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: 8
95
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 05:45 AM
link   

MarioOnTheFly

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.


lol... and succeeding in hitting 3 out of 3 targets. That's like throwing a 180 in darts on the first try, with no experience. How people can't see the absurdity of this is beyond scary.




posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   
How many times do I need to tell you that this is meaningless. If you would actually read the commission report before trashing it you would know that all those speeds are approximation.

The appendix states: Due to meteorological and astronomical influences along with forces of aerodynamics all ground speeds listed are approximations within the range of 5%.

The NTSB and NIST are also approximations of ground speed.

In the footnotes it plainly says the speeds are based on forensic radar estimations.

Since flight 77 was lost on radar for more that 200miles the flight path, altitude and ground speed are estimates.

Without the FDR from flight 175 the true ground speed will never be known and it plainly states that 3 times!!!

Read the report-then trash it not the other way around.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:02 AM
link   

semperfortis
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.

No, where did I say that???


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?


Those "celebrated and educated people" are celebrated and educated by the majority, meaning those in denial. That's not to say they aren't talented in their fields. However, having a view of the big picture is a different ball game. Emotions, like fear, are involved. Those have nothing to do with one's academic qualifications.


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


Oh boy...


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


You mean like those people who believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, as opposed to those who realized that the Earth revolved around the Sun? extra DIV



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


...and so do Galileo Galilei, why on earth he think earth orbit the sun ? Blasphemy! Impervious!

"When all 9 men agree to something, the tenth have the job to defy them even if he agree with it, at all cost, so we can progress forward with new finding."

Impervious much ? Bah, I say let the light pass.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


the serious denial is called cognitive dissonance.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   
The whole world is laughing in your face. You poor poor lost and deluded little soul you.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   

spirited75
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


the serious denial is called cognitive dissonance.

Yes, that's the term for denial in psychology.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

So the majority of humanity, including millions of people smarter and more educated than you, have proven you wrong and still you stand on the premise "They" are all in a delusional episode..

Amazing

This thread could well be a GREAT thesis one day for someone needing subject material in psychology

Title

"The illusive and ever present Internet Conspiracy Commando"

To bad I've already finished mine

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)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Where are the moderator ?
Are we talking about plane speed or a member lobotomy here ?
Topic derail up there, remove it please.


Where is Phage in ? Took too long to come up with something opposing.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   

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

So the majority of humanity, including millions of people smarter and more educated than you, have proven you wrong and still you stand on the premise "They" are all in a delusional episode..

Amazing

Yes, they are all in a delusional episode, created by humans even smarter and more educated than themselves. You know, the ones who are in power positions.

Why is that so amazing when it has happened many times before? extra DIV



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 



ok. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was wondering if there were other sources, or other ways of determining the planes true speed.

I figured it'd be possible to do from some of the video footage, using known distances ect to get a decent guess, maybe not exact, but within 20 or so knots maybe.

I didn't see the posts where you cited other sources for the plane speed, and mistakingly thought that perhaps the true plane speed was still a question for you. My mistake.

Again excellent thread Sir.

*edit* Sorry if any confusion,I'm just replying to NewAgeMans reply to my post back on page 4 I believe it was. I haven't logged in since yesterday so it's quite a few pages back. But again ty for clearing that up for me OP'er.

edit on 31-12-2013 by Nola213 because: for clarity



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by NullVoid
 


all the debunkers concerning the OP's topic are banking on an idea that a plane's structure would endure past the limit...phage also played that card...

The OP presented the case well...and if we go by numbers...hard cold numbers...than the event is suspicious. The debunkers, are now telling us that the science on aircraft aerodynamics and all tests done that came up with those numbers are...not exact...apparently most of it is wrong. Apparently only ball park numbers...They are in fact telling us not to go by science...but to embrace belief...because...you guessed it...the President told us so.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


Thank god, after 2 page of EAS, VD and HIV, some who speak english.
Thanks for the explaining of the situation.

If OP is correct or have solid base, will these reopen the case ?
or this will go with the wind (my bet)

Would this forwarded to external party, like [gasp] Russia's Interstate Aviation Committee ? or Civil Aviation Accident Investigation or whatever else country for fair treatment and peer review or just comments ?
edit on 31-12-2013 by NullVoid because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Phage


If you tell me the way it was, and "don't ask any questions!"

Here's some questions:
Is the OP claiming that planes did not fly into the World Trade Center?
Is the OP claiming that the reported speeds of the aircraft was incorrect?
What is the OP's point?
edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Perhaps you should ask the OP directly, and stop taking cheap pops at others who actually do respond to him?

Just a thought.

While you're at it..why not challenge the numbers the OP has shown and show us where he is wrong about them and why you would claim that?

I mean..personally, i've absolutely no idea of the capabilities of a 767 at any height, so without exhaustive research on airframes, wind tunnel testing and engines etc of said aircraft, i don't actually know if the what the OP is saying is accurate or not and so i for one, would appreciate the correct information being presented by those who do know, instead of snyde oneupmanship retorts.

Since you claim you're all about intolerance to ignorance, the implication being you wish nothing more than to correct misinterpretation / innaccuracies and reveal the actual facts, feel free to go ahead and show us why his numbers are an example of ignorance (unless you already have further along the thread, in which case, thanks) Unless short quips targeted at others' interpretations is more your thing, then carry on.

It's fairly simple..either a 767 could have reasonably performed speeds and course corrections that were stated to have occurred on 9/11, or they couldn't have...it's one or the other, but it seems there are hundreds if not thousands of qualified, experienced pilots - including commercial airliner pilots it seems, that are in no doubt that it is impossible for the aircraft to have performed as they did on 9/11 WITHOUT significant modifications to both the airframe itself and the engines and that's not even taking into account the experience or inexperience of whoever may have been at the flight controls...which is fairly irrelavent if the physical characteristics of the aircraft do not even permit the aircraft to behave as they supposedly did on the day.

So please, by all means enlighten us, preferably without the sarcastic attitude if you don't mind as i for one genuinely want to know if these aircraft could have performed as the OS states they did.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Helious

NavyDoc

Helious

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)


You use a conspiracy blog as "proof?" C'mon. I've used a cellphone as early as the late 1990's over 30,000 feet. Radio waves are much more omnidirectional than you think. Although cellphone towers are built to push the energy of the signal laterally, to overcome obstacles such as walls and hills, much less energy is needed to go up, where there are no obstructions. You don't get a sideways signal with "a little bleed-over" you get a parabola.

The statement was that the call could not have come from flight 93 because it is "impossible" for cell phone signals to reach from above 20k feet. That statement is patently false.


Conspiracy blog? Try reading all of the facts, the cold hard facts regarding the matter on the link I offered, if you question any of the points that are made or contest the validity of anything said, I would be more than happy to show you specifically why you're wrong. All of the evidence used to deduce facts in the article provided are backed up in spectacular detail by source material, all nicely labeled and indexed, every single point.

The government itself even acknowledges the fact that all calls made above around 5,000 feet were made by "air-phone". Do you know why that is? Of course you don't because instead of seeking out truth or facts, you would rather speculate and promote juvenile conjecture and accuse anyone not as ignorant of the facts as you a "conspiracy theorist".

You couldn't make calls that math and logic agree with in 2001, period. But that really isn't a conspiracy theory is it, since the government itself says now that those calls above 5k feet were made by air phone not cell phone even though initial reports were cell phone. I know why they changed the narrative, do you?


Except these are not facts--these are conjecture of the author. In ancient aliens style, the author states that, since he thinks he sees a flaw in the cellphone use, then they must have been faked. This is typical of conspiracy theorists: they declare one event "impossible" and then extrapolate the main event must be staged based on this premise.

The government did not say that all calls were made from an air phone, they said that many were. The very article that you linked to says this and that nowhere in the article is any government official saying that it was impossible to have been a cell phone nor was that all calls were being made by cell phones. You talk about facts, but the very materials you linked to do not support the claims that you make.

The only "expert" quoted was the Canadian mathematician, A.K. Dewey whose "work" on this remains very controversial and his "experiments" to prove that cellphone use was impossible from the air were just as amateurish and unscientific as those knuckleheads who built chicken wire towers and lit them with lighter fluid to "prove" that fire can't melt steel.




Some researchers have asserted that several of the phone calls attributed to Flight 93 passengers must have been faked because they were reportedly made from cell phones, which, according to the theory, aren't possible from high-flying aircraft. This theory is controversial because it holds that call recipients who believed they had spoken with family members had been duped, is based on questionable conclusions about cell phone functioning, and overlooks an alternative hypothesis that explains the alleged oddity.

Canadian writer A.K. Dewdney built his reputation as a 9/11 researcher on the idea that the cell-phone calls from aircraft above a few thousand feet aren't generally possible, and therefore the calls attributed to Flight 93 passengers were faked. In an article entitled Ghost Riders in the Sky, Dewdney gives expert-sounding explanations of reasons cell phone calls from jetliners wouldn't work. At altitude, he states, the signal would be too weak, and below 10,000 feet, calls made from a jet would cause problematic "cascades" in networks of cellsites on the ground. (Dewdney cites "Frazer 2002" for this.)

Contrary to Dewdney's findings, we have received reports that cell phones do work from aircraft. Other evidence that cell phone calls are possible from jetliners in flight comes from a study by Carnegie Mellon researchers that monitored spectrum frequencies generated by cell phone transmissions during commercial passenger flights. They found that an average of one to four cell phone calls are made during a typical flight. 2 It may be, however, that such calls are not made at high altitudes.



So, one cannot say that it was "impossible" to use cell phones from the air, one cannot say that these calls were "faked", and your sole source is a conspiracy theorist who wants to sell his book and who uses ancient alien style questions and conjecture and logical leaps that are not backed by any facts. Defy ignorance indeed.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   

MysterX

Phage


If you tell me the way it was, and "don't ask any questions!"

Here's some questions:
Is the OP claiming that planes did not fly into the World Trade Center?
Is the OP claiming that the reported speeds of the aircraft was incorrect?
What is the OP's point?
edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Perhaps you should ask the OP directly, and stop taking cheap pops at others who actually do respond to him?

Just a thought.

While you're at it..why not challenge the numbers the OP has shown and show us where he is wrong about them and why you would claim that?

I mean..personally, i've absolutely no idea of the capabilities of a 767 at any height, so without exhaustive research on airframes, wind tunnel testing and engines etc of said aircraft, i don't actually know if the what the OP is saying is accurate or not and so i for one, would appreciate the correct information being presented by those who do know, instead of snyde oneupmanship retorts.

Since you claim you're all about intolerance to ignorance, the implication being you wish nothing more than to correct misinterpretation / innaccuracies and reveal the actual facts, feel free to go ahead and show us why his numbers are an example of ignorance (unless you already have further along the thread, in which case, thanks) Unless short quips targeted at others' interpretations is more your thing, then carry on.

It's fairly simple..either a 767 could have reasonably performed speeds and course corrections that were stated to have occurred on 9/11, or they couldn't have...it's one or the other, but it seems there are hundreds if not thousands of qualified, experienced pilots - including commercial airliner pilots it seems, that are in no doubt that it is impossible for the aircraft to have performed as they did on 9/11 WITHOUT significant modifications to both the airframe itself and the engines and that's not even taking into account the experience or inexperience of whoever may have been at the flight controls...which is fairly irrelavent if the physical characteristics of the aircraft do not even permit the aircraft to behave as they supposedly did on the day.

So please, by all means enlighten us, preferably without the sarcastic attitude if you don't mind as i for one genuinely want to know if these aircraft could have performed as the OS states they did.








Thousands of pilots? Thousands of pilots familiar with the engineering of the airframe? Who? I'm always very cautious when people throw around the word "impossible" because they are quite often wrong.

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



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   

MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by NullVoid
 


all the debunkers concerning the OP's topic are banking on an idea that a plane's structure would endure past the limit...phage also played that card...

The OP presented the case well...and if we go by numbers...hard cold numbers...than the event is suspicious. The debunkers, are now telling us that the science on aircraft aerodynamics and all tests done that came up with those numbers are...not exact...apparently most of it is wrong. Apparently only ball park numbers...They are in fact telling us not to go by science...but to embrace belief...because...you guessed it...the President told us so.



No, actually Phage as well as several others did a good explanation of those numbers and how they don't mean what the OP thinks they mean. This bit of logic was simply ignored.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   

MysterX
but it seems there are hundreds if not thousands of qualified, experienced pilots - including commercial airliner pilots it seems, that are in no doubt that it is impossible for the aircraft to have performed as they did on 9/11 WITHOUT significant modifications to both the airframe itself and the engines


Can you please name the hundreds or thousands of pilots, and show where each one said
"it is impossible for the aircraft to have performed as they did on 9/11 WITHOUT significant modifications to both the airframe itself and the engines".

Or, would it be much more accurate to say they never said that at all!



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   

NavyDoc
No, actually Phage as well as several others did a good explanation of those numbers and how they don't mean what the OP thinks they mean. This bit of logic was simply ignored.


Of course they had to ignore it.... to admit it was correct would mean their conspiracy theory was wrong!



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   
retract.. need to get this stuff around me head again.
edit on 31-12-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
95
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join