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: 7
95
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   

NewAgeMan

False. See examples, and explanation above. It just doesn't work that way. Because of aerodynamic pressures at low vs. high altitude, so too is the VMO reduced, with the dive speed limit of 420 knots representing the Vd structural limit, which to understand in terms of equivalent airspeed, only stacks up to the MMO of Mach .86 when the plane reaches it's VMO at an EAS of 360 knots near sea level or Mach .86 at 23,000 feet to 35000 feet.


i dont get this..

mach 0.86 at 23000 feet is eas of 360

but mach 0.86 at 1000 feet is eas of 559..

and saying Vd is 420 knots.. but at what altitude?? 420 knots eas at 40000ft is a markedly different mach number than 420 knots eas at sea level..

from what i understand most of the buffeting and damage comes from the shockwaves of near and breaking the sound barrier.




posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


all those V-G diagrams are illustrations of the same V-G diagram posted earlier.. they are just illustrations..

a V-G diagram should have mach number and altitude limits attached on it.. im not sure on 767's

but just saying a Vd of 420 EAS for all altitude is misleading and wrong..

if you fly a craft not designed to exceed the speed of sound, it falls apart..

420 EAS at 40000ft is beyond the speed of sound..



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   

miniatus
These posts will keep coming until the end of time... happy almost 2014... 9/11 conspiracies will never die



Yeah, it has been so long right ?? Like 3 years after the Matrix showed us all we are fools right ???

OMG like move on guys, find the real problems with yer lives !

Do not worry that the same people that defend this are the ones that bailed out the bankers, who laughed as they stole all the wealth and technology and paid all the scientists and had everyone silenced.

People please !!!



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


Altitudes for Vd is listed in the Boeing 767 Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS). 420 knots Vd is from sea level to about 18,000 feet.. then .91 Mach above 23,000 feet.. linear variation between those points, whereby you may note from the Airbus380 flutter test example from the OP that in that case the Vd/Md of Mach .96 was at a ceiling of about 38,000 feet.

To verify these numbers, please consult the TCDS


edit on 31-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   

choos

i dont get this..

mach 0.86 at 23000 feet is eas of 360

but mach 0.86 at 1000 feet is eas of 559..


I don't get it either - how did you come up with or arrive at that second number was it with the calculator by plugging in .86 mach at 1000 feet, because as far as I know it doesn't work that way and you don't start with a mach # at low altitude and then try to solve for EAS from there. I think you might possibly be attempting to fudge the numbers and distort and confuse the information that's been presented, just to be difficult, contrarion and disruptive, or worse, but I'll be happy to try to solve it in terms of what you're trying to do here, but just be warned that you might end up coming off looking like nothing but an OS "truster" shill who's going out of his way to try to knowingly protect and defend the indefensible by sowing seeds of confusion. If so that would NOT be a good thing, but I'm more than happy to give you the benefit of the doubt in the interim.

Tell me where you got that second set from and precisely how you arrived at it and I'll get back to you when I can (been spending too much time here this last day or so..!). Thanks.

Regards,

NAM


edit on 31-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 01:31 AM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by choos
 


Altitudes for Vd is listed in the Boeing 767 Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS). 420 knots Vd is from sea level to about 18,000 feet.. then .91 Mach above 23,000 feet.. linear variation between those points, whereby you may note from the Airbus380 flutter test example from the OP that in that case the Vd/Md of Mach .96 was at a ceiling of about 38,000 feet.

To verify these numbers, please consult the TCDS


edit on 31-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)


that sheet says 420 CAS upto 18000ft..

420 CAS at 18000 ft is about 533 TAS at 18000ft.. or about M0.86..

and at 1000ft 420 cas is only M0.64.. not really close to the speed of sound.. the prescribed limits at sealevel has less to do with the aircraft breaking apart and more to do with noise levels..

im not 100% sure on this, but these Vd limits should be to limit the aircraft from getting close to the shockwaves of the breaking the sound barrier, which is what breaks the aircraft apart..

p.s. to answer your other question yes i used mach number.. as far as i know Mach number is more important for Vd than CAS or even EAS. you can call me a truther shill or whatever, but im mostly trying to understand how this works and what you have done, because what you are doing seems a bit strange and misleading to me. perhaps im mistaken, im no expert in this field.
edit on 31-12-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Sooooo.......

In short for layman.

a) If pilot is super pilot
He knows he cant do the maneuver because of physics and plane physical limitation. He know he would destroy the plane before it it hit the tower.

b) If pilot is dumb
He have to be a pilot to fly a plane that good isnt he ? Its like playing dart with tree trunks, have to be super to do it.

c) If no pilot at all - remote control
All above considered possible and it happen as it was. No matter military jet or commercial or toy, it can be done.

I chose C and since the plane didnt break out/destroyed during flight - it was modified or a different plane model.

This is my layman deduction so far.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


No i'm not misleading and i'm freely accessing the research of a large number of very respectable pilots including three who flew the actual alleged planes, two of whom have flight time on the actual flight 175 aircraft.

This is serious business. So i will reply to each and every item you've raised.

You're mistaken by the way about only transonic effects approaching Mach 1.0 being solely or largely responsible for exerting pressure on and breaking up an aircraft.

Flutter is flutter and can occur at any altitude. I'll post more on that tomorrow. it's about the amount of AIR the plane is flying through, and at high altitude a plane can slip past mach without notice because the air is so thin. Transonic effects are not the only aerodynamic pressure and drag on the airframe - it's the amount of AIR that the plane is flying through which leads to flutter.

A Cessna does not have to reach mach to break apart due to aerodynamic effects LOL (obviously i'm using hyperbole here just to make the point).

In other words, the air pressures more than anything are what cause the phenomenon called "flutter", and everything flutters at any altitude, like a flag it just depends on the material it's made of and how much pressure, air pressure, it can withstand.

You may be what i would call dissembling in favor of the OS only because the alternative is unfathomable to you and i can understand that, in fact it means you're a well meaning and good decent American who really cares, but i too was also in that camp, we all were except for the most perceptive among us who knew right out of the gate that it wasn't what everyone was being led to believe and railroaded into, but they were few at the beginning.

i care and love all people, in the final analysis and can't bring myself to condemn anyone or anything, i just want a new world a new "city" a new civilization, the old one was no good and this 9/11 typifies if perfectly and to a t, to 3000 t's.. it's a terrible thing and those people died horribly. If it was a hoax of some kind, some murderous evil genius hoax of the worst kind - a black bag, black-op psy-op, flase flag, hoodwink, which made a victim of the whole world, then well would they want for everyone to know, so that in learning from history and in also doing the work of forgiveness - we might at last have the power to steal away the historical fulcrum from the likes of creepy Philip D. Zelikow and an even creepier Dick Cheney, and quite literally snatch it right out of their hands, disavowing ourselves from the blatant lie that can no longer be believed in light of objective, measurable phenomenon, including it would appear as much as it does the CD of those towers, the plane itself who's impact with the building was clearly SOLD as the only causal mechanism of "collapse" or more particularly a "collapse initiation" hypothesis, with the second building hit lower down, although earlier, blown up first, the around the impact area (see Turner Construction upgrades/rennos on page 1), with the north tower then blowing up in precisely the same manner, but from the 95 floor, a half hour later, whereby the destruction of the first building "sells" the destruction of the second one, and hey they were both hit with planes after all..

sorry for ranting and carrying on..

I can show you though that there's no attempt to mislead on this, not on my part.

The Boeing 767's Vd limit IS 420 knots, there's no getting around that, nor that it was travelling at 150 knots over it's VMO or max operating limit, but it's the NINETY knots over Vd limit that's the problem here, you see, whereby in regards to dynamic pressures, the EAS (equivalent airspeed analogue) MUST be used, to understand the kind of airspeed that we're really talking about in terms of Vd and potentially flutter and structural failure. It's unavoidable.

To then highlight the difference in dynamic pressures and aerodynamic effects, as they occurred, we then take the ACTUAL airspeed (groundspeed + windspeed = 510 + knots, to 515 or so, with a very light wind to the N/W, sticker with the recorded 510 to be on the conservative side), and consider it in terms of EAS (equivalent airspeed) at higher altitude, to get an idea of the aerodynamic pressures involved, just to see what kind of dynamic pressures we're really looking at, and while it obviously doesn't include transonic effects at 510 knots, it's the equivalent AIR-speed, of well over mach level airspeeds, at altitude, where the air is 2/3 thinner.

I'm not lying or deceiving, but i will come back and address every last item, because this information is not incorrect or intended to deceive in any way, shape or form. Heck there's much to much at stake for that kind of nonsense, much too much.

And just look at the buildings and see what happened there - doesn't that bring the plane into focus as perhaps suspect and lo and behold what do we find but that as soon as the real flight 175 started switching it's beacon a couple of times, in comes this crack Boeing pilot extraordinaire driving a commercial Boeing like it's a fighter jet, throughout the entire dive and target acquisitioning, to quite literally park the plane on the target, the slight corner shot on the south tower only increasing the magnitude of the fireball, although who's to say if that was intentional. Point is that it defies all reason to think that plane that actually hit the tower, was flight 175 piloted by whatshisface.

We can't divorce ourselves from all reason and logic and scientific inquiry, to swallow.. that lie.

Maybe it's easier for me as an outsider, as a Canadian citizen, to see it, but it sure hasn't been easy that's for sure. Generating this thread's content isn't easy. It's not fun. Sometimes a tear just leaks out of my eye spontaneously as i work to keep up with the thread.

Talk to you again soon.

love,

NAM


edit on 31-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Just an observation here, but if someone intended to fly a plane into the side of the building I really don't think its rated safe speed would be much of a consideration to the person who was flying it.

So, question. How long was it flying at a speed exceeding the supposed limit?



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


the answer is
that it had been modified.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 03:32 AM
link   

NullVoid
Sooooo.......

In short for layman.

a) If pilot is super pilot
He knows he cant do the maneuver because of physics and plane physical limitation. He know he would destroy the plane before it it hit the tower.

b) If pilot is dumb
He have to be a pilot to fly a plane that good isnt he ? Its like playing dart with tree trunks, have to be super to do it.

c) If no pilot at all - remote control
All above considered possible and it happen as it was. No matter military jet or commercial or toy, it can be done.

I chose C and since the plane didnt break out/destroyed during flight - it was modified or a different plane model.

This is my layman deduction so far.


I would suppose, and this is purely speculation on my part, but it was done to ram a certain level of the building in a certain way, across multiple floors (see Turner Construction renno's compliments of _Bonez_ (i think i got that right) on page 1), where the excessive speed was done primarily to ensure penetration of the building, including it's outer steel curtain wall, and i suppose they considered that the pilot would simply appear reckless and crazed, to be flying like that and that no one would stop to consider the physical dynamics of the speed itself as it relates to the Boeing's Vd limit or to the notion of controlled flight at such a speed. This implicates Boeing in a way for not speaking up, but that's another matter. It's almost implicit in the NSTB Radar Data report too that they understood what they were dealing with when they pointed out that the plane accelerated under it's own propulsion after the dive was over, to maintain a level flight speed, at 700 ft alt., of 510 knots on it's final approach whereby level flight at that speed, was maintained, post dive, a speed which also occurred throughout most of it's unbelievable rapid descent during which the radar data recorded a sustained speed of 510-520 knots throughout. Will check on the altitudes involved, and the record from the data accessed in 2010 from a successful FOIA request. Tomorrow. G'night!



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   

neformore

So, question. How long was it flying at a speed exceeding the supposed limit?


I'll present all the data on that, tomorrow, you will not believe it, it get's even more unbelievable when you hear the story. It's freaky off the charts unbelievable, and i'm not even talking about piloting skills.

It's utterly astounding and incredible what this plane did shortly after what i am convinced was the real flight 175, flipped it's transponder beacon a couple of times in a minute, and then after that, it's... well, absurd, to even begin to consider, first in terms of the aircraft's Vd limit, and then, if that weren't enough, with whathisname hijacker guy at the helm. It doesn't work.

Then we look at the evidence of the CD of those buildings (and building 7), and then it dawns, that if he wasn't at the helm of that plane, then nobody was.

Occam's Razor is based on all observed phenomenon, not the narrative ABOUT the phenomenon under observation.

There's a big problem with the OS on so many levels it's not funny, but the physical reality of the actual occurrence of the events themselves do not lend themselves for a moment to the OS, which reveals itself to be nothing but a terrible hoax.

So what we have here is a type of reverse-sting, double-bind psy-op, of the very best kind because it's based in nothing but the truth and reality, which demonstrates in no uncertain terms that the official story cannot be believed and therefore in the fullness of time, and from age to age will not be believed, no matter what CNN or wikipedia states. It just doesn't pass muster as they like to say in the military (i once thought it was mustard!).

Tomorrow, the combined story of the most unbelievable piece of aeronautic acrobatics that you've ever seen or heard, without precedent, in all of aviation history.

G'night, sweet dreams (i mean it), it's New Years, already, New Years EVE Day - Happy New Year! and good night.

NAM


edit on 31-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 04:15 AM
link   
It doesn't matter if Martians made it happen. The argument stands or falls on its own merits. The motives, methods, and implications are irrelevant. The only question is whether the airplane could have maintained structural integrity. No lack of known explanation could ever change a fact established, yea or nay. This is so basic, so integral to scientific thought, that someone who jumps from a hypothesis regarding a specific aspect of a complex circumstance to a demand for a broad explanation of every other element of the circumstance may have an emotional bias impairing their reasoning.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 04:34 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 04:37 AM
link   

matafuchs
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)


Yes we all know physics isnt hard evidence.
for trusters that is ofcourse. Maybe because apparantly physics is not a part of science for you.

And nice way of contradicting yourself: First you say they made it look like cave dwellers did it, then i respond and say it was actually a very accurate hit. Then you say they wanted to hit more than 1 floor by tilting the wings. So which is it?

And the paragraph you write about me being a follower and that remote controls sounds cool or how you start by saying read both sides of the story, which is not a bad advice if i was a novice on this material. (Aside from the fact that you get both sides already by reading these threads and the comments) But we can just turn those paragraphs around, and give you some of your own medicine. (By the way how surprising that it is a truster who is skilled at twisting questions and answers and turn em around, when you look at your answers about science) Turning your words around we could just as easy say you should do more than just reading the 911-report and get both sides. Or you should stop following truthers and make up your mind..

So instead of exchanging pointless suggestions and assumptions how about you give me some new info with a source? And if you dont care to educate a truther, why are you even here?


edit on 31-12-2013 by whatsup86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by sepermeru
 


Piloting and controlled flight must also be considered, as must the destruction of the buildings themselves an our and an hour and a half later, these are both physical phenomenon connected by a certain causation, even though at another level they stand on their own merit, but the linkage between the two events cannot be ignored, so one can just as easily arrive at these observations by first having deduced that the buildings were brought down by a high precision engineered controlled demolition, originating at around the impact areas whereby the plane impacts were done to in effect sell the causal mechanism of destruction, and if the buildings are prepped for an explosive demolition then there can be no mistake whereby the plane must successfully acquire the target, at high speed (the north tower plane is something that we still have to look at, and while it didn't approach the target quite as fast, it also was very fast, even as it relates to Vd and VMO) and fully penetrate the building envelope in order for that apparent causal mechanism to successfully pave the way for first one and then the other buildings complete destruction. No luck involved, and thus an operation that was not reliant upon all the unknown variables of a successful hijacking and piloting to target.

Occam's Razor slices based on measurable phenomenon under observation, not an a priori narrative, not what we are supposed to presume in advance of our investigation, but based solely and exclusively on what's already there, which cannot be approached in regards to an authentic scientific inquiry with any pre-conception or bias in terms of expectation or prior "belief".

In other words you can't simply say that because at first glance it appears to be such and such, that that's just the way it IS, particularly when presented with evidence and information which might overturn that presumption. It works both ways, when weighing and comparing competing hypothesis, but indeed they must in the final analysis take into consideration all available phenomenon and information whereby the explanatory hypothesis holds, as a model, which does in fact include such things as motive, means, opportunity, access, capability, resources, etc.

If a MAJOR aspect of the OS is proven false, like the destruction of the twin towers, then everything and all phenomenon and causes must be re-examined in light of a working hypothesis that IS capable of taking all data and information into account, first and foremost being physical occurrence of the causation of the essential events themselves, whereby the new hypothesis must be capable of reconciling those physical events and phenomenon under observation in a way that is consistent with the actual observations themselves.

It's elementary.


Deny ignorance.

NAM


edit on 31-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Similar to the acrobatics of the planes, the controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7 should be so obvious by now that the only conclusion I can come to is that the majority of the public is in serious denial. This is a natural reaction to a situation that the mind can't handle, so you really can't blame those in denial. It's an instinctive reaction to apparent danger.

The government is perceived as a father that will always take care of us and protect us, no matter what. The thought of losing this protective bubble is unbearable to most. Especially those with a fragile personality.

You have to remember that these psychological realities have been studied in depth for decades, and have obviously been utilized to someone's advantage, which wasn't yours or mine. If you have any doubts about their use of the most destructive means at their disposal, just look at the atomic bomb. These people are psychopaths, and most of us are unable to fathom what that really means.

soulwaxer



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   

neformore
Just an observation here, but if someone intended to fly a plane into the side of the building I really don't think its rated safe speed would be much of a consideration to the person who was flying it.

So, question. How long was it flying at a speed exceeding the supposed limit?



I don't get your logic...If you intend to slam the planes into buildings...than falling short of that goal...is a huge miss don't you think? And daring the plane's structural capabilities by performing uneccessary acrobatics only decreases chances of success...and that is...to reach the buildings...no ?

Of course...they could have been complete morons...and disregarded the mission objective completely...and just went for a crazy joyride...taking as many risks as possible.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

If we "conspiracy nuts" are delusional, then there are at least 2 of us who are delusional in exactly the same way. You and I think alike brother.

You have very eloquently explained how one needs to connect the particular dots in order to see the big picture.

Excellent post and a refreshingly good thread!

soulwaxer



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Now that is an interesting argument and as my education is in Psychology, let's look at that for a moment; shall we?

Your premise is that because a majority, and a VAST majority at that, think differently than you, THEY ALL must be "In Denial" as you put it.

You go on to say that "their" minds can not handle "the truth"..

Introspection:

The majority you speak of include some of the most celebrated and educated people on the planet.
That same majority includes the best and brightest engineers in the world

All delusional by your standards?

You do understand how that sounds don't you?

There have been others on this planet that thought they knew what everyone else did not. List?
Adolph Hitler
Napoleon
Benito Mussolini
Well the list is long

Subjective:

As a rule, when one encounters a subject that has been decided by the vast majority of society in one way, and one is opposed to that decision, it is often the most wise and prudent action to evaluate ones own decision making process in that regard

In other words:

You are most like, exponentially, wrong by your very own definition and description

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 12/31/2013 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join