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

NewAgeMan
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.

Lets talk about the difference between fact and opinion.

Fact
noun
noun: fact; plural noun: facts
1.
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
"the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas"
synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty, factuality, certitude;

opinion
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions

1.
a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
"that, in my opinion, is right"
synonyms: belief, judgement, thought(s), school of thought, thinking, way of thinking, mind, point of view, view, viewpoint, outlook, angle, slant, side, attitude, stance, perspective, position, standpoint; More

What you have presented in this thread, is opinion. Not fact.

You have repeatedly referred to diagrams and links to comments from people over and over again that reinforce your opinion, but they don't present fact, because those people too are espousing their opinion.

The V-G diagrams you have referred to give guidance as to what is expected as to how an airframe will react.

But the simple truth of the matter is this. Until someone deliberately straps on an actual 767 of the same type, and records every single aspect of a reconstructed event, following exactly the same course and speed in similar weather conditions, all you have is your opinion of what might happen.

If such a plane broke up in flight, you would be vindicated, and could present what you have said as fact.

Until that day happens all you have to back your argument is supposition, because the best evidence possible - and that is the actual footage of the plane from the day - shows an apparently intact Boeing 767 slamming into a building at speed, a plane recorded as departing Boston, with its entire course recorded and plotted up until it hit the building.

The only fact here is this, you are posting your opinion. What you think you know, but don't actually know.

reply to post by BenReclused

BenReclused
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

=> See OP and thread, but actually READ it, and pay close attention to what's been presented and discussed. Thank you.

NAM

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Are you trying to tell me that all the video, from all angles, some very detailed or slowed down, is worthless? Do you realize that video is used in many scientific experiments to analyse results that cannot be seen by the naked eye from all angles and at all speeds?

Just one little example: The time it took for those buildings to come down is very important to anyone familiar with the laws of physics. Now, who do you think will be able to give a more accurate account of this time? The guy watching it live at the scene, in the middle of all that chaos, or the guy who gets a chance to study the videos afterwards, from all angles and aided by a clock?

Never mind though, your debating tactics are no longer worth my time. You do not come accross as a sincere person. But of course that's just my opinion.

Hopefully others will pay attention to a very important point that the OP has been making throughout this thread about the psychological aspects of the operation.

soulwaxer

reply to post by neformore


Nef, these issues have been addressed now, ad nauseam..

Please refer to the structural design Vd dive speed limit established by flutter testing, along with the precedents showing when similar or identical plane types have experienced structural failure at airspeeds below, at, or beyond the Vd, of 420 knots/.91M. At this point i'm not even going to bother providing links. The information is contained in the OP and referenced throughout the thread. It's very clear and the facts do not lie, or mislead. Beyond that there's also the issue of controlled flight and piloting, but given the data and facts in evidence, it's not even necessary to go there. I've told you before that you are perfectly entitled to your beliefs, but that you cannot alter the facts themselves, which as we've seen are very clear, unmistakable and rather incontrovertible.

This need to be right or score a point or something is getting to be a little much. No need to reply.

As I've pointed out before, this is a very VERY serious issue.

The data and facts are NOT my "opinion". They are what they are. How people deal with them isn't my business.

Sorry to sound a little cold and fed up, I can't help it, given what i've been through in the process of making and trying to keep up with the thread.

Regards,

NAM

reply to post by NewAgeMan

See OP and thread, but actually READ it, and pay close attention to what's been presented and discussed.

I've already read it several times, and neither it, or any of the other posts in this thread, answer the two questions that I asked. All you did, was make numerous assumptions based on the aircraft's Vmo, and Vd, speeds. Those ARE NOT speeds at which catastrophic airframe failure, or loss of flight stability, become imminent.

See ya,
Milt

SkepticOverlord

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?

Very good question comparing the Snowden exposure to the 911 exposure! But how do you know that Snowden is a legitimate whistle-blower? There have been some good threads questioning just that on your website.

Anyhow, NAM's response to your post was magnificent. I have nothing more to add to it.

soulwaxer

reply to post by BenReclused


You're mistaken, as the Vd speed of 420kts/.91M defines the outer limit of the flight envelope, as determined by flutter testing. Beyond that, there are precedents of catastrophic structural failure which show that indeed, at anything beyond 5 knots of Vd, or 425kts/.99M, structural failure is imminent.

See my reply to neformore, two pages back.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

NewAgeMan
reply to post by BenReclused

 

You're mistaken, as the Vd speed of 420kts/.91M defines the outer limit of the flight envelope, as determined by flutter testing. Beyond that, there are precedents of catastrophic structural failure which show that indeed, at anything beyond 5 knots of Vd, or 425kts/.99M, structural failure is imminent.

How imminent?

BenReclused
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

Even worse it depends on weather conditions and the aircraft oh and the pilot and well probably luck as well. To think an aircraft is just going to fall apart instantly by exceeding its speed safety limits is silly. The only question is can it and yes it can. Can you safely do this obviously not but i dont think the hijackerjacker was worried about passenger safety since he was planning on plowing them into a building. See thats part of the problem people forget for example an airline pilot might say thats impossible well for him it would behe wouldnt exceed safe parameters. He couldnt imagine pulling high gs in a passenger jet might even imagine it to be impossible even though the plane will do what a pilot instructs.But for that pilot hes convinced himself the aircraft has limited him when in actuality its just he would never endanger passengers.

JuniorDisco

NewAgeMan
reply to post by BenReclused

 

You're mistaken, as the Vd speed of 420kts/.91M defines the outer limit of the flight envelope, as determined by flutter testing. Beyond that, there are precedents of catastrophic structural failure which show that indeed, at anything beyond 5 knots of Vd, or 425kts/.99M, structural failure is imminent.

How imminent?

Ok i know this answer more time than it takes to run a 767 into a building! Since obviously the 767 did indeed impact the building so the imminent failure must have occured after that like when it hit the building. Did i win anything?

soulwaxer

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.

But that's a case of something not being passed on. Which obviously one person can do. But how would "one or two higher-ups" block or manipulate a whole investigation - one that their workers and the world would have been intimately and massively interested in? You don't think one of the people who had helped gather evidence would have said something when the fabrication came out?

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.

What you describe is the exact operation of a process called confabulation. You made a decision about what you thought happened and since then you have searched for details and evidence that back it up. You've created a story that corroborates it. Don't worry though, that's pretty much how everyone's brain works.

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

Absolutely. Some people need a kind of catharsis provided by a neat narrative. Which the CT gives.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Vd dive speed limit established by flutter testing

That statement isn't, in the least bit, accurate! Flutter Onset Speed is only one of many parameters that are considered when an aircraft's Vd is determined. Can you provide a source that states what the Flutter Onset Speed of a 767-222 is?

See ya,
Milt

JuniorDisco

NewAgeMan
reply to post by BenReclused

 

You're mistaken, as the Vd speed of 420kts/.91M defines the outer limit of the flight envelope, as determined by flutter testing. Beyond that, there are precedents of catastrophic structural failure which show that indeed, at anything beyond 5 knots of Vd, or 425kts/.99M, structural failure is imminent.

How imminent?

See the precedents of structural failure.

GenRadek

Anyways, I recall a few instances where airliners broke the sound barrier in dives, and survived. Like these:
Airlners breaking sound barrier

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But to be more precise, it's at about 425kts/.99M, but really, at anything around or past the Vd structural design dive speed limit.

In other words, not beyond an equivalent airspeed or EAS, at altitude, of Mach 1.0.

NewAgeMan


See the precedents of structural failure.

They seem to vary. But what they don't suggest is that the aircraft must immediately break apart when it reaches the point it did. It could, but it might not, which means your premise is wrong. That's what they say to me, but of course I'm happy for you to show me that I'm wrong.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Please feel free to come up with just one example/precedent of a similar type aircraft exceeding an airspeed of 430kts/1.01M, even in an uncontrolled dive, which did not experience structural failure.


re: 430kts/1.01M

EAS:
EAS is sea level airspeed. As a factoral expression of the equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe at low vs. high altitude, because the air is so much thicker at sea level, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS.
The air is thinner at higher altitudes so the aircraft will need to go faster to match the amount of air hitting the airframe at low altitudes, in thick air.

EAS is defined as:
EAS is the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as a True Airspeed at higher altitudes. It is used for determining aircraft performance, structural integrity.. .etc. The Vd limit is expressed in an EAS.

In other words, to be more specific, 510 knots at or near sea level (EAS) would produce the same dynamic pressure as 722 knots True Airspeed (TAS) at 22,000 feet.

P.S. There seems to be a little bit of confusion in a couple of the posts above on this page re: "the (actual) plane"

The thread title again is:
"9/11 Truth: An UNMODIFIED Boeing 767 cannot fly @ 510 knots @ Sea Level."
(should have read "near" Sea Level, to be precise).

NewAgeMan
reply to post by neformore

 

This need to be right or score a point or something is getting to be a little much. No need to reply.

Its not a question about scoring points. Its a question about putting forward opinion as fact.

I could, for example, repeat post the video I put up earlier showing the Israeli F-15 that managed to come out of a mid-air collision with only one wing, pull out of a spin using afterburner and fly 10 miles to an airfield where it landed perfectly.

That event is "impossible".

I would imagine that every single person who designed the aircraft would have said it was - indeed the team from the manufacturer who went to look at the plane initially assumed it had been in a ground accident.

I would imagine every single pilot who flew the aircraft up to that point would have said it was.

The actual pilot of the plane itself stated he would have ejected had he been aware properly of what had happened.

I'm fairly well sure none of the structural limits placed on the plane and the airframe would have given any indication at all that it could fly on one wing and land like it did.

But it did it.

If we apply your logic, that the pilot was skeptical, that the designers were skeptical and the airframe specs most certainly wouldn't have said it could do that then by christ we have all witnessed a miracle in the first degree, and maybe the IAF truly is blessed by god.

But the reality is that we didn't. What we saw was an airframe behave well past its limits, capable of doing something unexpected.

You state - "9/11 Truth: An UNMODIFIED Boeing 767 cannot fly @ 510 knots @ Sea Level." and try to present that as a fact.

Its not.

reply to post by neformore


FINALLY!!!!

Common sense, well stated and NOT convoluted

Best post on this thread yet

neformore

I could, for example, repeat post the video I put up earlier showing the Israeli F-15 that managed to come out of a mid-air collision with only one wing, pull out of a spin using afterburner and fly 10 miles to an airfield where it landed perfectly.

I'm sorry nef, but i fail to see precisely how that example is relevant to this discussion and the data and facts presented herein.

You see, here's the problem, as outlined in the OP and post 2 of this thread.

If you are prepared to "believe" that an unmodified Boeing 767 Commercial Jet can fly at 510 knots near sea level, then by extension, you must also believe that it can fly, even in dive - at 722 knots at 22,000 feet... or Mach 1.19, and 915 knots at 35,000 feet...or Mach 1.38 heading for 1.39 at 38,000 ft, without suffering a loss of structural integrity, or flight control. It's absurd.

And as I've pointed out clearly, time and again, it's without any precedent of any kind, in the recorded history of modern aviation.

Don't get me wrong, you are entitled to believe it, and have that opinion, but it's not based in a factual or even, for any objective and scientifically minded observer, especially for a "heavy" commercial jet aircraft pilot like those who's research I've been accessing for this thread, to be listed at the conclusion of the thread, including all reference material used herein, believable, except to the degree that one must hold to the official story, at all cost, even at the cost of truth and reality and the facts and data themselves.

Here's something from a "9/11 Truth" source that debunks the speed claims made throughout this thread:
911 Blogger: Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flt 11 and Flt 175
By John Bursill – Licensed Avionics Aircraft Engineer, Boeing 767/737/747 Series

An important part:

Let’s now get to the question of Lear’s statement regarding the “impossible speed” at which both AA11 and UA175 were flying, according to official reports. Here are the simple facts relating to the Boeing 767-200’s AA11 & UA175 on 9/11;

1. The speed of the aircraft that hit the WTC was officially reported as between 500mph and 560mph ground speed, calculated by the observed point to point distance covered over time.
2. A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure. It as the aircraft approaches the speed of sound when the properties extreme high and low pressure areas can have destructive effects on the airframe. This figure is as with all limits set conservatively.
3. The speed of sound at approximate sea level is 761 mph on a standard day. Therefore the theoretical maximum speed the 767-200 can reach intact is, conservatively, .86 x 761mph = 654mph or approximately 100mph above the officially reported speed of AA11 or UA175.
4. The 767-200 is an aircraft that’s considered highly powered due to its requirement to function with only one engine for ETOPS - Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards. It is capable of taking off fully loaded with only one engine.
5. Lear’s argument: The normal maximum operating speed at sea level is 360Knots/h (Nautical miles) which equates to 415mph (a lot less than seen on 9/11). It is not, as Lear stated in his interview 360mph, which is considerably less. This maximum operating speed (Indicated) used is something that is decided by Boeing in conjunction with the operator and is not a structural or performance limit; rather it has been determined to be a safe speed at which to operate with commercial passengers on board and to prevent the need for increased maintenance.
6. The 767-200 is considered by pilots and aviation professionals to be a “slick” or “low drag” aircraft, being without bulbous construction and with highly swept 31.5 degree wings. It is well known that it is difficult to keep the 767 aircraft from over-speeding during decent; due to its low drag/high power configuration.

Considering all of these facts we are still left with the question: Can a 767-200 make 560mph ground speed at sea level or the equivalent of .74 of Mach speed? We know that it is definitely within its design parameters and that it can do so at high altitude (not in question), but can it do this at sea level (higher air density)? Considering that 560mph is 145mph faster than its recommended maximum operating speed (Lear’s argument), it is simply not possible to test this speed in a commercial 767-200 aircraft; it would be against the aircraft manufacturer’s recommendations, outside of standard company operating procedures and against the authorities’ rules (FAA in US). For these reasons we will not see a 767-200 attain 560mph in operation unless it is in the middle of an aircraft incident or accident. The only way to test this is in an accredited Full Flight Simulator.

Later in the article, the author describes, in detail, what he was able to accomplish in a flight simulator considered to be a very accurate representation of the 767. Essentially confirming that the aircraft could perform at the speeds deemed "impossible" by John Lear and other contributors in this thread.

Then there's this part:

After doing this test I then spent a few days on the flight line checking whether the average 767 pilot thought that the engines could achieve .86 Mach at sea level considering what I found in the sim. Mostly they agreed--due to the exceptional power to weight ratio of the 767 series, and its low drag airframe, it was probable it could do just that.

and…

Conclusion: Is it probable that the 767-200 can make 560mph at sea level?
It is highly probable that AA11 and UA175 could easily make the airspeeds quoted in the official reports and as seen in the video footage.

It's important to note that this research, actual flight simulator testing, and conclusion is written by a Licensed Boeing avionics engineer, with direct 767 experience.

This was posted in May of 2009, and apparently conveniently ignored for more than four years by the "No Plane" crowd.


EDIT TO ADD


If one is to attach "credibility" to anything offered by John Lear, we must also consider the following:

1) He believes there is an atmosphere on the moon

2) He pushes the theory that a massive alien "soul catcher" is stationed on the moon

3) He promotes the Billy Meier UFO hoax (repeatedly shown to be a hoax) as true

Just to clarify.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I figured someone would bring that up.

Bursill was hell bent to disprove and attack John Lear for his "no planer" theory, which we've looked at in this thread.

In performing, allegedly, his little experiment, because all we have is his word nothing more, he threw the breaker which disabled the overspeed warnings and the crash logic of the simulator, which otherwise freezes and turns red and must be reset if/when the Vd speed is exceeded, that is, if it even happened, there's just his word, nothing more.

And again, it was intended to very agressively "debunk" John Lear for his NRPT (no real plane theory) hypothesis, and we know, having discussed this issue, why John Lear, the most certified pilot in the world holds to that view (unless he's a disinfo shill, and sycophantic boot licker of some sort, alone with his friend Morgan Reynolds).

Bursill tried this "debunk" of Pilots for 9/11 Truth's research and findings, when they refused to ban John Lear from their membership for his "no planer" nonsense.


So first you bring in John Lear to somehow support the OS loyalist claims, and then when that doesn't "fly" you bring in John Bursill, an aircraft maintenance tech, to refute Lear and the findings and research of Pilots for 9/11 Truth with whom Lear is still a member in good standing, in spite of his rather far-out hypothesis, that, because a Boeing 767 cannot fly at 510 knots near Sea Level, there must be no plane there, at all.

John Lear's affidavit, an 28th, 2008

"19. The alleged NIST speed of 443 mph (385 kts,) for American Airlines Flight 11 would be technically achievable. However the NIST speed of 542 mph (470 kts) for United Airlines Flight 175 which is 50 kts. above VD is not commensurate with and/or possible, considering:
(1) the power available,* **
(2) parasite drag (NAVAIR 00-80T-80 Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
(3) parasite power (NAVAIR 00-80T-80 Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
(4) the controllability by a pilot with limited experience. 14 CFR Part 25.253 (a)(B)
www.ntsb.gov...
www.content.airbusworld.com...
20. Therefore the speed of the aircraft, that hit the World Trade Center, as represented by NIST, particularly that of United Airlines Flight 175 is fraudulent and could not have occurred."

morganreynolds.files.wordpress.com...

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" ..

The problem with John Lear