."
~ George Santayana


"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
~ George Santayana, 1863-1952

The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to [the] notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.'

Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."

~ Philip D. Zelikow, 9/11 Commission Chairman

www.abovetopsecret.com...

defcon5

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

RNZAF 757 high speed low pass, 500knots at 50m...

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Can you validate the velocity of this aircraft, in your video?