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.

 

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

page: 11
95
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Boilers explode, so does reinforced concrete when it breaks. People hearing explosions is not unexpected in an event like this. Here is just a small reinforced concrete block being slowly stressed to fracture:




posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Well I see you are back at it,with innuendos and sarcasm and not a drop of TRUTH.

Here's are a few things for you to have fun with...


1) How do the building fall at free fall speed???
2) What happened to Building 7 that was not hit by the planes.
3) What caused the 3 weeks of unbelievable temperatures in the base of the 2 buildings?
4) The nano thermite residue that was found, where did it come from?
5) Why do the areas hit correspond exactly with the floors that had special maintenance in the months before?

Here I know someone who has this all wrapped up for you.....

www.devvy.com...



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by seasoul
 


Are you asking if planes slow down in a dive because the air gets denser?
No they don't slow down, that is why we used to use dive bombing against enemy ships in WWII. The inertia of the diving aircraft was passed to the bomb allowing it to penetrate structure that it would otherwise be unable too.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the Twin Towers, said: “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running” (Williams, 2001)

From here: www.911review.com...

How does 700 degree fire suddenly start melting steel and have it in molten state for 21 days??

From here: 911research.wtc7.net...
edit on 0pmETuesdayv0504 by LaElvis because: spelling state



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


For all the Non Truthers....take the Devvy Kidd challenge....watch this with an open mind and then debunk the findings of scientists and engineers from around the World who didn't have the U S Government threatening them while they decided during the staged 911 Commission Hearings! BTW 75% of those same people now would like to reopen it with ALL the NEW and HIDDEN at that time EVIDENCE!!

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


For all the Non Truthers....take the Devvy Kidd challenge....watch this with an open mind and then debunk the findings of scientists and engineers from around the World who didn't have the U S Government threatening them while they decided during the staged 911 Commission Hearings! BTW 75% of those same people now would like to reopen it with ALL the NEW and HIDDEN at that time EVIDENCE!!

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   

defcon5
reply to post by seasoul
 


Are you asking if planes slow down in a dive because the air gets denser?
No they don't slow down, that is why we used to use dive bombing against enemy ships in WWII. The inertia of the diving aircraft was passed to the bomb allowing it to penetrate structure that it would otherwise be unable too.


No, I'm asking if you can validate that the subsonic aircraft in your video is actually pushing 500 knots at sea level?

"If a Boeing is going 500 knots at sea level they estimate that the additional thrust to make the craft go 150 knots over its max operating speed at sea level would have an equivalent air speed of over mach 1 at high altitude."

read more: www.physicsforums.com...

At sea level 500 knots is roughly equivalent to 75% the speed of sound ( i.e. mach 1 ).

source: www.grc.nasa.gov...

Can a subsonic structural design with full fuel and occupant loads, travel at near supersonic speed and withstand the applied forces?



edit on 31-12-2013 by seasoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   

LaElvis
1) How do the building fall at free fall speed???


Oh dear, you have not even read this thread, no one claims the buildings fell at free fall speed - so why claim they did?


2) What happened to Building 7 that was not hit by the planes.


It was severely damaged by the collapse of the North Tower.


3) What caused the 3 weeks of unbelievable temperatures in the base of the 2 buildings?


What makes you claim the temperatures were "unbelievable"?


4) The nano thermite residue that was found, where did it come from?


no nano thermite was found - why claim it was?



5) Why do the areas hit correspond exactly with the floors that had special maintenance in the months before?


They did not!

Again all you have are much debunked silly made up stories,, this time about 9/11!

So a missile hit the Pentagon, filled with 757 engines, 757 undercarriage, 757 seats, bodies from Flight 77, luggage from Flight 77, personal effects from passengers from flight 77 and it looked exactly like a 757 and was the same size as a 757!
edit on 31-12-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Guys this thread has a TOPIC.

Can we actually stick to it please?



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   

defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


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

The 767 is essentially the same aircraft with a slightly larger fuselage.
Just because the manufacturers don't recommend that you do something does not mean that the aircraft will suddenly fall apart because you exceed the specs. Aircraft exceed their specs all the time with no harmful results.


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


So .... some anonymous person on the Youtubes named "roderm" claims the low-speed pass was at 500 knots and you automatically believe it?

I thought "truthers" were the only ones accused of blindly supporting anything they see on the 'Youtubes'..

That 757 wasn't likely flying more than 350 knots.. .the Vmo of the aircraft, and was probably going 300-325 knots.

Please provide an official source claiming that aircraft was traveling at 500 knots (not some kid on YouTube)... preferably from the RNZAF. Thanks.


Edit: And lo and behold what do we have here? Google is my friend.

rnzaf.proboards.com...


rnzaf.proboards.com...

---------
falcon124
Leading Aircraftman

A friend was wondering how fast the RNZAF 757 is going during its high-speed pass at airshows (as per this YouTube video):

He was wondering about 250kts but I thought it was more like 300-350kts. Does anyone here know what speed the guys are doing?

Aside from videos on the 'net, I've seen the display at a few Avalon Airshows and it always looks & sounds fantastic!
------------

Barnsey
Group Captain

A compatriot was the guy that helped develop the display, and I seem to remember him saying they did it at Vmo, which I understand is around 340kts.

rnzaf.proboards.com...


Also from the RNZAF thread....


"I was the captain of that particular shot, filmed during a Squadron open-day a couple of years ago. It's part of a routine that has been performed over thirty times at various airshows and practices around the world including RIAT Fairford 2003, Kemble 2006, RAF Waddington 2006, Warbirds Over Wanaka 2004, Avalon 2005.

The low pass is flown into wind at 350 knots (indicated) and 100 feet above the runway. It's a 2g pull up to between 45 and 55 degrees nose up pitch (although there has been higher) and the zoom climb ends at an altitude between 8000 and 10000 feet depending on the type of pull up used. The sequence does not end with a loop as some of the readers speculate, but in fact with a 60 degree wingover at around 220 knots. It is easily possible to enhance this maneouver with a steeper climb and bank but there is no need - it is spectacular already, and safe."


I am not the one attempting to mislead anyone here by making shrill and unsupported claims simply to try to be right.

There's way too much at stake here in regards to this issue, for that kind of nonsense, which would be insulting and almost abhorrent to the intellect, and rational faculty and evaluative skill level, of the readers who can usually tell and differentiate between the two.

Sorry for the little rant, but i find this kind of thing, in relation to an issue of this magnitude, to be well.... let's just leave it at that, but it's certainly not the kind of thing that i would have any interest in being a part of or participating actively in, and neither do i have any interest in bearing false witness.

This is a very serious matter by far too serious to employ such tactics.


Happy New Year (in spite of it all),

NAM


edit on 31-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


And yet it was traced on radar from the time it was loaded with passengers and flew into the tower...



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

wrkn4livn
reply to post by Phage
 


DON'T HOLD YOU BREATH.

There IS none. I'm sure there is a speed where an aircraft (767) will break apart but i doubt that 510 knots it it. Probably close to 800-900. But then, you'll probably see the motor's come off first, not the fuselage break up. There is a certain amount of safety thats build in to allow the aircraft to exceed the "normal' limits of the frame. Like a submarine. It's built for a "MAX" depth but can go deeper. It just has a greater risk of implosion past a certain depth.

There is a report of the PSA 737 breaking up when it crashed in San Lois(sp) Obispo (the PSA flight that was brought down by a disgruntled employee as it broke the sound barrier on the way down (720+).

I'm sure that a 767, full throttle, could go 510+ without breaking up, at street level.

The "9/11'ers" will never be satisfied that a bunch of religious fanatics caused the crashes. Did the the US know it was coming? Well, they for sure had info that Al Qaida wanted to use airplanes as weapons. Did they do anything about it? NO.
Just like the Brits new Japan was going to attack the Hawaiian islands but they didn't tell the US? NO! Cause they NEEDED us in the war or they were going to be over run by the Nazi's.

Was it missiles? NO. It was airplanes. With people on board who were ALL killed (I knew one of them). No, they are not held in some "camp". They are all dead and the parts they could find are buried.

We have more pressing things to worry about like how quickly TPAB are taking away our civil liberties.

edit on 30-12-2013 by wrkn4livn because: spelling fix


your right second the aircrafts frame is not rated by speed. The airframe will go as fast as the engines can push it or gravity small joke there. Any way an airframe is measured by how many gs it is capable of handling before its wings snap off. As far as breaking the sound barrier its not hard for any commercial aircraft to do pilots just dont fly that way. For example P 51 mustangs yes the one with the propeller was able to break the sound barrier in a dive. Pilots learned this while fighting japanese zeros. Your speed will allways increase on descent and decrease on ascent. Thata why a 767 trying to get to cruising altitude cant get much past 200 knots. Also manufacturers set the limits of the aircraft even though the engines are capable of a certain amount of thrust it is not allowed and certain altitudes.This is set by manufacturer test pilots it says as long as you stay in this range its safe no problems handling the aircraft. I believe the top speed of a 767 is rated at 560 knots this means the test pilots exceeded that by about ten percent. Since its never safe to take an aircraft full throttle.
edit on 12/31/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


0 for 5 I even gave you the links to find the answers...LOL

1) You love literal....the 911 Commission said it took about 10 seconds....Here's the refuting of that and all the Government theories...Free fall for a billiard ball in a vacuum is 9.22 seconds....

Case 1: Free-fall time of a billiard ball dropped from the roof of WTC1, in a vacuum Top
Let's consider the minimum time it would take the blue billiard ball to hit the pavement, more than 1/4 mile below (see below). Start the timer when the ball is dropped from the roof of WTC1. We'll assume this is in a vacuum, with no air resistance. (Note, large chunks of the building will have a very low surface area-to-mass ratio, so air resistance can be neglected.)

From the rooftop of WTC1, drop one (dark-blue) billiard ball over the edge. As it falls, it accelerates. If it were in a vacuum, it would hit the pavement, 1368 feet below, in 9.22 seconds, shown by the blue curve in the figure, below. It will take longer if air resistance is considered, but for simplicity, we'll neglect air resistance. This means that the calculated collapse times are more generous to the official story than they need to be.
(Click on image to enlarge.)

Figure 1. Minimum Time for a Billiard Ball dropped from the roof of WTC1 to hit the pavement below, assuming no air resistance.

Notice that the billiard ball begins to drop very slowly, then accelerates with the pull of gravity. If in a vacuum, the blue ball will hit the pavement, 1368 ft. below, 9.22 seconds after it is dropped. That is, unless it is propelled downward by explosives, it will take at least 9.22 seconds to reach the ground (assuming no air resistance).


The rest can be found here....drjudywood.com...

2) No that was what the Government said...it had very little damage and fire and was further away yhan many other buildings....it was PULLED, the term used for a controlled demolition!!

www.debunking911.com...

Here's a book on it...www.amazon.com...=la_B000APTCK4_1_10/175-5334802-2260107?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1387663 793&sr=1-10

3) I showed you this....MOLTEN STEEL...Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the Twin Towers, said: “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running” (Williams, 2001)

NIST claims, reached 1832°F
From here www.911review.com...

4) Nano thermite was indeed found in the rubble, which by the way should have been treated as EVIDENCE and not shipped out of the country to be melted as quick as possible.

Mark Basile, B.S,CH.E Chemical Engineer:
I have independently seen thermitic activity within two separate independent samples of World Trade Center dust.
thewe.cc...

Nano-thermite
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A Nano-thermite or "super-thermite"[1] is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 100 Nanometers. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as for general applications involving propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

What distinguishes MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium, are in the form of extremely fine powders (nanoparticles). This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reactions become kinetically controlled and proceed much more quickly.
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe www.benthamscience.com...

5) There are multiple places that have this information with pictures.
www.newswithviews.com...

And even on here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 0pmETuesdayv3107 by LaElvis because: Added link to thread on ATS

edit on 0pmETuesdayv4323 by LaElvis because: Added more on Nano-Thermite



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Well the problem is people want to debate on whether an aircraft can do 500 miles per hour and not who were the true masterminds behind the hijackers. It is great that we will debate whether there was detonations, alien death ray, different aircraft etc, but in the end none of it focuses on who were the puppeteers. I'm sure they are most happy that we stay in this stupid quagmire of a debate of how the buildings came down and not the why or who.





edit on 31-12-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


So getting to the MEAT of the 9/11 Conspiracy is off topic??? I view any comments pertaining 9/11 as discussion on the subject. The planes are the official cause, I say it was only a distraction!

Have you ever heard of slight of hand??

The subject is 9/11 Conspiracies, and the title say 9/11 Truths.

edit on 0pmETuesdayv4059 by LaElvis because: Added last sentence.

edit on 0pmETuesdayv4913 by LaElvis because: Added last sentence.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


According to Official Story believers.

Bin Laden did it there were no 9/11 Conspiracies. Fires brought all down the towers end of story.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 





The 9/11 truthers pretty much lost me when they got caught with their hands in their pants early on showing misleading pictures and presenting falsified data to prove their theories. The pics of the pentagon taken from behind a rise (very small knoll?) that conveniently excluded wreckage of the plane and claimed: Where is the wreckage?


As for the pentagon plane i am still waiting to see if it was an actual Boeing airliner that actual struck at pentagon with that kind of flying speed.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
So .... some anonymous person on the Youtubes named "roderm" claims the low-speed pass was at 500 knots and you automatically believe it?

Unless the commentator is lying this old B727 is doing 390knots in this video:


here is another 757 at 450+ knots:



I wrote the owner of this video. (757 low pass) A aeronautical video company in new zealand, we discussed it, and we both came up with 450 + in level flight as a minimum.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Egypt Air 990 (EA990) achieved a maximum speed during an uncontrolled descent, of .99 Mach at about 22,000 feet altitude, and eventually lost it's engine (structural failure) nearer to sea level (as the engine was found about 1200 meters from the main crash area) - at about 425 knots.

Ref: www.ntsb.gov...


edit on 31-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by LaElvis
 


What does molten steel have to do with the collapse since steel becomes soft at 538°C (1,000°F) or in other wards takes little force to bend and shape this is how they make swords. As far as nano thermite there is no such animal. you can have micro particles such as aluminum. But there is no such thing as nano thermite hasnt been invented yet. But by all means show me a lab where they pulled this wonder of science at? And even if you could why would you bother it be hugely expensive to make thousands of dollars per ounce and weeks at a lab. Easier just to make thermite can do that in your garage.
edit on 12/31/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join