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: 5
95
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   


All I have to do is ask where are all the passengers that got on flight 175?

All you can do is change the subject-or answer the question with a question.

Again, there are 18 confirmed and recorded conversations between the passengers and persons on the ground-how did they(who ever 'they' is) fake that?

All you can do is change the subject-or answer the question with a question.
reply to post by spooky24
 


Answer the question with a question; that's what you just did.

They were on United 93.

If they're deceased, and weren't on flight 175 or flight 11, or the mysterious flight 77, then the fourth aircraft? How many people were listed as being on these four flights in total?




posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   

matafuchs

These are the opposite questions you have to ask when it is all done. Airspeed...sea level...etc...this is all out the window as they were not on approach they were on a mission. That mission was to simply hit the buildings. In both towers you can see they did not hit on the same floor nor in the same area. If they were remote would there not be some more precise and perfect hits or was that to make it 'look' like cave dwellers did this?



Did you know it was easier to fly those planes through the middle of both towers and miss them than to hit them like they did? They were spot on; the wing tips were exactly inside of the building. So what do you mean they made it look like cave dwellers did this? It couldnt have been any more accurate. If anything the tilted wings tell you the plane was making a slight turn making the hit even more difficult.

But why argue about this when you dont even believe in science. I guess Allah did make it all happen that day.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Back to the OPs origional topic:

Are the speed ratings applical to a new off the factory floor plane?
Or
Are they for planes that are nearing the end of their service life too?

Secondly how long was the plane above it's rated speed?

If you take the analogy of speed ratings for auto tires and extend it to the planes you might come to a different conclusion.
An 'S' rated tire is good up to 112 mph.
Does that mean it will blow at 120 mph? Not likely.
If you speed down a hill and hit 130 mph at the bottom will it blow? Not likely either.
It all has to do with the amount of time you exceed the limits.

There are many examples of things exceeding their design limits and still holding together.

Why isn't there droves of aircraft engineers blasting out stories claiming the plane could not have survived the claimed speed?
You do know that college age students are known to ignor accepted rules? They would be the first to put up websites saying the plane could not have survived that speed.
Why isn't Airbus screaming that Boeings stated specs are bogus?
And yet the only ones screaming fowl are internet experts. Why is that?



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   

samkent
There are many examples of things exceeding their design limits and still holding together.

Why isn't there droves of aircraft engineers blasting out stories claiming the plane could not have survived the claimed speed?
You do know that college age students are known to ignor accepted rules? They would be the first to put up websites saying the plane could not have survived that speed.
Why isn't Airbus screaming that Boeings stated specs are bogus?
And yet the only ones screaming fowl are internet experts. Why is that?


Social behaviour can be weird I can tell you that, and the exact opposite of what you think is logic. And how does the amount of sites college students make about certain topics affect the validity?



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

Here's a little something for you to chew on.

Vne/Mmo - Mach .80 (Never Exceed/Maximum Mach Number)
www.flywestwind.com...



The yellow arc terminates at the red line—VNE—the velocity that should never be exceeded. VNE is 90 percent or less of the demonstrated dive velocity (VD), a calculated value and/or the speed at which a test pilot flew the plane with no vibration or buffeting severe enough to result in structural damage.

flighttraining.aopa.org...


So, what was the Mach number for the speed and altitude we're talking about again? I'll help you. Seems its about 0.67, seems the plane was flying within placard limits.


edit on 12/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Exactly this. Seems the OP does not know what the speed of sound is at sea level. (Hint...more than 425 knots.)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Why isn't there droves of aircraft engineers blasting out stories claiming the plane could not have survived the claimed speed?
You do know that college age students are known to ignor accepted rules? They would be the first to put up websites saying the plane could not have survived that speed.
Why isn't Airbus screaming that Boeings stated specs are bogus?
And yet the only ones screaming fowl are internet experts. Why is that?


Because only Internet Warriors are left that care

The rest of the world has taken the FACTS and moved on past this tragedy

The only ones left to question are those with some strange need to fulfill some fantasy conspiracy that never existed in the first place



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by jhn7537
 

I don't find ignorance amusing.


Nevermind.

Just like EVERY other 9/11 thread, nothing more than a pissing match.

I have no desire to stick around and watch people fling baseless insinuations at one another because everyone thinks everyone else is wrong and thinks *their* opinion is the right one.
edit on 30-12-2013 by RomeByFire because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   

InTheFlesh1980
reply to post by Phage
 

Phage, I really respect your scientific approach on a lot of topics. You truly are a highly intelligent individual.

But regarding specific topics, like this, your thickness is brutally evident. You are sorely lacking in the ability to evaluate probability. There are countless topics you have commented on which you entirely lack proof of your assertions, citing arguably biased sources, claiming to be a pure "scientist".

Part of being a scientist is understanding when the basis for your postulations is fraudulent (i.e. "not YOUR research", the research of those with an AGENDA). You lack this, and thus you lack true objectivity.

The official story regarding 9/11 is a mathematical impossibility. Period. There is no model of probability which can support it. Yet you perpetually interject your complete improbabilities as if they hold merit.

I will not argue the details, as they rest on the deafest of ears. Let it be known, your words here have no more merit than the next. And although you may have a wonderful grasp of the austerity of scientific methods, you are wanting much in the ability to draw conclusions from the most obvious body of evidence in conspiratorial history.

Lots of posts and stars about planets mean nothing to me, or to many others around here.

Cheers and Happy New Year! Having dinner with Al Gore?


Except that the 9/11 official story is not full of mathematical improbabilities, outside of those minds who don't understand math, how things work, and so desperately want to fit anything and everything into their conspiracy worldview. What is more improbable? Determined individuals who did not care to live hijacking a plane and flying it into a building or grand conspiracy involving thousands of individuals from planners to perps to missing passengers, and modified planes to missiles, no planes at all, to mini-nukes, "nano-thermite
"

Occam's razor.


kix

posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
God knows I am sick and tired of these 9/11 threads because naysayers will NEVER accept the possibility of being deceived by the government, and also the thrush camp has some very cool certified wackos and disinfo agents to make everything look silly and derail the thread.

The simple truth is that a real life test of a 767 coming apart has been conducted By a suicide pilot from Egypt Air some years ago, the guy simply pointed down the aircraft.


upload.wikimedia.org...


The 767 broke apart pretty fast and there is NTSB data to support it :



FROM THE NTSB and WIKI DATA.
From the presence of a western debris field about 1,200 feet (370 m) from the eastern debris field, the NTSB concluded that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage separated from the airplane at some point before water impact.[1]



In the case of Egypt air the pilot put the engines on Idle (on 9-11 AFAIK they were still operating and the sound of the videos make pretty conclusive they were), and he pointed down the 767 and in less than 40 secs:




06:49:53Z – FL329
06:50:05Z – FL315
06:50:17Z – FL254
06:50:29Z – FL183 (this was the last altitude report received by ATC)


Altitude at 18300 feet was probably with the plane in pieces that is why radar lost contact.

SOOOOO.... again this 9-11 has TONS of plot holes, starting with complete novices flying, to a perfect flight path avoiding the mot protected airspace in the world to the perpetrators passport in pristine condition....


The problem with the 9-11 conspiracy is that if you accept this fact, then you have to speculate further into very weird waters like:

If they were not 767, what are they.
Where are the real PAX of those flights
If those are modified planes then where are the "original ones?"
Were those holograms?
What about the Put options on airline stocks a few days before?

Just a quick exercise... buy a big powerful PC, buy the profesional version of Xplane, buy the 767-200 use the realistic option at 100%, put the fuel and weights in the range of 60%, try to do it.... you will find your 767 wing less by the time you hit 22 thousand feet...

Then again believe what you want, I am like Jules (on Pulp Fictions) "My eyes are wide open".

Peace

KIX



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Asktheanimals
reply to post by spooky24
 


You can prove that these calls were made from the very airplanes that crashed in to the towers/pentagon/shanksville?

Where are the black boxes and cockpit voice recorders?
Why don't 2 of them have serial numbers ascribed to them in the reports?
How could they lose all of the black boxes from the planes that crashed in to the towers when every last single piece of debris was gone over several times both on site and at Fresh kills?
Maybe they didn't find them because they weren't the supposed passenger flights?

Calls from above 20,000 feet were proven impossible to make.
Can you prove the voices on the calls were authentic?

Novice pilots flying 767's like they supposedly did on 9/11 would be like any of us jumping in an Indy racer and making course speed records in the process.
Ain't gonna happen.



You can make calls above 20,000 feet. Where was it proven you could not? You can make a call 4 miles from a cell tower on land, what does altitude have to do with it?



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

whatsup86

matafuchs

These are the opposite questions you have to ask when it is all done. Airspeed...sea level...etc...this is all out the window as they were not on approach they were on a mission. That mission was to simply hit the buildings. In both towers you can see they did not hit on the same floor nor in the same area. If they were remote would there not be some more precise and perfect hits or was that to make it 'look' like cave dwellers did this?



Did you know it was easier to fly those planes through the middle of both towers and miss them than to hit them like they did? They were spot on; the wing tips were exactly inside of the building. So what do you mean they made it look like cave dwellers did this? It couldnt have been any more accurate. If anything the tilted wings tell you the plane was making a slight turn making the hit even more difficult.

But why argue about this when you dont even believe in science. I guess Allah did make it all happen that day.


You misread the statement I am afraid.

1. What I meant by the same floors is that is what was wanted. They, the terrorists, wanted to push one tower into the other. This is what they tried to accomplish in 93. If you wanted the most bang for the buck push one into the other and kill 20k.

2. So, it is easier to thread the needle than to hit a building?

3. They tilted at the last minute to cause the most damage striking multiple floors...as they trained to.
4. Science? Why is it that in all of history you folks think science was suspended for 20-30 seconds on 9/11? This is as funny as saying someone cannot clap some many times in a minute so 9/11 could not have happened.

Allah did make it happen that day and we were caught with our pants down. No real response to give as we trained for outside threats to attack our coast not our homeland. It sucked and we paid for it. Just hope it never happens again....



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 




The only ones left to question are those with some strange need to fulfill some fantasy conspiracy that never existed in the first place

Except when you bring physics and gravity into the "conspiracy" it shows there is no conspiracy.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   

matafuchs

whatsup86

matafuchs

These are the opposite questions you have to ask when it is all done. Airspeed...sea level...etc...this is all out the window as they were not on approach they were on a mission. That mission was to simply hit the buildings. In both towers you can see they did not hit on the same floor nor in the same area. If they were remote would there not be some more precise and perfect hits or was that to make it 'look' like cave dwellers did this?



Did you know it was easier to fly those planes through the middle of both towers and miss them than to hit them like they did? They were spot on; the wing tips were exactly inside of the building. So what do you mean they made it look like cave dwellers did this? It couldnt have been any more accurate. If anything the tilted wings tell you the plane was making a slight turn making the hit even more difficult.

But why argue about this when you dont even believe in science. I guess Allah did make it all happen that day.


You misread the statement I am afraid.

1. What I meant by the same floors is that is what was wanted. They, the terrorists, wanted to push one tower into the other. This is what they tried to accomplish in 93. If you wanted the most bang for the buck push one into the other and kill 20k.

2. So, it is easier to thread the needle than to hit a building?

3. They tilted at the last minute to cause the most damage striking multiple floors...as they trained to.
4. Science? Why is it that in all of history you folks think science was suspended for 20-30 seconds on 9/11? This is as funny as saying someone cannot clap some many times in a minute so 9/11 could not have happened.

Allah did make it happen that day and we were caught with our pants down. No real response to give as we trained for outside threats to attack our coast not our homeland. It sucked and we paid for it. Just hope it never happens again....


1. Really? So they hi-jacked 2 planes to hit one building so it could fall into the other?

2. No I said LIKE they did. The widt of the space in between the towers is bigger than the widt of the buildings themselves. And since they got the whole plane exactly in between the edges of the towers, not just a part of the plane, it was actually as if they threaded the needle since missing was easier. Even flying through the middle would have been less impressive, though you could probably see that as a needle as well just a bigger one with the same thread.

3. You seem to know a lot more of the actual plan than I have ever seen, can you provide a source for #1 and #3?

4. Uhm nice way of turning things around. But there are enough other 911 topics that will educate you on science. Truthers dont suspend anything otherwise we wouldnt be the ones asking questions, we try to apply science and see if it fits and guess what educate yourself a little more. Trusters take the easy road and suspend science in order to keep their world a dream.

With Allah making things happen I ment you believe in fairietales. Wonder why I need to explain it to you. It is telling though.




edit on 30-12-2013 by whatsup86 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-12-2013 by whatsup86 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-12-2013 by whatsup86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

NavyDoc

Asktheanimals
reply to post by spooky24
 


You can prove that these calls were made from the very airplanes that crashed in to the towers/pentagon/shanksville?

Where are the black boxes and cockpit voice recorders?
Why don't 2 of them have serial numbers ascribed to them in the reports?
How could they lose all of the black boxes from the planes that crashed in to the towers when every last single piece of debris was gone over several times both on site and at Fresh kills?
Maybe they didn't find them because they weren't the supposed passenger flights?

Calls from above 20,000 feet were proven impossible to make.
Can you prove the voices on the calls were authentic?

Novice pilots flying 767's like they supposedly did on 9/11 would be like any of us jumping in an Indy racer and making course speed records in the process.
Ain't gonna happen.



You can make calls above 20,000 feet. Where was it proven you could not? You can make a call 4 miles from a cell tower on land, what does altitude have to do with it?


Because cell towers in 2001 broadcasted signals horizontally not vertically and while there is some spillage in the vertical, the cell phone calls made above about 5 thousand feet have been shown without a doubt to me mathematically impossible.

Don't take my word for it though, if you have the time and attention span, try reading this for some detailed, factual insight into the matter, if you get through it all as I have, you will change your opinion of calls being made at 20k feet from cell phones. The government did.

Check it out
edit on 30-12-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsup86
 


Yes. Two planes equals two chances. What if they missed? It is called contingency planning. B to back up A.

As far as the information, it is out there you just have to look at this with an open eye not with a truther eye. Read the 9/11 Commission report or anything else that explains not the OS but simply what happened that day and what led up to it. If you only look at one side of any story you can never see what could be the simple truth.

You see, I think 93 was shot down as well as 587 covered up as a bombing. These are things that could have happened. There is evidence in place in both.

Science was not suspended that day. The towers collapsed after they became structurally unsound and not able to hold/dispense the weight of the upper floors. It is real simply if you look at it with an open mind.

Now, do remote controlled planes and covert op sound cool, yes, but it simply did not happen that way. Stop being a follower, look at both sides and come to a conclusion. If you still think explosives brought down the 1,2 and 7 towers, awesome, but that does not mean you are correct.

The SAME stories are rehashed over and over and there is never any new evidence. None. In 12 years none. If I saw hard evidence I would change my mind but there is none. Too bad as it might kick this nation into overdrive to get these incompetent jack offs out of office.
edit on 12pm31pmfu2013-12-30T15:04:51-06:000351 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsup86
 


With regards to flight control - watch/listen just from 24.58 - 32.22 (just over 7 minutes) in the following video, which corroborates what you've posted.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by teslahowitzer
 


Here's some additional info to consider, which might also benefit Phage..

"VMO: Maximum operating limit speed (in knots), MMO: Maximum operating limit Mach." en.wikipedia.org...

Vmo is a margin of safety limit mandated by the FAA based on Vd (dive speed) in knots for lower altitude operations. Mmo is a margin of safety limit mandated by the FAA based on Md (mach dive), in Mach, for higher altitude operations.

Vmo/Mmo limits for a standard 767 are 360/0.86M. And this is how it is calculated...




The dive speed [Vd] is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent), as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. At the dive speed [Vd], excessive aircraft vibrations develop which put the aircraft structural integrity at stake.

theflyingengineer.com...

Vd for a standard 767 is 420 knots.

rgl.faa.gov...

Question: VMO = 360 knots ... at 35,000 feet?

False.

Vmo at FL350 is roughly 294 KCAS based on .86 Mmo. And you can actually see this happening on the airspeed indicator as you climb above the crossover altitude. The Vmo needle (or Vmo limit on the speed tape for glass cockpits) actually starts moving to lower airspeeds the higher you climb.

By the way, Jets with Air Data Computers (ADC) don't have IAS, the airspeed read on the airspeed indicator in a Jet is CAS (Calibrated Airspeed), the ADC removes instrument errors.



www.luizmonteiro.com...


edit on 30-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



VMO limits on the 767 are low because the windshield was found to be of insufficient strength to handle a birdstrike effectively , like most other modern jet airliners. It is a safety limit, and vastly low on the 767 as opposed to other aircraft, where VMO is closer to Mmo. Therefor, it is a misnomer to equate the low VMO with the ability of this plane to take extreme environmental stress. ( on any aircraft)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Make sure you seperate airphones from cell phones in your research and argument. It is one that many of you are getting wrong. Calling from the air does not 'mean' a cell and I have seen it misrepresented in the Truther articles before..just a heads up....



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
For those readers who wish to know more about the real history of 9/11, you can find it here

www.historycommons.org...

Other than that all we'd be left with would be the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST Report, and that's all she wrote as far as the official story or "official" history goes.


Never forget.

In loving memory of Kevin Cosgrove, who was not ready to die that day, and neither were the firemen who were setting out to put out the fire on the 79th floor..



Think twice debunkers about what you're defending or trying to defend, and guard. You may hate me for saying that, but the time always come where a choice needs to be made.

This is not fun and games.

NAM



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join