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: 21
95
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



GenRadek

It was traveling at its high speed recorded for only a few moments.


GenRadek

I posted an article from Aviation Weekly. I suggest you read it on what it says about going past a plane's Vmo. Going over the speed limit is not going to cause the plane to explode in midair or noseover and crash.

Flight 175 was beyond the envelope for only a few moments.


GenRadek

The critical limit can be crossed, if only for a few moments.


GenRadek

But as you can see, the dive into the WTC and the high speeds lasted for a few moments.


General! (0 stars),

You didn't even read my comprehensive rebuttal to your objection(s)! I put a lot of work into it, the least you could have done was READ it.. without simply trying to dismiss it with so much hand waving.. After you entered this thread, you basically admitted that you didn't even bother to pay close attention to the info contained in the OP and the thread's content. First it was China Air 006, and now here you've done the same thing, yet again, by not even reading and paying close attention to my rebuttal to your rather shrill objections.

comprehensive "general" rebuttal


"During the descent from 12,000 feet to 6,000 feet, the aircraft groundspeed remained between 500 - 520 knots. As the aircraft made it's descent to 1000 feet, it accelerated (there goes Zaphod58's hypothesis about no self-propulsion, post-dive, during level flight on final approach) and impacted World Trade Center tower #2 at approximately 510 knots groundspeed.

Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175 (pdf)



GenRadek

The folks at Boeing know what they are doing. How about you go and ask them how it is possible? I'm sure someone there would be happy to give you the inside scoop on their aircraft's capability.


That's been done. They've been asked, for a conservative speed estimate of 500mph (434 knots), at 700 feet altitude - their response? "Not a chance.."


Speed

Boeing - Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard in this recording saying 500+ mph at 700 feet is impossible.

(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"

Boeing Spokesperson - (Laughs) "Not a chance..."


Furthmore, for this thread's OP and content, I've been accessing the research and findings of some of THE most highly qualified, experienced, and credentialled, and brave, jet aircraft pilots and aeronatical engineers on the planet, two of whom logged flight time on the actual alleged UA Flight 175 (registration number N612UA)..

"General", this is not fun and games from mom's basement.


GenRadek

Why is it left to armchair generals in their parent's basement and snakeoil salesmen to uncover the "truth"?


I resent that comment. I'm not a snakeoil salesman, and i'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes here.

For the answer you would have to ask the likes of Dr. Philip D. Zelikow, Dick Cheney, et al, because the public were not given the truth, obviously - just the "narrative" including the patsy hijackers. There was no REAL independent "investigation", and you darn well know it.

This is a very VERY serious issue, General. You don't seem to recognize just how important, and how relevant, this is.

You've already made up your mind and have your strong "beliefs", that's fine. You can even make conjectures and speculate all you like, i can't stop you.

What you are not entitled to, however, is your own set of "facts" that are not based in the truth and reality, or the laws of physics, and then present those "facts" as if they were true, which they are not.

And neither should people believe you, based solely on your say so or what you "believe".

Facts are facts, and data is data. The facts don't lie, and the data, is in.


Regards,

NAM




posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Dear reader,

For those of you who might have just skimmed the OP and jumped here to the last page, i would like to direct your attention to the content contained on the previous page of this thread => SEE PAGE 20.

Then you'll be fully "up to speed", so to speak.

Thanks for reading, and for paying close attention with regards to this, perhaps the most vital and relevant of issues in modern history.

Best Regards,

NAM



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
Facts are facts, and data is data. The facts don't lie, and the data, is in.

So let's divert the nature of the conversation here a bit.

If that is the case, as you say, why is this material not gaining traction beyond fringe websites?

Given how the media (especially foreign media) pounced on the deep and broad conspiracy angles surrounding Edward Snowden's NSA leaks, why has it not pounced similarly on this material if the facts are so compelling and don't lie?



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Let me get this straight, because I really am trying to understand your reasoning.

You think the government shot down the plane, but you are relying on evidence provided by that very same government, who's story is that the plane crashed due to a struggle in the cockpit between the passengers and the hijackers?

You argue that both flight data recorders were recovered and thus the general behavior and events are known. Why then do you think the plane was shot down? That behavior and that event are rather crucial in what generally happened, no?

Do you see the problem here?

soulwaxer



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   

NewAgeMan

That's been done. They've been asked, for a conservative speed estimate of 500mph (434 knots), at 700 feet altitude - their response? "Not a chance.."


to be fair shes not an engineer is she? probably never heard of the word yield strength.. so thats not exactly accurate..



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 

No, I don't see the problem here. I'm not relying on Government as those photographs and accident scene weren't somehow locked down by shadowy Government agents. Regular people, like you and me, working in the area which had the misfortune to be where that plane with all it's people came down..were working that scene.

If you noticed or bothered to look at the physical evidence photos, you'd see many of the people were in white containment suits. That wasn't for chemicals or some other foreign substance and I first saw those being used in a catastrophic plane crash many many years prior to 9/11. That's protection from the biological hazard present in the air itself for awhile and across everything. There is only one source of bio-hazard at a plane crash, so it doesn't take much to figure what the issue is here. Disintegration isn't a figurative term. It's a statement of physics to what happens when soft things meet hard things at 500-600 miles an hour.

There was nothing at all different about the PA crash site from other catastrophic nose-in crash sites before it.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


That may be true, as i don't have her qualifications - could look them up i suppose.. you're right, she's not an engineer, only their Communications Manager with a B.A in Journalism and a Political Science minor.

Everything that needs to be known however, involves the aircraft's Vd and flight envelope, which is established by wind tunnel and flight or flutter testing, which IS 420 knots.

Boeing 767 A1NM Type Certificate Data Sheet

V-G Diagram Explained


edit on 6-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by choos
 


Re: China Air in V-G Diagram - the dashed --- box, lower left, is one G.

The marker is a depiction of the onset of structural failure, which although due primarily to G forces, involved a combination of aerodynamic pressures and G forces, as per the NTSB Report, so it's in the right location.

As i indicated in my comprehensive "general" rebuttal the flight envelope encompasses both G force as well as aerodynamic pressures due to airspeed, whereby the Vd (right side of the graph) of 420 knots/.91M, is the outer limit of the flight envelope (in terms of aerodynamic pressures) beyond which structural failure becomes imminent, proven, via flutter testing, and by the precedents of structural failure, including EA990 and TWA Flight 841 (TWA727 on the diagram).

Hope that helps clarify.


im not saying its in the wrong place but i just noticed that its beyond the safe flight envelope more than UA175..

if the max vertical load of a 747 is 4g's than its still 25% over the structural load limit, whereas UA 175 is indicating 21% over the limit.. the damage sustained to the 747 was permanently displacing the wings 2 inches or so.. still within the tolerance set by boeing or the airliner cant remember..

perhaps the safety margin boeing used for vertical loads were greater than overspeed safety margins?



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 

Your reasoning could just as well be applied to the official story, if not better.

soulwaxer



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Okay, the reposting of reposted reposted reposted reposted material is getting out of hand in this thread.


Please stop reposting the same images, snippets, quotes, graphs, charts, blurbs, etc. over and over again. If you want to reference something already in this thread, link to the post.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by soulwaxer
 

No, I don't see the problem here. I'm not relying on Government as those photographs and accident scene weren't somehow locked down by shadowy Government agents. Regular people, like you and me, working in the area which had the misfortune to be where that plane with all it's people came down..were working that scene.

If you noticed or bothered to look at the physical evidence photos, you'd see many of the people were in white containment suits. That wasn't for chemicals or some other foreign substance and I first saw those being used in a catastrophic plane crash many many years prior to 9/11. That's protection from the biological hazard present in the air itself for awhile and across everything. There is only one source of bio-hazard at a plane crash, so it doesn't take much to figure what the issue is here. Disintegration isn't a figurative term. It's a statement of physics to what happens when soft things meet hard things at 500-600 miles an hour.

There was nothing at all different about the PA crash site from other catastrophic nose-in crash sites before it.


Yes, you were relying on government when you referred to the flight recorder data. Or was it those regular people at the scene who analyzed that data right there and then?

soulwaxer



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

I hadn't planned to list and show every piece of evidence that came from the Somerset crash site, since there are a large number from the trial. However, your are right. They did recover ID papers from the scumbags who hijacked 93 and they recovered drivers licenses and other papers from a couple of the innocent people onboard, as well. Both featured into the evidence. Unfortunately, the paperwork survived intact far more so than any victims from that particular crash.

As I noted before though, there is a sad record of other such nose-in crashes and the scene isn't unusual in having the large parts embed into the ground and little of any measurable size left to catalog. Just a vast sea of very small fragments.

High speed camera views of Aircraft going into solid objects in controlled tests show a sobering view of just how little is left of an aluminum object striking anything hard at such high speeds.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Sorry, no problem.

What i meant to post to Wrabbit2000, was this

Don't forget these two items from the flight 93 crash site in Shanksville

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...



Personally, i think that there were hijackers and lots of people on board flight 93.. but that's another topic..



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


Well, yes, I do have some faith in the people at the National Transportation and Safety Board. Are you suggesting the staffers and investigators of the NTSB were in on it now too?

I think we all agree that things don't add up from that day. I really cannot remember the last person, especially here, who argued that general point. The devil is in the details though...always is..and that's where the conspiracy lay here, I believe. In the myriad of details...and little things..and subtle ways this happened which it may not otherwise have, if those things hadn't gone 'just so'.

However, on another 9/11 thread a couple hours ago you questioned if the Hijackers could even be proven to ever have been at the airports ...when this was full color, front page film for the world to see in the days and weeks following the attacks. Sometimes it feels like this debate has to start and restart at the point of proving ANYTHING even happened that day, for how everything is tossed out willy nilly to fit preconceived notions.

Just my personal opinions, naturally..and I'm as likely to be wrong as any other person in the discussion.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 



SkepticOverlord

[quote:] NewAgeMan

Facts are facts, and data is data. The facts don't lie, and the data, is in. [end quote]

So let's divert the nature of the conversation here a bit.

If that is the case, as you say, why is this material not gaining traction beyond fringe websites?

Given how the media (especially foreign media) pounced on the deep and broad conspiracy angles surrounding Edward Snowden's NSA leaks, why has it not pounced similarly on this material if the facts are so compelling and don't lie?


Since all the data and facts have now been fully explored, and they do not lie - there's nothing else really to talk about, so that's a good question S.O., and not really a "diversion" from those facts and data.

I think it has something to do with the "transcendent" and "transformative" (Zelikow) "power" of the official story narrative or "public myth" about 9/11, which as we've seen right here in this thread, is rather hard for people to shake off, even in the face of such data and facts. Although i won't requote it, again, i point you to the psychological nature of "the big lie" as described by Adolf Hitler. George Orwell i'm sure had a few things to say about it as well. Then there's all the work over the years to malign the term "conspiracy theory" and the negative label of "conspiracy theorist", something that i've become convinced when playing the tape all the way back through the event to the formative policy, played a very significant role in the design of the operation itself whereby any "impossibilities" fall straight into the honey pot for any would be researcher who might come to scrutinize the event in it's wake.

Here is a fairly good article on the pyschology of trying to wrestle with 9/11 issues.


NewAgeMan

Faulty Towers of Belief: Part I. Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11 Truth
Laurie A. Manwell, M.Sc., June 2007
(pdf) www.journalof911studies.com...


In short, i think it's just the "nature of the beast" as they say, of the "psy-op" at the heart of it, and in the "honey pot" which would trap any future would-be "conspiracy theorists" in "outrageous conspiracy theories, concerning the events of September the 11th" whereby any viewpoint outside of the official story narrative is, by it's very nature, the definition of a "conspiracy theory" in spite of the fact that the official story narrative is itself a conspiracy theory.

So in spite of the data and the facts, which do NOT lie, and cannot, the reason i suppose that people haven't YET "pounced" on the info, as with the self evident nature of the twin towers' destruction by explosives and NOT as a result of the plane impacts and fire - is because it's just too difficult to fathom and to reconcile, and most certainly too horrific in it's implications, to do so. This is at the very core and heart of the very nature of the psy-op itself in terms of what it was obviously intended to bring about and realize in order to "change the world".

As to the "impossible" nature of the events, that become rather apparent upon any serious rational and scientific scrutiny and analysis of the actual phenomenon of their occurrence in reality (like the destruction of the twin towers and building 7), even then, there are elements of what i have come to refer to as "the honey pot" capable of driving a good man insane.


Take John Lear for example, in your own words..


SkepticOverlord

John Lear, celebrated pilot who has been documented to have flown more types of aircraft than any other pilot, and apparent member (or contributor for) "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" seems to think it's not a problem.

The problem with John Lear
 


John Lear, the most certified pilot on the planet, who, once he learned about the recorded speeds involved, and in further scrutinizing the nature of the flight path, speed, maneuvering, the impact with the building ("smooth" penetration of the whole aircraft) and the way the plane detonated in a fraction of a second exclusively within the confines of the building, deduced, because it was "impossible" for any such aircraft to fly as it did and do what it did - that there was "no plane there at all".

Unless John, and Morgan Reynolds (ex Bush Administration official), are doing a type of "job" by having first recognized the nature of the "honey pot", to work actively to intentionally spread disinfo with the aim of discrediting and/or dividing the 9/11 truth movement, as an exercise in a type of sycophantic boot licking of the PTB operatives behind the event, then just look at how far they are willing to go with their NRPT (no real plane theory) to try to reconcile the "impossible", which must include by extension ideas such as "video fakery" and even shaped charges forming the impact holes in the buildings made to appear as if they were in the general shape of a plane.

John Lear, the most certified aircraft pilot in the world, to try to reconcile the impossible, is willing to embrace what is clearly the greater impossibility, simply because he knows full well that such an aircraft type cannot possibly fly in controlled flight, at 510 knots near sea level, so, as far as he's concerned, there can be no plane there at all, and to heck with whatever the other implications of that might be in terms of the photographic and video record of the event as it actually happened. In his mind that MUST be "fake" because the notion of a Boeing 767 flying at 510 knots near sea level, simply cannot be accepted, and he would know.

So if a credible and knowledgeable pilot such a John Lear cannot fathom nor reconcile with the truth and the reality, then precisely how is this information, no matter how factual, supposed to gain traction with the average American joe or even the international press?

It's already a taboo subject to begin with, which will automatically label a person who questions it, a crazed "conspiracy theorist" or in short, a nut.

Furthermore, the alternative hypothesis appears to be insane and an apparent violation of Occam's Razor, and then on top of that, outside of the official story narrative, there's the unknowns, like what happened to the originating "hijacked" aircraft and passengers?

Playing the tape back through, what becomes rather apparent, uncomfortably so, given our present circumstance, and in light of the facts which do not lie and cannot, is that the operation itself must have relied upon these issues and the general unbelievability of anything outside the official story narrative, which automatically fall into the domain of what they would have, and must have known full well, in advance, even by anticipation would be or become a bifurcation of "conspiracy theories."


Regards,

NAM

Perhaps now with some distance, people might at last begin to examine the facts.
edit on 7-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


Well, yes, I do have some faith in the people at the National Transportation and Safety Board. Are you suggesting the staffers and investigators of the NTSB were in on it now too?

I think we all agree that things don't add up from that day. I really cannot remember the last person, especially here, who argued that general point. The devil is in the details though...always is..and that's where the conspiracy lay here, I believe. In the myriad of details...and little things..and subtle ways this happened which it may not otherwise have, if those things hadn't gone 'just so'.

However, on another 9/11 thread a couple hours ago you questioned if the Hijackers could even be proven to ever have been at the airports ...when this was full color, front page film for the world to see in the days and weeks following the attacks. Sometimes it feels like this debate has to start and restart at the point of proving ANYTHING even happened that day, for how everything is tossed out willy nilly to fit preconceived notions.

Just my personal opinions, naturally..and I'm as likely to be wrong as any other person in the discussion.


No, not saying the NTSB staff was in on it too, at least not many of them. One or two higher-ups could have blocked and manipulated the investigation though. Much like is being discussed in the thread about the CIA reports. Just one man there was enough to block the intelligence on the hijackers.

You know, I don't really care much about most of the details. I saw 2 buildings exploding and 1 building drop like a brick. These are not details. Then I saw how NIST and the 911 Commission manipulated everything relating to those events, to the point of not even testing for explosions (!!!) and not discussing the collapse of WTC 7 (911 Commission Report).

No, I didn't question if the hijackers could be proven to ever have been at the airports. I asked for proof of them BOARDING the planes.

Like I said, I don't care much about the details. What I care about is who did it and why. I saw with my own eyes what happened to WTC 1, 2, and 7. That right there was enough for me to know there was at least inside help. AFTER that, I was very curious about the details, and the more I saw the clearer the whole picture became. Especially in light of all the gained power by government in the name of security. And the introduction of the never ending "War on Terror" which they needed after the Cold War was over as an excuse to gain power in the name of security.

My opinion is that some people are more likely to be wrong in this discussion than others. Not everyone has had the same amount of life experience. Some are emotionally capable of facing reality while others are not.

soulwaxer



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


Like I said, I don't care much about the details. What I care about is who did it and why. I saw with my own eyes what happened to WTC 1, 2, and 7. That right there was enough for me to know there was at least inside help. AFTER that, I was very curious about the details, and the more I saw the clearer the whole picture became.


With all due respect, I have noticed details aren't your focus and it's baffling for what, how or who you can ever base solid research on if all details are not of importance. The ONLY way to KNOW anything, is to actually learn it directly ..not learn from others words of what they saw ..or said they saw or heard someone else say THEY saw.

I read where you note you saw these buildings fall. Well, so did the rest of America. Did you see them by being present in Lower Manhattan that morning or just catching the TV version as the rest of us did? That's a MAJOR MAJOR thing here ...since we admit video can be hoaxed, we cannot believe our eyes on everything ..and yet, your basing that observation method as one of, if not a core method of determining fact from fiction.

(If you were there..as I know some who personally were..I'd ask HOW much you actually did see, since NO ONE who was there that day saw everything or anything close to it, given circumstances at street level)

I guess you've just totally lost me where you say not once, but twice...details aren't what you're about (to paraphrase the two statements). On this topic? In this forum?? It's a murder case, in the end, and one of infinite complexity. Those who do figure out what happened here, if anyone ever does, will do so by LIVING IN the details ...not casually pushing them aside to claim eyeball data as superior to old fashioned investigative technique.

Details are what close cases and establish fact. Without them...it's called guessing at best and wild speculation at worst. ...in my humble opinion.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

Thanks for another excellent post, OP, and thanks for the pdf on "psychological barriers to 9/11 truth". I will definitely be reading that.

To anyone interested, here is the opening quote to that pdf:

“It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the evil to suspect good.”
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, Statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)

It's extremely important to understand the psychological aspects of 911, because it was above all a psychological operation, during and following the event, and still continuing today. I advise everyone to look more into this.

Your thread is a very impressive discussion on a technical aspect, but as should be clear to anyone by now, these kinds of details will hardly convince anyone when they relate it to the big picture that has already been formed in their head. I think it's a waste of time, and I think your posts about the psychological side are much more powerfull. That's my opinion and it's why I have been going a little off track myself in this thread.

Your "honey pot" theory is right on!

About John Lear. There is something very fishy about him. I have seen him talk about the most absurd ideas relating to the moon. And his no planes theory is of course no less absurd. I do not buy the fact that he believes this himself. If he does, he has psychological issues. But watching him speak and watching his body language, I think he is a disinfo-agent in one capacity or another. This of course is speculation, but he certainly was very close to people involved in psy-ops during his career.

soulwaxer



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

Before one decides that it's "impossible" for a 767-222 to fly at 510 knots EAS, one needs to answer two questions:
1) At what speeds does a 767-222's flight become unstable?

2) At what speed does a 767-222's airframe face imminent, and catastrophic, failure?

Until you can answer those questions, your premise is only speculative, and is based on ill informed assumptions.

See ya,
Milt




top topics



 
95
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join