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

neformore
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

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.

No, I expect people to see reality. One opinion will reflect reality, while another one doesn't. Or are you going to attempt to refute that?

Opinions have no effect on reality whatsoever.

When a man watches his wife give birth to his children, his opinion about that will have no effect at all on those children being in his life. He could have been in a delusional state, but those children will be there when he snaps out of it.

See?

soulwaxer

neformore
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

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

No.

soulwaxer

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


This is not a "no plane" thread or hypothesis, for one.

Two, the way everyone piled on there, had the feel and sense of what I can only describe as bullying.

Third, you are the one who brought in John Lear, not I. I don't place all or any of my stock in what he says, but i do find it rather interesting how the most certified pilot in the world would rather believe in a hologram and shaped charges making plane shaped holes in buildings, than in an actual plane flying at 510 knots near sea level. John i think.. is a disinfo gov't shill of some kind, who's aim it is to discredit from within the domain of the "honey pot", the facts and data under observation, as I described in my reply to your query a few pages back.

Lastly, a true skeptic would also have the capacity to objectively evaluate all phenomenon and events under observation according to scientific principals of investigative inquiry, regardless of any sort of bias, or preconceived, a priori viewpoint or "narrative". In other words, they would also and equally have the capacity to question the official story of events in light of an objective analysis of the events and phenomenon under observation.

Furthermore, once a certain series of data and facts under observation, scrutiny and analysis, may come to the attention of various authorities, that's a good time to take pause, and really scrutinize the data and "facts" presented, not to pile on in a concerted and rather shrill, if I must say so, attempt, to, in "honey pot" lingo, "violently and maliciously discredit that data and facts so as to destroy it's credibility and the credibility of anything stuck to it by association".

Best Regards,

NAM

reply to post by soulwaxer


Your perception of this event is supposition, and is your own. It is not everybody else's.

Childbirth is an accepted natural event and has been witnessed many times. It is accepted fact.

No one before or after 9/11 has flown a 767 plane into a side of a building in this manner.

Until such time as (god forbid) anyone else pulls off a similar maneuver, this event is the rule, not the exception to it.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Look it up.

What are you suggesting, that I should look up?

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

What is misleading about:

At 510 knots EAS, and at 700 ft. ASL, the aircraft was only flying at mach .78.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I am truly sorry if you feel this was a "Pile On" or that you are being Bullied

Questions

1. Should we NOT voice our opinion in opposition to yours to avoid you feeling bullied?
2. Is it your wish to silence us in order that you do not feel piled on?

I would just like to know as I have only seen polite, ATS Style posting for the most part

Why would you wish to silence anyone>?

reply to post by soulwaxer

Opinions have no effect on reality whatsoever.

I agree! "NewAgeMan's" opinion doesn't change the reality of a 767-222 flying at 510 knots, either.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by semperfortis


Based on what I've seen happening, I would merely suggest that it might be a good time, instead of jumping and making blanket and unfounded statements to try to discredit the information and data presented as fast as possible, to take pause and really examine that data in order to determine, first, if it has any validity.

In other words to slow down a bit and stop operating like a gang with only one intent.

That said I cannot moderate what anyone wishes to post.

BenReclused
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

Opinions have no effect on reality whatsoever.

I agree! "NewAgeMan's" opinion doesn't change the reality of a 767-222 flying at 510 knots, either.

See ya,
Milt

510 knots, near sea level, in controlled flight, while maneuvering, deftly, and pulling g's, a Boeing 767, of some kind.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


All I have seen is two, VERY qualified individuals completely prove your initial premise false

Not sure if that would qualify as bullying or piling on

Being proven wrong is not something to be ashamed of...

Happens to me all the time

reply to post by semperfortis


This isn't about ego and the need to be right, but i would like to take a look and see where and how it is that you say i or the data I've presented, was in error. So if you could, please indicate which two posters and where precisely in the thread that they proved that the original premise, as outlined in detail in the OP and throughout the thread, was in error and proven to be false. Thanks.

In other words instead of you just saying "they proved you wrong, admit it", it would be nice to know in what way, where and by who, I was allegedly proven wrong.

NewAgeMan
that my original premise, as outlined in the OP, was in error and proven to be false. Thanks.

Your error is in thinking a 767 cannot fly above 510 knots @ Sea Level.....

reply to post by NewAgeMan


What????

Now I am speechless

It is patently obvious, clear and apparent that both neformore and SkepticOverlord have disproved your OP several times to anyone that has read the entire thread

You are reading what others are posting are you not?

Not sure how you could have missed it

Perhaps you skipped a good portion of the past posts?

reply to post by semperfortis


How do i know you weren't referring to Phage at the opening of the thread? (although he was mistaken and in error, as shown)

Could you provide the links where I was "proven" wrong? Also, have you read my rebuttals to those objections..?

Anyway, it doesn't really matter any more, now that that the data is in the public domain.

People (in all spheres of influence) can decide for themselves, and evaluate, discern, distinguish and differentiate for themselves based on their evaluation of the data - especially those for whom this information and data may be directly relevant or pertinent in some way or another.

Lesson learned?


Best Regards, Happy New Year, and God Bless,

NAM

NewAgeMan
In other words to slow down a bit and stop operating like a gang with only one intent.

What intent?

To have a discussion on an issue?

You don't want to discuss this? You only want to dictate your opinion?

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Oh I read your rebuttals

As for the links

No

Sorry ... You know perfectly well where they are, that they are accurate and how true they are..

Obfuscation is not lost on most of us

I thought there for a minute we were having a truthful, honest debate

Anyway..

I have always been on the fence with most of this, as I have an open mind...

This thread has certainly shown me which side is open to the truth

And which is obviously not

reply to post by NewAgeMan


There have been 12 years to look over the issue...how much longer is needed without proof of a conspiracy?

semperfortis
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

What????

Now I am speechless

It is patently obvious, clear and apparent that both neformore and SkepticOverlord have disproved your OP several times to anyone that has read the entire thread

You are reading what others are posting are you not?

Not sure how you could have missed it

Perhaps you skipped a good portion of the past posts?

Drama queen.. jk (nice avatars - at last!)


Ok, now, please don't take this the wrong way, any of you, or be offended, i don't want to start another gang war with the staff at ATS, that's not what i want - but i have to reply to this one.

I know i know your guys won, in your view, fair enough.


But just to be clear, and i don't mean this to sound nearly or even close to as sarcastic as it might come off sounding, given everything we've been through.. but according to nerformor, the data is meaningless because the impossible IS possible, proven by the fact that an Isreali F-15 i believe it was, was able to fly, and land, after losing most of it's right wing in an in flight collision...
...and SkepticOverlord's basic premise and argument involves a debate, between John Lear of "no plane" fame, who the "no-planers" hadn't even heard of, for years...! in spite of the fact that he's the most certified pilot in the world... now that IS funny S.O. i'll give you that.., a debate between John Lear and a 911blogger crusader named John Bursill, from Australia, who, hell bent to prove John Lear (and the no planers), wrong, slipped into the Simulator near his work at Quantas in the middle of the night at 3:00am, flipped the breaker on the overspeed warnings including the crash logic, and managed to fly around in the simulator at a lower altitude (this is all based on his word alone mind you) at .86 mach, because he believed, falsely that the Mmo was the same as the Vmo, and therefore that it applied equally, at all altitudes, as SO then tried to maintain, and which Phage entered the thread presuming, never realizing nor recognizing the very principal of airspeed, equivalent airspeed, and the true difference between Vmo/Mmo and Vd/Md, which is 360 knots/.86 mach, and 420 knots / .91 mach.

That's how i read it, and i don't think i'm mistaken.

Oh dear, why do i have the feeling that i should not have said that and started this back up again..? Yikes!

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Actually, my premise is a simple one, and has been all along.

You present what you say as fact. Its not. Its opinion.

The reason why its opinion is because you actually do not know what the airframe of UA175 was actually capable of withstanding - you are speculating off data and recommendations and sticking to them stubbornly, and as I've tried to demonstrate, extraordinary events do happen.

You are an intelligent person. Surely you can determine the difference between real life and simulation, and opinion and fact?

NewAgeMan
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

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

But I don't need to do that to prove you wrong, do I? All I need is one that didn't immediately break up the exact moment it hit the envelope. Of which there seem to be several.