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: 14
95
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Asktheanimals
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I had typed up a long post containing many of the same themes you mention here and lost it, lol. Funny how some minds think alike especially regarding Zelikow, the public myth and it's transformative power. In short this was my lost post:

Before 9/11:
I believed that steel framed skyscrapers would rarely, if ever collapse due to fire.
I believed it would be a rare thing for any commercial airliner would be hijacked and used kamikaze style to attack a national landmark.
I believed even if they were hijacked our air defense system would have intercepted them.
I believed that no plane could fly over protected airspace and not be shot down by ground air defenses.

The 9/11 OS would have me suspend all those prior beliefs and many more.
Not only that but I would have to disregard all the evidence broadcast on the day of people hearing explosions going off or of crash sites where they could see no airplane wreckage of any kind.

Where you stand on 9/11 does indeed rest upon one's beliefs. From the day of 9/11 itself onwards I was unwilling to suspend my beliefs to accommodate the Commission Report.

I watched it all unfold that day as I was home sick. When I saw the 2nd plane hit the WTC I was incredulous that anyone could successfully hijack multiple airliners and hit their targets. But the when the Pentagon was hit my mind screamed BS! That cannot happen.
One tower disintegrating was unbelievable enough but then the 2nd tower went down and I knew this was no foreign entity attacking us, it could have only come from people inside our country. People with access to the buildings and to the air defense systems.

Over the following weeks I noticed as certain reports were never heard again and new stories inserted to contradict the earlier ones. It was pretty easy to tell someone was covering their ass especially when Bush and Cheney refused to be interviewed by the very commission they objected to having in the first place.

I am still incredulous the American people let the Bush administration off the hook and that NOBODY lost their job, nobody was demoted. In fact the OPPOSITE happened - people who could have stopped the attacks but didn't got PROMOTED. It didn't need to get any more in my face than that.

I am not willing to forgive the governments role in failure to stop the attacks.
I am not willing to forgive the creation of the PATRIOT ACT or DHS in the aftermath.
I am not willing to forgive our invasion of Iraq for any reason, They had no role in 9/11, did not harbor al Qaeda, did not have any weapons of mass destruction and did not want "Democracy" imposed on them.

They haven't done anything right since 9/11.
They have bankrupted our country, stolen the government, ruined our standing in the world, created a police state to control people who weren't even in rebellion and a long list of other stripping of our rights and freedoms - all in response to terrorists who attacked us because "they hate our freedoms". Bush was a terrible liar yet people could not shake the idea that people inside our own government could involved in something so horrible.

Our own government has taken our freedoms from us.
Nobody else.

Those who are willing to accept the OS of 9/11 must be willing to accept invading Iraq, Afghanistan, the PATRIOT ACT, the NDAA. It's a package deal folks. You're going to have to swallow the entire ball of # or reject it in it's entirety because all those things happened in reaction to 9/11.
What happened was a grab for empire and we failed miserably.
I cannot and will not live in Zelikow's transformative myth.
It was our acceptance of it that has led to our national downfall.
edit on 1-1-2014 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)


Yes, this is indeed very much worth quoting! Pretty much the whole salami is contained in this post, to anyone who hasn't been able to grasp the reality of it.




posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by spooky24
 


My problem with Dr. Zelikow, spooky, to whose credentials could be added modern day prophet/psychic, isn't his "pedigree" nor his intellect or even his apparent "genius", as a "historian", but how those things were put to use in helping to forge the very very bad policy, that the whole world and the American people fell victim to on 9/11 and in it's wake, as per his imagination, and if i'm right, which i am, sadly, his "prescience" (the fact of knowing something before it takes place; foreknowledge.) in imagining, 3 years prior, the "catastrophic and catalyzing, transformative event".

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As with Dick Cheney who led the PNAC think thank, which perfected the policy, hatched by Zelikow and others including Robert Gates in 'Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy' in it's now infamous document "Rebuilding America's Defences, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" where it's clearly stated, echoing Zelikow's prior work, “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event –– like a new Pearl Harbor" (51) - it's not hyperbole to say that there is much blood on his hands.


Regards, and Happy New Year,

NAM


edit on 1-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

NoRulesAllowed
The OP made a "scientifically looking" post claiming it was impossible that the plane couldn't have gone at that speed, implying (obviously) it was no plane but "something else" which obviously only he or the 9-11 "truth" people know.


That's pathetic! The OP implied nothing near that and you know it.

The plane could have been upgraded and/or electronically guided. If anything is being implied, it would be that.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

NewAgeMan
9/11 Planes: No Precedent in Modern Aviation History.



V-G Diagrams



And here is a more precise comparison of the 9/11 Aircraft with other known aircraft which suffered loss of control/structural failure, as it pertains to Vd.



V-G Diagrams


And this last one just for you, defcon5

reply to post by defcon5
 

RNZAF_757_CompareA1



should anyone wish to challenge the basis of this thread's OP, please point out specifically and precisely why and how the V-G graph is in error.

Otherwise, it's just opinion and hand waving that isn't even based in hard facts, but all manner of distortion, deflection and misinformation.

Regards,

NAM



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


soulwaxer

Yes, this is indeed very much worth quoting! Pretty much the whole salami is contained in this post, to anyone who hasn't been able to grasp the reality of it.


I'm not so sure i'd describe it in quite those same terms.. but that's the gist of it, in the post you quoted, yes.


Best Regards, God Bless, and Happy New Year to one and all.

NAM



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Bravo post . Bravo thread.

So i will be the first to say no planes. They preformed so outside the known limits

What kind of "modifications" besides hologram over missile would explain it?

Couple that with dustifying of the buildings they hit

Couple that with a few middle strikes at the pentagon and Pennsylvania.

And you have an attack ,but not just on us . It was a message to the world.

Get on board.

That's why no matter what we do or who se we elect the plan never changes

And hasn't since 9/11

Moving us in a direction of one world government.

Also think about tech since 9/11 and how it is allowing us all to be traced and tracked

But by who? I purpose an a.i.

It hijacked multiple missiles and black tech and sent its message

I am now in charge and you will get in line

And the world did

That or I'm crazed

Eta rest not at you nam

But

To say that any speak of no planes is nonsense is in itself nonsense when the only reason you have to say that is because your mind won't allow it

Once the impossible has been eliminated whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Happy New year
edit on 1-1-2014 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 




As to EA990, i replied to you directly, here, no side stepping. I pointed out it's greatest speed during the dive, .99 Mach, which was reached at an altitude of about 22,000 feet where the air is much thinner and that nearer to sea level it lost it's engine when it was at about 425 knots. Therefore it's hard for me to see precisely what you're having a problem with, or in understanding here.


My problem is this. EA 990 exceeded its V-G limits, dived horrendously, recovered and pulled up and then climbed.

You say that's not possible, because you say a plane can't exceed its V-G limits, and that it would break apart if it did so. Yet there is no evidence it did. The NTSB report implies it most certainly didn't.

So - given your premise that its not possible for a plane to exceed its V-G limits - how did it do it?



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


Thanks for the accolade, but that is most assuredly NOT what i am suggesting (no planes, video fakery, DEW, etc.), just to be clear. No need to reply, thanks for reading and for your kind words.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   

NewAgeMan

NewAgeMan
9/11 Planes: No Precedent in Modern Aviation History.



V-G Diagrams



And here is a more precise comparison of the 9/11 Aircraft with other known aircraft which suffered loss of control/structural failure, as it pertains to Vd.



V-G Diagrams


And this last one just for you, defcon5

reply to post by defcon5
 

RNZAF_757_CompareA1



should anyone wish to challenge the basis of this thread's OP, please point out specifically and precisely why and how the V-G graph is in error.

Otherwise, it's just opinion and hand waving that isn't even based in hard facts, but all manner of distortion, deflection and misinformation.

Regards,

NAM


The vg graph isnt in error i just think you dont know how to read it. First lets start with the easy stuff the g forces this is what this chart is telling us on the far left. How many negative or positive gs the aircraft can handle before it stalls. Seems to be missing the numbers but there standard 0 is center line in other words no wing stress. most comercial airlines are tested up to 3.8 gs just like in your diagram however that doesnt mean the plane cant exceed that just never tested.There not military aircraft and there would be no need to exceed 3.8 gs unless you were trying to crash the plane into a building i guess. Now another part of your graph this assumes the plane is at its maximum weight limit which they never do by the way. Now about structural failure in your diagram This could mean multiple things for example the aircraft wings will distort causing ductile failure this does not mean the plane will crash. It means for example the wing contorted allowing say a rivet to come loose. When they land the maintenance crew would have work to do.Its common for combat aircraft to exceed manufacturer limits but when you do its alot of added stress and guarantees sooner maintenance. Now as i said aircrafts very seldom lift off with maximum weight so you also have to realize this reduces wing stress meaning that yes the aircraft can go above manufacturer recommendations without any damage.So my question is was the aircraft fully loaded and if it was why was it because thats not done.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 



neformore

So - given your premise that its not possible for a plane to exceed its V-G limits - how did it do it?


The answer, is simple, straightforward and clear, nef, based on the OP, as presented.

By not exceeding the Vd/Md limit any no more than 5 knots/.07mach, and it did indeed suffer structural failure, nearer to sea level, losing an engine, at about 425 knots. Base on some hard maneuvering during the pilot and copilots fighting over the controls, feel free to add another 5 or 10 knots if you like, it's still a far cry away from being a full 90 knots in excess of the Vd of 420 knots.

Boeing 767 Vd/Md
Vd = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between points, based on Boeing 767 A1NM Type Certification Data Sheet (TCDS)

Again, please refer to the marker for EA990 on the graph, along with 3 additional precedents of near Mach flight at altitude, and don't forget about EAS whereby 425 knots, at or near sea level, is the equivalent airspeed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet.




posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Also, you might try reading the NTSB accident report itself, which was linked in my initial reply to you.

www.ntsb.gov...

It wasn't only the engine which was torn off, btw..


From the NTSB report -

"including portions of two wing panels, fuselage skin, horizontal stabilizer skin,and the majority of the nose landing gear assembly"


en.wikipedia.org...:Msr990-ntsb-f1.jpeg


EA990 reached a PEAK SPEED of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet.

I was mistaken, it appears, that the airplane experienced structural failure only at a lower altitude, in spite of the fact that the engine was found just over a kilometer away from the main crash site.

The NTSB does not know exactly when structural failure occurred, but it can be determined to have taken place when the FDR stopped recording which was right around 22,000 feet and .99 Mach. Again, .91 Mach is Md for the 767.

This is covered thoroughly in the video i posted on the first page, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack", where the peak speed reported for EA990 was used to compare to "UA175" in terms of EAS as that is the only way to make a comparison and determination as to the dynamic pressure limitation, Vd limit, which is 420 knots. With that said..

The difference between .91 Mach and .99 Mach at 22,000 feet is roughly 30 knots EAS.

You still have another 60 knots min., to go, you see, if you wish to make a realistic comparison to "UA175", but this is not the most accurate way to make such a comparison. as Vd is the limit after which structural failure becomes imminent, as can be seen for three of the four precedents indicated on the graph. Again EA990 experienced structural failure at .99 Mach and 425 knots EAS. So in terms of an accurate comparison reflective of equivalent airspeed (dynamic pressures on the airframe), it's probably more accurate to say that EA990 experienced structural failure at about 85 or even 90 knots LESS than the south tower plane was clocked at, when windspeed is also factored, producing a KCAS of 515 knots at 700 feet altitude, while in perfect control and precision maneuvering, even pulling a G force.

It is not merely the G force however, which is responsible for structural failure, but the dynamic air pressures involved which produce flutter. To suggest as much is misleading and i've encountered that rebuttal attempt before, which is a misrepresentation of the forces leading to structural failure.

The second "climb and dive" is only recorded by long range RADES radar (the transponder/FDR was not working at this time because the airplane was broken). RADES radar is not very accurate for determining altitude and the NTSB admits as such in their report.

Seven primary radar returns from the airplane were recorded during the second dive; the altitude estimates from these returns are subject to potentially large errors, which introduces significant uncertainty into the performance calculations during the second dive."

-----------

Hope that helps to clarify still further.

Best Regards,

NAM


edit on 1-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: slight edit for precision and clarity.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I think the tell tell sign that the two aircraft took down the towers no matter who were behind it is the simple fact that the south tower collapsed first even though it was hit after the north tower was hit.

This is not something that can be planned or orchestrated ahead of time. It truly shows that the dynamics of the events happened as we watched without the need or capabilities to use other methods.

Where the planes hit was a very random event that could not be planned or scripted. The north tower was hit with 19 floors above and slightly off center, and the south was hit with 30 floors above and dead center, so it actually collapsed first. The direct hit and more importantly the more weight above was the key to its quicker collapse, and after a couple of floors the collapse was near freefell speed with the huge amount of energy involved.

But once again this doesn't go down the path of who wanted it to happen in the first place....I think everyone should get over it and realize two planes took out the towers. At least then for those motivated can finally focus on the "who" and "why" and leave the "how" to rest.



edit on 1-1-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I'm kinda feeling Deja Vu here ...but isn't this discussion basically the very same that covered 34 pages of Hoax Bin material right up to a couple days ago?

Hoax Bin Thread

I'd followed that one with amusement from a distance and I've been a bit scarce here just recently for personal matters which drew me away, but I had to check titles to confirm this wasn't the same thread. The Title and Ops are different...but I guess I'm confused about what the discussion differs in for fundamentals?


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



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Was that really necessary, Wrabbit2000?

The difference is that i did not here speculate as to what the plane was, but have only proven what it could NOT have been, without at the same time employing a blurry photo or a grainy and blurry slo-mo video or any such thing.

The information deserved to see the light of day, and now it has.

Happy New Year,

NAM



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


It was a straight and legitimate question, Newageman.

Thanks for the reply....



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


It is very interesting to note, in light of the evidence presented here, that indeed the tower hit second, lower down, and across multiple floors.., went down FIRST, to within about 4-6 seconds of absolute free fall for any object if dropped through nothing but air alone, like a grand piano or a steel safe, with the north tower then following suit and doing the exact same thing, in the very same manner, a half hour later, from about the 95th floor. Play the tape back all the way through...

Why such speed? Phage asked, early in this thread, and the north tower plane was also running at a speed very close to it's Vd limit, albeit not 90 knots over Vd.

Think it through.. in light of all evidence, including that which reveals in rather self evident terms, that the twin towers did not really "collapse" at all but were and must have been brought down by explosives in a high precision engineered CD commencing at around the impact areas. Think it through, rolling the tape backwards and forwards through the actual occurrence of the events themselves as they actually happened, and not merely according to the a priori assumption of the OS.


kix

posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 



The problem with these 9/11 thread is that brainwashed people will never accept anything that contradicts the "oficial" story.

No matter your logic,the graphs, the twisted physics, they will always find something to hold on to.

Me as a person who happens to know a lot about statistics and probability, can and will acknowledge they the event of 9/11 could happen, YES but its possibility of happening is into the trillions, so I use occams razor and thing what is easier that some paper on fire and debris bring down a 57 story building by fire straight down, or was it demolished on purpose? what is the possibility of making maneuvers on a heavy (loaded with transcon fuel) 767 at over 500 knots and hitting a building with no breakup or mech failure TWICE ?

There a re a lot of small plot holes on the 9/11 agenda and the aircraft (all 4 involved) have its problems adhering to the official story, acknowledging them is a surefire way to dismantle the kool aid feed by the perpetrators.

No 767 can fly for that long at that speed while maneuvering period. either they would have broke apart, missed the target, both or simply crashed way before entering manhattan.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by kix
 


Yes it is glaringly true, and was the impetus for me to wake up, and even take why this event happened to levels of realization that this was a ritual that is much more far reaching into the consciousness of the planet, and BEYOND that most cannot even begin to think about.

The brainwashing was completed on that day, all the work being done to influence the "free thinkers" or the supposedly free was taken up 3 notches and perfectly, knowingly done.

NoRulesAllowed said it well, he can actually accept the scenes of the tower exploding thousands of times more fiercely than any collapsing could EVER produce, because the compartmentalized mind is not ALLOWED to reason with itself beyond its received, and NOT received programming.

It is too bad for one such as myself, that I can take these arguments to levels that literally no one else will dare.

And that even gets NAM mad at me for stating, such as errr, just who is this "Christ" and what is its involvement in this matter.

But subconsciously the silly comments of HelloBruce back this up, most people have no idea that they are stringing there own logic together in ways that actually add up to nothing.

Phage is the most talented at getting close to the truth, and even he has realize that the incredulousness he is holding onto to stay with official sources is wearing thin, and that mathematics.

It is telling indeed when scientists change the methods of finding there own results completely had to change to even REMOTELY try and fit this event together and try to present it to the tortured masses they needed to convince.

Luckily for them, the pre-calculations of all levels of consciousness had been done, the sacrifice put its seal on the foreheads, and now we stand alone, literally.

We have the deniers, many camps of these, and the truthers, many camps of these.

And then we have those in the know, who see the play unfolding.

But then there are others, who are seeing the ENTIRE play,

"On Earth, As it is in HEAVEN".


edit on 1-1-2014 by ParasuvO because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Ron Burgundy
"Anchorman 2"


"Why are we stuck with telling Americans what they "need" to hear? Why can't we just tell them what they "want" to hear?"


Ignorance is truly bliss.

Terrorist main goal - Change the political framework of the target government.
Proper response to Terrorism - Defy desire to change thereby taking power from terrorist to act further.

If you get bullied don't let on that the bully is getting to you - bullying loses it worth (entertainment)

Sorry a little too much common sense I guess.

Instead we get - "Never let a good crisis go to waste"




edit on 1-1-2014 by WWJFKD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by kix
 



The problem with these 9/11 thread is that brainwashed people will never accept anything that contradicts the "oficial" story.

No matter your logic,the graphs, the twisted physics, they will always find something to hold on to.


It's just my personal take, but I'm not sure I recall seeing anyone at ATS anyway, that actually believes the official story in whole and has no serious questions to some or all parts of it?

In my own view, I have very serious questions, although I think we simply come to question different things. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that 4 airliners took off that day, which were never seen again as intact aircraft. I have no doubt they were filled with a large number of people, to include civilians, crew members and those who caused them to never be seen intact again.

I'm about 99.9% sure those are the same 4 aircraft that took down two skyscraper buildings, 1 side of the Pentagon and disintegrated into a field in Pennsylvania. I've never seen anything about their speed or performance characteristics that couldn't have been accomplished by these airframes when the people flying them are of limited training and have no interests whatsoever in damage done or ever landing the plane again. I thought Phage and Zaphod were both very thorough in addressing all that, actually.

My personal questions revolve far more around whether this was a Pearl Harbor style 'let nature run it's course and don't interfere', as we know agencies most definitely did catch mere parts of the overall plan as they were training. It's not that hard to believe someone figured things out and let it ride for what would become possible afterward ....vs... simply "letting no crisis go to waste" After all, the ONE part of the conspiracy we all ought to agree on is that the Patriot Act wasn't written on 9/12, to be sure.




top topics



 
95
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join