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: 23
95
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 

You are comparing a light ultra-maneuverable jet to an airliner? An F-15 is like a rocket compared to an airliner.

It's like comparing a Ferrari to an 18-wheeler truck.

Also, the F-15 with the missing wing wasn't, let's say, able to stay on course. Let alone able to hit a target with pin-point precision at high speed in a banking dive.

What a poor comparison...

soulwaxer




posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
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.

See the edit in my post above. And the reason I included Lear's comments before becoming part of the Pilot's organization is to show how he modified his opinion to one that gain him new attention.

If you're going to take, as fact, anything John Lear says, you must also then support the person who believes that photos of UFOs constructed of proven mundane items, attached to small trees, which brought aliens holding toy ray guns are proof of actual extraterrestrial encounters.

He's also on record for saying these, among many other stunningly improbable things:
"The moon is a space satellite hoisted into space 30-40K years ago."
"The moon was towed into orbit by an alien race but we don't know which alien race did it."

And certainly, you must be aware that his next obvious step is that somehow the world was fooled by gigantic sound-emitting and kinetic energy producing holograms on 9/11/2001. Technology that not only doesn't exist, but is improbable to ever exist by any standard.


But… do you dispute that the fuselage of a 767 is rated to withstand .86-mach before the risk of structural failure?



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


That's a little low, isn't it, to go 100% ad hominem attack on John Lear after regaling us earlier with his airman credentials as having more certifications than any other pilot in the world..

Anyway, John Lear aside..



NewAgeMan

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 causes the simulator to freeze and turn red, requiring it to be reset if/when the Vd speed is exceeded.. that is, if it even happened, there's just his word, nothing more.


Listen

Captain Dan Govatos

www.youtube.com...

LINK
www.abovetopsecret.com...



SkepticOverlord

But… do you dispute that the fuselage of a 767 is rated to withstand .86-mach before the risk of structural failure?


That's 360kts (EAS)/.86M (@ 23,000 feet)

See LINK
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You're making the very same mistake Phage did at the beginning of this thread, to presume that the Mmo of .86-mach applies at all altitudes, when in truth the

Vmo/Mmo = 360kts/.86M


edit on 7-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Anyone else find it interesting that there are so many site moderators/owners debunking in this and the other main 911-thread going at the moment?

- First it started with our well-known debunker members who show up on all of these threads.
- Then we got some newbie moderators.
- Then several super moderators, and a site owner.

Hell, we've even got a general in here after a long absence.

Kind of reminds me of some of the "Ask Me Anything" threads.

Hmmmm...

Just speculating of course, denying ignorance.

soulwaxer



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


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.

That's not true, at all!

Because you seem so concerned about mach numbers, explain why you feel the aircraft should have lost it's flight worthiness before reaching it's maximum Vmo mach number (.86). At 510 knots EAS, and at 700 ft. ASL, the aircraft was only flying at mach .78.

See ya,
Milt



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Now that, was highly misleading..

See my reply to SkepticOverlord, above.

LINK
www.abovetopsecret.com...

See ya.


edit on 7-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
That's a little low, isn't it, to go 100% ad hominem attack on John Lear

He's on record, in many places, for saying and believing those things, and is exceptionally relevant to gauging the supposed quality of any claim he makes.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

SkepticOverlord

NewAgeMan
That's a little low, isn't it, to go 100% ad hominem attack on John Lear

He's on record, in many places, for saying and believing those things, and is exceptionally relevant to gauging the supposed quality of any claim he makes.

You left out this part of NAW's quote: "...after regaling us earlier with his airman credentials as having more certifications than any other pilot in the world.."

Just saying.

soulwaxer



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


It's like a gang, tag teaming, and just hovering over the thread.

Sometimes I'll see one make a post, and then within literally 20 seconds, it has 8 stars.

It's an interesting dynamic that's for sure.

Just for the record, i've experienced a massive backlash over this info, and it's taken more than a little courage to take a stand on this issue for the sake of what's right, and true.

I wonder what goes on for some of these people, what their fundamental "constitution" must be like, but that's not my responsibility.

Back on topic..



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


And you are not ready to admit the following??

1. Your logic has been proven flawed numerous times

2. Your opinions shown to be incorrect

3. Your "DATA" proven false several times

Now why would a logical thinking person not be able to admit when they are wrong and have been proven so many times? I wonder..

How many Staff are involved is a nice Strawman Argument, but has little to do with

1. The facts
2. Your courage
3. The Terms and Conditions which we ALL abide by

Semper



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


Yes I did. That's the part that typically gets the proponents of the no-plane theory all excited about his statements. And then rejecting anything from engineers (who know better about such things) and completely ignoring his history of making things up.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


It does not matter what you feel or think or can show that it was rated at. It happened. Pure and simple. No holograms...no empty planes...no missiles. Just airplanes that were seen, heard and witnessed not only by those on the ground but some that survived in the buildings. Real stories.

Every person that has come forward with REAL evidence has shown nothing. Paint chips anyone??? Just more of the same old excuses and rehashed information that is spread as disinfo so you do NOT look at the real issues that occurred during this time frame. Thermite...Thermate...CIA spooks...wired buildings. It is all great fiction but it is not rooted in truth. Reality, yes, but not truth.

They are still finding body parts, luggage pieces and plane pieces in the lower Manhattan area. Where are the detonators? Where is the evidence? WHERE???

The facts are that the planes withstood the speeds that were reported and can be verified in video. Do the math based on the videos and timelines. Videos...this is not the JFK assassination where we have one film. Multiple angles and the ability to judge and calc airspeed/trajectory/etc.

The US government is using the 9/11 WTC 1,2, and 7 conspiracy to hide the fact that not only were Americans killed by Americans that day (93) but 587 was blown out of the sky a few weeks later. The US could not allow air travel to come to a halt. It would have crippled the economy and the country itself. So it lied. It made heroes out of the 93 folks so it would look like tragedy but they use known government employees to perputrate the 9/11 myth with the Truthers.

Physics was not suspended that day but common sense is here on a daily basis...



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

soulwaxer
Also, the F-15 with the missing wing wasn't, let's say, able to stay on course. Let alone able to hit a target with pin-point precision at high speed in a banking dive.


I'm sorry.... but you should really watch the video before you comment on my post.

The F-15 lost a wing - not part of it, a full wing in a mid air collision with another plane, came out of a spin, flew straight and level for 10 miles and landed normally

In other words, it did the "impossible"



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Now that, was highly misleading

No, the only thing that was misleading, in my post, was your comment, that I quoted.

With that out of the way, how about answering my previous 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?

3) Can you provide a source that states what the Flutter Onset Speed of a 767-222 is?

See ya,
Milt



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


You just stating those things doesn't make it so, or true.

All the facts and data are valid, and I've been 100% consistent throughout the thread in terms of supporting those facts and that data.

And why ARE all the staff pouring out of the woodwork to make statements not unlike the one you just made..?

What's up?

It's important to interrogate the official story events of 9/11, which, if they cannot be believed, or accepted as valid, must be discarded.

There are vital lessons to be learned in regards to this issue, involving the ability to learn something of value from recent history, capable of honoring the many victims, and which might hold the hope for better policy formation than we got from the likes of Zelikow and Cheney via their pre-9/11 think tanks, and hope for something infinitely better than what's been delivered in the name of "9/11".

This is a very VERY serious matter.

You saying you're little 1) 2) 3) doesn't mean that's accurate or true.

If you wish to back those statements up then please show precisely where and how the facts and data were proven false or invalidated.

NAM



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


And there goes the mod card....

Why not throw in Godwins law as well?

What you are saying here is, in effect, "these people don't necessarily agree with my point of view so I'm going to throw in a little ad-hominem stuff to try and stir the pot", while in the process absolutely spectacularly missing the points that some of us are trying to make.

Sorry but that's simply old, and its everything that's wrong with the 9/11 "truth" movement. You seem to expect people only to see things your way, and frankly, not everyone does. This is a discussion on a discussion board and if you think that the board staff don't have opinions on issues like this you are way off the beam - its the discussion of this and other subjects that brought us here in the first place before we were ever staff members. I've been an aviation enthusiast all my life and have been looking at unusual and conspiracy related subjects for 25+ years. You expect me not to have an opinion on this?

You are sadly misguided. Other people have opinions that may be contradictory to your own. Its the way the world works. Get used to it.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   

neformore

soulwaxer
Also, the F-15 with the missing wing wasn't, let's say, able to stay on course. Let alone able to hit a target with pin-point precision at high speed in a banking dive.


I'm sorry.... but you should really watch the video before you comment on my post.

The F-15 lost a wing - not part of it, a full wing in a mid air collision with another plane, came out of a spin, flew straight and level for 10 miles and landed normally

In other words, it did the "impossible"




I saw the video about 3 months ago...

That F-15 did what would be impossible for an airliner, not for an F-15.

soulwaxer



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Here. Look it up. Your statement was indeed, very misleading, and I think you know it to be so..


NewAgeMan

That's 360kts (EAS)/.86M (@ 23,000 feet)

See LINK
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You're making the very same mistake Phage did at the beginning of this thread, to presume that the Mmo of .86-mach applies at all altitudes, when in truth the

Vmo/Mmo = 360kts/.86M



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


So you're telling me that everyone knew it was capable of doing that before it did it?



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
And why ARE all the staff pouring out of the woodwork to make statements not unlike the one you just made..?

A great deal of our staff, myself included, have far more experience with these subjects than most (if not all) of the no-plane proponents in this and other threads. That includes being involved in conspiracy investigation/speculation from the moment of the attacks.

Additionally, many of our staff (myself included) have experience with conspiracy speculation and a skeptical approach long before the 9/11 attacks happened. The majority of the "9/11 Truth" ranks fit the psychological profile of a zealot agitator, not an analytical skeptic. No conspiracies have been exposed by zealots, all known conspiracies have been exposed by analytical skeptics.



It's important to interrogate the official story events of 9/11, which, if they cannot be believed, or accepted as valid, must be discarded.

You, and the unsettling majority of "9/11 Truth" flag-bearers, jerk your knee and fly headlong into the hasty and ill-considered conclusion that just because someone (myself) refutes a ridiculous component of "9/11 Truth" inspired conspiracies, that person must "support" the official story in entirety. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's clear that this component of the "9/11 Truth" conspiracy story lines doesn't hold up well under scrutiny. A zealot will not care and ignore those they see as nay-sayers. While an analytical skeptic will accept that this story line has holes, and either work harder to plug the holes, or discard the story line and move on.



This is a very VERY serious matter.

Indeed. So why place absolute stock in what someone (John Lear) has said, when that someone has been repeatedly proven to be making things up? The Internet is full of content that outlines his outrageous claims and clearly debunks them, only to be met with "That's what I believe" and no evidence from him. I used his older quote to show how he changes his stories to suite the attention given him.



edit on 7-1-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join