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

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I don't need to read your posts (again). Constant repetition of your opinion on a subject does not make it fact. It is still merely your opinion.

I will say this - the title of this thread is "An UNMODIFIED Boeing 767 cannot fly @ 510 knots @ Sea Level".

The plane in question did not fly constantly at sea level. It flew in a dive, and was only near sea level for a very short period of time according to the radar plots. In that very short period of time, it may have started to experience some kind of structural limitations on its airframe. Had it continued at that speed, at sea level, it may very well have started to fall apart. The problem is that its forward momentum was suddenly halted by a rather large building.

Life, and my career as a Civil Engineer, has taught me many things. One of them is that data sets on paper, or on screen, are all well and good in theory, but when it comes to actual real - life practice things can and do vary considerably and odd things happen.

I tried to demonstrate that to you earlier in thread with the F-15 story and other elements of my previous discussion. You missed the point. You have continued to miss the point - deliberately I suspect - because it doesn't fit your premise.

That is, ultimately, your prerogative.

Now I've tried to spell that out as clearly as I possibly can. If you still can't get my point, then all I can assume is that you are being deliberately obtuse.

I remain open minded about 9/11.

But I am not desperately searching for a reason to try and prove some kind of governmental conspiracy based on assumptions and people posting what they think they know and passing it off as fact.

I get that you honestly believe what you have posted.

Its just that I don't.

That doesn't make you an enemy.

It doesn't make you or me bad people.

It means that - as I've been at pains to point out - we have a different opinion

reply to post by neformore


I am being deliberately "obtuse"? That's funny.

I understood your point with the F-15, which was that the impossible IS possible, however improbable..

What is it precisely that you don't agree with - the data itself, or my understanding ("opinion") based on that data, that a plane of that type (unmodified) cannot FLY at that speed and altitude, while retaining tight flight control, let alone be piloted in the way and manner it was at such speeds, by a complete novice who'd never flown the real thing in the real world and who wasn't even as skilled and experienced as his ex roommate Hani Hanjour, who had great difficulty flying and controlling a single engine Cessna.

You're a Civil Engineer, that's interesting.. and surprising, that you don't have any problem with or any questions at all in regards to the nature of the twin towers' destruction (and building 7), which took both place within 4-6 seconds of absolute free fall for any freely dropped object from the same height in nothing but air..

Anyway, you didn't answer my question...

NewAgeMan
reply to post by neformore

 

From what you are saying, I take it then, that you are in agreement with S.O. - as to the premise and the reasoning and justification behind his decision to edit the title, and the OP, with that "ADMIN NOTICE:" and then proceed to move the thread to the hoax bin.. on that basis?

If so, I advise you to read my rebuttal/objection and the subsequent posts by the member BenReclused, who wished to debate the premise of the OP and thread content, based on an entirely honest assessment of the facts.

No fraud, no "hoax" and no falsification of the data presented in the OP was committed by me, or the Pilots and Aeronautical Engineers who's research I accessed in authoring the OP.

And as to this

neformore

The plane in question did not fly constantly at sea level. It flew in a dive, and was only near sea level for a very short period of time according to the radar plots. In that very short period of time,

The plane was flying at the recorded high speed of 510+ knots, for well over a minute, and then post-dive, in leveling off, it then accelerated, to retain it's speed at 510 knots.

"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 self propulsion at 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)

But we're just going around in circles here, like you say, over and over again, so let's just agree to disagree, even vehemently, and call it a day? No need to reply.

Regards,

NAM

reply to post by toidiem

No, wait, Milt, you old friendly troll - come back!

Well... Even "old friendly trolls" LOVE attention... And, I sure as Hell ain't getting any here...

My opinion of you changed (improved) when you started standing up for what was obviously true (the data, not necessarily the interpretations).

Thank you, VERY much! That means a lot to me!

I think this subject (911) is better suited to sites where the owners support questioning of the OS.

A 767-222's flight capabilities, and structural strengths, aren't dependent on stories. Therefore, details of those stories aren't pertinent. That's what I originally wanted to focus on. Unfortunately, I got sidetracked... And then, ignored... Oh well...

See ya buddy,
Milt

NewAgeMan
What is it precisely that you don't agree with - the data itself, or my understanding ("opinion") based on that data, that an unmodified plane of that type cannot FLY at that speed and altitude, let alone be piloted in the way it was at such speeds, by a novice.

I don't agree with your opinion on either.

You're a Civil Engineer, that's interesting.. and surprising, that you don't have any problem with or any questions at all in regards to the nature of the twin towers' destruction (and building 7), which took place within 4-6 seconds of absolute free fall for any freely dropped object from the same height in nothing but air..

Fully qualified Civil Engineer, with both academic and professional qualifications including the design of structural elements. No, I don't have an issue with the nature of the destruction of the towers or building 7.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question...

I stated previously - I didn't move the thread.

Nor do I need to re-read your rebuttal (you do love repeat posting links) - it still doesn't make your opinion fact.

reply to post by neformore


Did you even read my my rebuttal/objection to the reason the thread was moved and the title and OP edited, even once..?

You're the one who called me deliberately obtuse and who suggested that even under torture (water boarding) I would not confess.. that i was wrong or somehow in error as to my understanding of the facts.

neformore
Been away from this thread for a few days, came back, looked at the most recent stuff and have this to offer.

NAM has made - in his OP - a premise that some of us consider flawed.

Frankly, nothing short of water boarding him (and that probably isn't going to work either) will shift him from his position.

Similarly for those of us who consider the premise flawed, nothing short of water boarding (and that probably isn't going to work either) will shift us from our position.

You can debate my interpretation or understanding of the data (my "opinion"), but the data and it's premise was never shown to be flawed or in error, as you and S.O. have contended regarding the reason that the thread title and OP was edited and the thread moved to the "hoax" bin.

And >I'm< deliberately obtuse..?


How's this for an "opinion"..?

New York Times
February 23, 2002
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER CRASHES; First Tower to Fall Was Hit At Higher Speed, Study Finds
By ERIC LIPTON AND JAMES GLANZ

Researchers trying to explain why the World Trade Center's south tower fell first, though struck second, are focusing on new calculations showing that the passenger jet that hit the south tower had been flying as fast as 586 miles an hour, about 100 miles an hour faster than the other hijacked plane.

The speed of the two planes at impact has been painstakingly estimated using a mix of video, radar and even the recorded sounds of the planes passing overhead.

Two sets of estimates, by government and private scientists, have surfaced, but both show that the plane that hit the south tower at 9:02 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, approached the trade center at extremely high speed, much faster than American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m.

In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude, a Boeing official said.

''These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,'' said Liz Verdier, a Boeing spokeswoman. ''It's off the chart''.

And indeed it was.. (off the chart)

V-G Diagram.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Yes. I read it. You can repeat it until the cows come home. I still don't agree with you.

And please don't misquote me. I said waterboarding wouldn't change your opinion. In the same post I said it wouldn't change mine either.

And yes, you are being obtuse. You refuse to even contemplate a view other than your own

I don't agree with your opinion, but I recognise it. You just simply repeat yourself, and apparently don't acknowledge another viewpoint.

But what I don't get is why you feel the need to apparently take the discussion personally? Its a discussion between people on a discussion forum.

Chill out.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet but TLC airs a show where they show controlled demolitions all the time. Looks exactly like the 3 buildings that came down very nicely - to deny that, you've got to be really closed minded. I used to marvel at how awesome the government was at making people believe that a group of men hijacked planes and flew them into buildings which made them collapse. I think they could have done better with the media though, too many people caught on to the hoax.

reply to post by neformore


In light of the facts and the data in evidence, the view you cling to, seemingly at all cost, is actually very difficult to contemplate, not only in regards to tight flight control at such speed and altitude, but also in terms of piloting by an absolute novice who never flew the real thing in the real world, and who was considered by the 9/11 Commission to be not as "experienced" and "skilled" as a pilot than that of his buddy Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of the Pentagon plane (@ Vd + 80knots) who the record shows had difficulty flying and controlling a single engine Cessna.

Also, in light of the manner in which the twin towers "collapsed", as seen here
.. the explanation, according to the OS, is also very difficult to contemplate if not impossible, to reconcile.

As to getting upset, yeah, i'm a little upset the way this thread's info and content has been handled and addressed by the staff and ownership of ATS, who've implied that i've been involved in perpetrating some sort of "hoax" or that those who's research I've accessed, have done so, when the very premise and basis by which that contention has been made has itself been clearly shown to be faulty, and in error.

When one reads the thread, if they do not have any sort of bias, it becomes rather apparent in regards to the distinction and differentiation between faulty thinking born of preconceived bias and even a certain contempt, prior to investigation, and rational, analytical, deductive reasoning and logic, founded on science, that has no stake in upholding, defending or supporting or even God forbid, protecting, the basic premise of the OS to the effect of - "planes hit, the buildings collapsed, we were attacked".

In fact, when we run the tape back through the events and phenomenon themselves under the scrutiny of rational scientific, deductive reasoning and analysis, the true nature of the apparent causal mechanism between the plane impacts and the buildings' subsequent destruction, first the south tower, hit second but lower down, across multiple floors and at a higher rate of speed.. and then the north tower in the exact same way, about a half hour later - becomes clear in a very stark and horrific manner worthy of very serious consideration by any rational and scientifically minded "skeptic", particularly when we rewind the rest of the history that manifested itself out of the 9/11 event in perfect accordance with first Philip Zelikow's (future 9/11 Commission Chairman) and then Dick Cheney's "prophecy" (outlined in the PNAC Document), prior to, the "transformative, catastrophic and catalyzing event" ("like a new Pearl Harbor"), itself.

It's a very very serious and grave issue with far reaching implications, as I'm sure you're well aware. No need to reply, I "get" that you will never "see it" as i've come, reluctantly, to see it, as it really is (or was).

Clearly, it was a very very BAD policy - which, however, doesn't make you a bad person for falling for it, for the murderous hoax that was 9/11 as a black-op, false flag "shock and awe" global psy-op, to bring about and realize a narrow agenda for the "power elite" or in Zelikow's words "the relevant political community".


Regards,

NAM

"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."

~ Malcolm X

Blowback
This video covers some of this


forward to minute


1.20.15 - The missing black boxes

1.26:50 - Passenger planes or military drones

1.28:20 - Impossible speeds

Wow! Didn't really have the opportunity, given the way the thread evolved, to watch this video, which has to be the best and the most impressive, yet, of all the 9/11 documentaries. Although they used the Vmo/Mmo max operating limit speed as the benchmark/threshold, instead of the Vd design dive limit, as we've done here, it makes a powerful and convincing case that "the plane" could not possibly have been the original flight 175, allegedly hijacked and piloted by Hani Hanjour's buddy, Marwan al-Shehhi.

Thank you Blowback, for this important contribution to the content of this thread.

It also doesn't matter where this thread is located (in the "hoax bin" bowels of ATS), although the ADMIN NOTICE at the top of the OP, given it's premise, is rather unfortunate...


Should anyone wish the share this information, please feel free to send out the url link to this thread into the "noosphere".

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Best Regards,

NAM

NewAgeMan

Sorry you've misunderstood, that's not so, because near sea level, EAS, and TAS are nearly the same, whereas, if the airspeed near sea level is evaluated in terms of the difference in dynamic pressure between low vs. high altitude, at 22,000 feet that same speed amounts to a TAS of 722 knots or 1.19 Mach and higher, at higher altitudes as the air becomes increasingly thinner.

Furthermore, an EAS of 425 knots, near sea level, represents a TAS, at 22,000 feet, of .99 mach which IS the point at which the out-of-control Egypt Air 990 (see V-G Diagram) experienced structural failure.

The statement at the beginning of post 2 is entirely valid.

It is you who've tried to confuse the issue, and mislead, not i.

this is the mistake that you have been making and this is the mistake that you refuse to acknowledge which is what is misleading..

now was the air passing over the airframe of flight 175 at a velocity of 510knots or 722knots??

it may be off the chart but had you even considered or tried to understand my argument you would realise that critical flutter speeds decreases with increasing altitude and increases with decreasing altitude and that it is purely reliant on True airspeed and NOT dynamic pressure..

which would mean that if the Vd limit at 22000 is M0.91 which is a TAS of 554Knots meaning at 700feet the critical flutter speed should be greater than 554Knots TAS..

do you acknowledge that critical flutter speed is concerned with TAS?? ie. do you acknowledge the accuracy of these two documents?
www.vansaircraft.com...
quest.arc.nasa.gov...

Why is this in the Hoax bin?

cavedweller88
Why is this in the Hoax bin?

Because the claim in the OP's title is a hoax....

Why shouldn't it be in the hoax bin, that is where hoax's go!

SkepticOverlord

NewAgeMan
Then what is the basis for the opposition, including the "reasoning" and premise by which you moved the thread, and re-titled and re-edited the OP - relative to the data as it's been presented?

That's been explained.

Thus i can't think of any other reason why someone, particularly a scientifically minded "skeptic" would be so opposed to it or willing to go to any lengths to try to deny or refute, it makes no sense if one is supposed to be looking at the data as it really is with an objective, analytical mindset.

I can think of a reason: the premise lacks any compelling basis in reality such that no scientifically minded skeptic outside the ranks of "9/11 Truth" is able to find it worthy of their time. But the implication that, just because someone doesn't believe this/you/them, they suddenly support the "Official Story." Ludicrous.


If this had legs of any kind, serious investigative reporters -- at least in the foreign press -- would be all over it like they are Snowden. The NSA conspiracies prove that the press is not averse to taking on what has been previously conspiracy theories.

How can i be off topic but Bruce isn't?

Here is s.O . In his own words

Eta so what evidence do we have so far that there were even planes?

Honestly

Little (read none) evidence of wreckage

No black boxes

Wingtip to wingtip penetration of exterior columns

Incredible speeds

Incredible manuverability

Incredible aim

Incredible timing

So really what evidence of a plane do we have besides the videos

And we all know how accurate video is right? According to many right on this site YouTube cant be trusted at all

reply to post by Another_Nut


Just for the record, this is not, i repeat NOT a "no planer" thread for a whole host of reasons that do not require any explanation.

The only thing it helps to point to, perhaps, is speed and structural material, allowing wing tip to wing tip penetration of the outer steel cladding/curtain wall, as evidenced by the impact holes in the buildings.

But the entire video and photographic record, including the impact and fireball, all of it is very clear with regards to the fact that the plane impacts took place.

It bothered me to even have to type that last sentence because these things go to credibility and i doubt very much that S.O. was ever a "no planer" disinfo shill, so unless you have a cite and quote for that, don't bother putting words in someone else's mouth.

Again i repeat this is NOT a no-planer thread, so don't go there, please and thank you very much.

Regards,

NAM


Edit to add: You make a very good point, however, in regards to hellobruce's repeated statements, and why they are permitted here since the title of the thread is..

"An UNMODIFIED Boeing 767 cannot *FLY* @ 510 knots @ (should have read "near") Sea Level" which quite obviously includes the issue of controlled filght as observed, along with engine power/performance because after leveling off on final approach, the plane accelerated to retain an airspeed exceeding 500 knots at/near sea level air density, which should not be possible (with the standard engines) according to pilots and aeronautical engineers and by that i'm not referring exclusively to the membership of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, or John Lear.

..and because the reason, premise and justification by which the thread title and OP was edited, and the thread moved, has been clearly shown to be entirely faulty and in error.

His statements, which are really quite childish, therefore represent superfluous off-topic jabs which add no value to the discussion or the content of this thread and should therefore be removed and/or not permitted.

reply to post by choos



Dearest choos,

I want you to know that i haven't forgotten about you or you inquiry. To be perfectly honest, I've been working hard myself to try to grasp the whole concept of IAS, CAS, TAS, EAS, air density, and the entire ascending and descending sliding scale involved within the context of "the chart" or the flight envelope, established by wind tunnel and certification flight testing (as with the Airbus380 example cited in the OP), between Vmo/Mmo and Vd/Md, as the critical flutter "design dive" speed limit beyond which flutter becomes imminent for a particular, and standard, aircraft type, when flying at different altitudes, some higher some lower.

It can be confusing, and it can be confused, but I think i'm starting to understand it or to at least grasp the concept involved.

Sorry to leave you in suspense here, but i've been gathering data and research and reading up on it, and i just don't have the time, until the weekend, to really give it the attention that it deserves, but I promise to address your questions and what seems like an accusation of sorts, but on that score you're mistaken, because there's been no attempt to mislead anyone on my part and I'm sure from your end, you might also have been a little confused in regards to this issue, because as you say neither would you intentionally or knowingly set out to deceive the readership, so rest assured you have the benefit of the doubt as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for your patience, and Civility.

I will maintain integrity on this and follow through, don't worry.

No need to reply, which might come off the wrong way, as a type of mockery, please just await my full response, or at least that's what I would recommend anyway, it's up to you of course to reply or respond as you wish.


Choos wisely. (that's my new saying)


Best Regards,

NAM

cavedweller88

Why is this in the Hoax bin?

Well, since the actual reason and justification for that action, wasn't valid, and since the data has not in fact been misrepresented or falsified in any way, shape or form, then the only real reason must be because it really is "above top secret" ie: worse by far than the NSA Snowden leak (which actually arose via 9/11 related policy implementation), given what it clearly points to, in no uncertain terms.

Think of it therefore as above ATS, and not beneath it or in it's "domain" or even in it's "dungeon" since the motto all along was to "deny ignorance!".

It doesn't matter however where the info and data is located. Just don't forget to spread the information far and wide with whatever tools are available to you, and it will still have the hope of getting the job done, like an arrow of truth flying straight to its mark every time, even and especially where it may be said that "that which hurts, instructs" (Ben Franklin).


Best Regards,

NAM

NewAgeMan

cavedweller88

Why is this in the Hoax bin?

Well, since the actual reason and justification for that action, wasn't valid, and since the data has not in fact been misrepresented or falsified in any way, shape or form, then the only real reason must be because it really is "above top secret" ie: worse by far than the NSA Snowden leak (which actually arose via 9/11 related policy implementation), given what it clearly points to, in no uncertain terms.

Think of it therefore as above ATS, and not beneath it or in it's "domain" or even in it's "dungeon" since the motto all along was to "deny ignorance!".

It doesn't matter however where the info and data is located. Just don't forget to spread the information far and wide with whatever tools are available to you, and it will still have the hope of getting the job done, like an arrow of truth flying straight to its mark every time, even and especially where it may be said that "that which hurts, instructs" (Ben Franklin).


Best Regards,

NAM

edit on 14-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

Its getting kinda sad now im actually feeling sorry for you. Ive even showed you from a manufacturer of aircraft that its a safety limit and though you shouldn't go over it the aircraft can.And what you keep failing to understand is wind speed it was does damage to a wing not air pressure. At higher altitudes the air is more compact and travels faster over the wing. This causes stress by causing the wing to vibrate. At lower altitudes this doesn't occur if you really are this concerned write Boeingim sure theyll explain it to you thats what the pilot did with airbus.

Where is the hoax? You have confirmed that a data point has been falsified? How has this been confirmed? Which one? So you move somebody's post to hoax but don't explain why. It sounds like you just don't like the information that has been presented.

No data point was falsified. TPTB just don't agree with the premise.

An easy fix, if they didn't want to suppress it, would be to change the title to a question:
Can an unmodified Boeing 767 fly 510 knots at sea level?
Then the argument could go on forever!