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: 9
95
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   

hellobruce

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!


Which is why some of these things have really taken on the aspects of religious fanaticism for some people. (Shrug.)




posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   

MarioOnTheFly
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.


Dead people in a terrorist induced plane crash are dead people in a terrorist induced plane crash. Makes no difference if it hits the side of a building or not.

They had no idea what effect the plane impacts would have. Ultimately it was supposed to be a statement.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Thanks for the long and somewhat rambling reply there


You could have just answered the question instead maybe? I'm not interested in your spin, I'm just after facts.

How long was it supposedly flying above its safe speed?
edit on 31/12/13 by neformore because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   

hellobruce

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!



It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.


I copy paste it from Pilot for 911 after less than a minute searching. Nice to spoon fed somebody, we learn new stuff.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   

NullVoid

hellobruce

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!



It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.


I copy paste it from Pilot for 911 after less than a minute searching. Nice to spoon fed somebody, we learn new stuff.


ANd the qualifications held that made that statement a fact? A bunch of Cessna fliers who are into conspiracy theories is not exactly a group of subject matter experts and a pilot, even if he flies a 757, is not exactly an aeronautical engineer.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   

NullVoid
I copy paste it from Pilot for 911 after less than a minute searching.


So we have a list of alleged pilots, where do they state the speed of the plane could not be reached without modification?

We also have flight attendants, aviation enthusiast, Eyewitness Experts, ATC (in training) , ramp agents, a Electronic Engineer, Aviation Reporter, someone who is a "aircraft enthusiast, and have flown extensively" ,

and best of all, a

"Italian "duhbunker" who likes to play games Liar"

So a real valid group there!
edit on 31-12-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   

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


He does, In the ten replies to the OP following your sole quote. Is that as far as you read?


Just a thought.


I'd suggest reading the rest of Phages replies.


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?


He did, try reading the rest of phages replies. Just a thought

As a matter of fact he showed how the OP was mistaken by using the OPs own sources and with basic logic. Which tends to be tossed out in favor of speculative theory, conjecture and 'Probabilities"


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.


I'd read the rest of the thread if I were you, The OP posts information and Phage and others have dissected it, showing exactly where the flaws are in this Conspiracy paradigm.


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.


He did, again, using the OPs sources. You wouldn't know this unless you've read the rest of their exchanges. Phage would ask a question the OP would either sidestep with a massive cut and paste campaign or answer a question with a question, or in some cases completely ignore the query.


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


Exactly, this is why it's absolutely critical for those who are after the truth to search out the unbiased truth and not muddy the water with claims and counter claims based on Conspiracy Blogs and what not.


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.



Ahh, you were doing so well there until you tossed this in. But since you brought it up. Sources please stating that on this EXACT topic if the planes couldn't do as described as per the OPs argument and THEIR sourced supportive information backing up their claims.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   

InTheFlesh1980
Phage, I really respect your scientific approach on a lot of topics. You truly are a highly intelligent individual.


Stop brown nosing, it will get you nowhere in life and I doubt it impresses him.


But regarding specific topics, like this, your thickness is brutally evident. You are sorely lacking in the ability to evaluate probability.


That's the argument isn't it.

Probability vs Actuality



There are countless topics you have commented on which you entirely lack proof of your assertions, citing arguably biased sources.


Those who supposedly seek the 'Truth' in this forum are not guilty of continually and constantly doing the same? Case in point. Just read the OPs massive cut and paste sources. They're not wrought with Biased thoughts, opinions, assertions, arguments, claims and counter claims?


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.


Talk about Agenda.

Doesn't contribute to the discussion/argument but rather goes after and tries to discredit the one who has exposed the OPs flawed argument for what it is. Flawed.


The official story regarding 9/11 is a mathematical impossibility. Period.


Which part is Mathematically impossible?

Planes taking off, flying, crashing, Exploding on impact, people dying, buildings burning with massive holes collapsing from impact/fire/compromise of structural integrity or 'Nano Thermite'?


There is no model of probability which can support it. Yet you perpetually interject your complete improbabilities as if they hold merit.


He was quoting the OPs sources. So, now, are you saying the OPs sourced info is improbable? Can we get a ruling on this?


I will not argue the details, as they rest on the deafest of ears.


Yeah of course you wont argue the details, why would you. It's more important to do some half-assed analyses of Phage than to attempt some sort of legitimate support of the OPs claim.


Let it be known, your words here have no more merit than the next.


Let it be known?
Moses coming down from on high. ROFLMAO


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.


Great Jupiter's Balls...

Now that you've admitted it's "Conspiratorial" can we actually focus on the topic and facts and not try *piss poorly* to discredit another member who used the OPs own sources to expose the flaws in their argument?

AND...

Just so you know and for the record. I have some serious questions myself regarding the events of that day and maybe someday I'll post and ask them in this forum and I'll try my damnedest to find unbiased, qualified and properly sources supporting evidence to back up my queries.


It's New Years Eve. Don't drink and Drive. Just Drink Heavily.

edit on 31-12-2013 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   
So... ok.

This one has intrigued me, so I did some quick research. I'll readily admit, it was very quick but.....

EA990's flight profile is as follows - heights are taken off the radar plots

en.wikipedia.org...:Msr990-ntsb-f1.jpeg

So that chart shows that the plane went into a dive - dropped 17,000ft in approximately one minute, exceeded its safe limits for a period of time, but pulled back up again and almost recovered.

And the NTSB Report into the crash of EA990 here;

www.ntsb.gov...

Says on Page 59...



The results of the Safety Board's examination of CVR, FDR, radar, airplane maintenance history, wreckage, trajectory study, and debris field information were not consistent with any portion of the airplane (including any part of the longitudinal flight controls) separating throughout the initial dive and subsequent climb to about 25,000 feet mean sea level (msl). It is apparent that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage separated from the airplane at some point before water impact because they were located in the western debris field about 1,200 feet from the eastern debris field. Although no
radar or FDR data indicated exactly when (at what altitude) the separation occurred, on the basis of aerodynamic evidence and the proximity of the two debris fields, it is apparent that the airplane remained intact until sometime during its final descent. Further, it is apparent that while the recorders were operating, both elevator surfaces were intact, attached to the airplane, and placed in the positions recorded by the FDR data and that the elevator movements were driving the airplane pitch motion,and all associated recorded parameters changed accordingly.


According to Wiki here - en.wikipedia.org... - 175's speed was;



the plane was in a sustained power dive, descending more than 24,000 feet in 5 minutes 4 seconds, for an average rate of over 5,000 feet per minute


So we have a plane (EA 990) that dropped 17,000ft in a minute and almost made it, and a plane (175) that dropped 24,000 feet in 5 minutes.

175 was in a shallower descent, albeit for longer, but 990 almost made it. 990 underwent a much more severe event, to my mind. The NTSB doesn't indicate that the plane broke up until at all after its descent and reclimb, and that the engine only separated just before impact - so why couldn't 175 have stayed intact until it hit the tower?


edit on 31/12/13 by neformore because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   

neformore
So... ok.

This one has intrigued me, so I did some quick research. I'll readily admit, it was very quick but.....

EA990's flight profile is as follows - heights are taken off the radar plots

en.wikipedia.org...:Msr990-ntsb-f1.jpeg

So that chart shows that the plane went into a dive - dropped 17,000ft in approximately one minute, exceeded its safe limits for a period of time, but pulled back up again and almost recovered.

And the NTSB Report into the crash of EA990 here;

www.ntsb.gov...

Says on Page 59...



The results of the Safety Board's examination of CVR, FDR, radar, airplane maintenance history, wreckage, trajectory study, and debris field information were not consistent with any portion of the airplane (including any part of the longitudinal flight controls) separating throughout the initial dive and subsequent climb to about 25,000 feet mean sea level (msl). It is apparent that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage separated from the airplane at some point before water impact because they were located in the western debris field about 1,200 feet from the eastern debris field. Although no
radar or FDR data indicated exactly when (at what altitude) the separation occurred, on the basis of aerodynamic evidence and the proximity of the two debris fields, it is apparent that the airplane remained intact until sometime during its final descent. Further, it is apparent that while the recorders were operating, both elevator surfaces were intact, attached to the airplane, and placed in the positions recorded by the FDR data and that the elevator movements were driving the airplane pitch motion,and all associated recorded parameters changed accordingly.


According to Wiki here - en.wikipedia.org... - 175's speed was;



the plane was in a sustained power dive, descending more than 24,000 feet in 5 minutes 4 seconds, for an average rate of over 5,000 feet per minute


So we have a plane (EA 990) that dropped 17,000ft in a minute and almost made it, and a plane (175) that dropped 24,000 feet in 5 minutes

175 was in a shallower descent, albeit for longer, but 990 almost made it. The NTSB doesn't indicate that the plane broke up until at all after its descent and reclimb, and that the engine only separated just before impact - so why couldn't 175 have stayed intact until it hit the tower?



Because it could. The airspeed numbers that the OP have been dwelling on, are the maximums based on the beginning of control issues and the beginning of structural issues--not to complete airframe failure. Failure is a continuum--it does not happen all at once because you exceeded the maximums. Military aircraft are pushed beyond their maximums quite frequently. Every time this happens there has to be an inspection of the airframe and issues may be found, but it does not mean that the wings rip off right away, it just means the airframe has had more stress than it should have. It was not "impossible" that the aircraft exceeded these maximums.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Dunno what planet you took ground school, but mine was earth.

If you use the weather that was reported for NYC on 9/11 you get either 68 or 72F. Lets use an average of the 2= 70F. I am having dificulty determining the barometric pressure and humidity for that day...if anyone has that, please let me know, otherwise I will have to guesstimate based on what I remember of that day. Regardless, the difference will not be significant enough to alter the results in a significant manner.

What I get is a groundspeed of 761 to 767 mph for Mach 1 at sea level. That equates to 661 to 667 knots.

Assuming that the calculation of the aircraft's speed was groundspeed (a very safe assumption) then the max speed of the plane (.86x661) was 568 knots. Well within the range estimated.

Unless one knows the airspeed of the craft just prior to impact and unless there was a headwind for both crafts (from different directions) that approximated hurricane strength, airspeed is irrelevant.

Suddenly (?) the impossible becomes possible. Specially when it was not impossible to begin with.

Next....



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by miniatus
 




Interesting..I have seen this before and they still have not corrected their spelling error after so many years.

While it most definitely raises questions, it answers none and proves nothing. Typical conspiracy fare.

In order to pull off such a magnificent conspiracy a rather large number of people would have had to have known more than enough to put the pieces together and yet no one has stepped forward with anything resembling proof who took part in said conspiracy.

Our govt is not very good at a number of things....keeping secrets is one of them lol. Anyone who has had any dealings with the fed govt knows what a joke they are and the larger the operation, the more of a joke it is, operationally, efficiency and bureaucratically speaking.

Once upon a time, perhaps, but these days: laughable in organization, leadership, efficiency and red tape.

Right now (as in the past 15 years) the feds cannot tie their shoes without tripping themselves up.

Could they have known what was going down and chose to allow it? Lack of action and direction suits them much more than coming up with an elaborate scheme that requires the silence of hundreds.

We cant even spy on our allies without being caught lol

The 9/11 truthers pretty much lost me when they got caught with their hands in their pants early on showing misleading pictures and presenting falsified data to prove their theories. The pics of the pentagon taken from behind a rise (very small knoll?) that conveniently excluded wreckage of the plane and claimed: Where is the wreckage?

Under no circumstances is Mach 1 at sea level under 500 mph or knots, let alone 411? Really? We would be hearing sonic booms continually if that were true. Another case of building an argument on false data (scuse me...BS data)

I suppose technically it is true that the aircraft in question could not have flown at those speeds at sea level...since they would have experienced the additional stress and drag of water.....but really...we all know they were a few hundred feet in the air.

A beautiful day, unlimited visibility, 70F temps....Mach 1 is well over 500 knots at 700 ft.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   

NavyDoc

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?


Not in 2001. Even calls at 10,000 were nearly impossible to make from cellphones. Several experiments were done which proved they could not have been made from the altitude they were supposedly at or at the speed they were cruising and remain connected for any length of time.
Airphones did work and that is not up for debate.

www.youtube.com...
9/11 - A new Pearl Harbor.
Watch from 140:00 on.

911research.wtc7.net...
www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 





Under no circumstances is Mach 1 at sea level under 500 mph or knots, let alone 411? Really? We would be hearing sonic booms continually if that were true. Another case of building an argument on false data (scuse me...BS data)


I was under the impression that the most important factor here is air density, not whether the aircraft achieved mach speeds or not. Lower altitudes means denser air thus reducing maximum safe airspeeds the lower you descend.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


You are forgetting that it was a suicide mission OP. If the plane fell apart, then they would just crash into NYC still causing lots of damage and loss of life. Not to mention, if they were traveling at an unsafe speed, it doesn't guarantee the plane would not be able to handle it, it is just unsafe. In the end, if the official story is true and the planes were hijacked, then causing some damage before blowing it up doesn't make a difference.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SixX18
 


Of course planes always work better and are more accurate when the outcome does not matter??

The god given power to hit targets so perfectly because of a coc aine-alcohol fueled stripper night made this all the more possible!!

And with his help, these buildings exploded like they were hit with mini-nukes and multiplied our successes as terrorists!!



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Awww , you just mad that he made a terrific point, and then do your own brown nosing.

Probability VERSUS Actuality, the one WITHOUT the agenda is what is being argued here, not sure what your point is, Oh I get it, your agenda is the "I believe in this incredible day, as being totally possible without question cause it is after all, a religion one has to be a part of".

It sure is funny stuff that the believers that this event was as told by any official sources is so airtight, and defendable is backed up by "Great Caesar's Ghost"!

It shows pretty convincingly that science has been postulated in a way that can have multiple angles, that it is completely at the mercy of agenda...

And that the agenda of 9/11 is to believe that steel pulverizes, melts and bends in ways that only the fiercest brainwashed soul could love. ( IE almost all of them )

It is like believing in the big bang without causation, so easy to finish off what is not understandable, with conclusions that are "COULD HAVE HAPPENED".

Amazingly the less than 1% likelihood of the entire official story is ballooned up to 5000% by the "defenders of Israel" errr, USA errr whoever they want to be today... and incredulously they cannot believe that everyone of us do not fit our reality into that camp...even when many of us are of a bloodline that "should embrace it !"

The absolute terror that fits into the minds of the ones who must defend this story is hidden well indeed, but some of us see it like the red and blue energy that it is, no matter of whining that something good has come from it will do.

Really, the people who are intelligent and try to defend this charade have fallen the farthest, and somewhere inside they scream they have no agenda, they "defend reason" not realizing they have been betrayed at a level they were not supposed to see, but convinced that the Bible they don't REALLY believe in, will defend them at the last stand.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Great Jupiter's Balls...

In an effort to begin the New Year with harmonious human interaction, I'd like to start by focusing on the one part of your post I agree with. We definitely see eye-to-eye about Jupiter's Balls, they are great. I mean, they are huge, and who doesn't wish they had 67 giant balls?


That's the argument isn't it.

Probability vs Actuality

Yes, you keenly deciphered my argument, which I'd like to commend you on because there were a lot of other confusing words mixed in there.


Just so you know and for the record. I have some serious questions myself regarding the events of that day and maybe someday I'll post and ask them in this forum and I'll try my damnedest to find unbiased, qualified and properly sources supporting evidence to back up my queries.

Your above reference to your own "serious questions" will help to illustrate my point.

Your "serious questions" can be evaluated from a standpoint of probability.
 

(1)
What if you had (1) serious question that was not a show-stopper? (A show-stopper being a question that, when answered, unequivocally invalidates the official story and renders the entire account subject to further scrutiny.)

Having (1) serious question regarding the official story is understandable given the complexity of the topic, and is relatively insignificant unless it is an undeniable smoking gun.

(10)
What if you had (10) serious questions, at least (5) of which were show-stoppers? OK, maybe there are a few "holes" in the official story, but the number of questions may have not reached a threshold of statistical significance for your reasoning given the complexity of the topic.

(1000's)
What if you, and the world at large, had thousands of serious questions about the official story, hundreds of which are show-stoppers? What if searching Google for "9/11 conspiracy" yields over 36 million hits? Have we reached a threshold where there may be statistical support that the official story contains lies?
 


Despite lacking a specific piece of evidence as a smoking gun, everyone has a threshold where the entire body of information, when considered as a whole in macroscopic terms, will yield a conclusion of probable significance.

This threshold has been crossed for a statistically significant percentage of people.

New Poll Finds Most Americans Open to Alternative 9/11 Theories

- One in Two Surveyed Have Doubts About Government’s Account of 9/11.
- 46% Suspect Controlled Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 after Viewing Video Footage of Collapse.

What is your threshold for probable significance?

Do the designers of the airplanes have to sit in your living room and tell you that to the best of their knowledge, an unmodified plane could not withstand the forces presented by the official story?

Do you have to witness a plane break apart under the same environmental conditions? Or be in it?

Or does Dick Cheney himself have to tattoo "Controlled Demolition" on your forehead?


Yeah of course you wont argue the details, why would you.

Because the details are available and have been argued ad-nauseum, and there are those who will NEVER change their opinion under any circumstances.

All this aside, wishing you (and all my fellow ATSers) the best in the New Year!


kix

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

neformore


So we have a plane (EA 990) that dropped 17,000ft in a minute and almost made it, and a plane (175) that dropped 24,000 feet in 5 minutes.

175 was in a shallower descent, albeit for longer, but 990 almost made it. 990 underwent a much more severe event, to my mind. The NTSB doesn't indicate that the plane broke up until at all after its descent and reclimb, and that the engine only separated just before impact - so why couldn't 175 have stayed intact until it hit the tower?


edit on 31/12/13 by neformore because: (no reason given)


You are missing a VERY important piece from the NTSB report, the first thing the pilot did on EA990 was putting the power levers on Idle, so the descent was not conducted while accelerating, in fact any comercial pilot does that while descending to land, they do not deploy the slats and flaps over some speeds because overspeed will tear them apart.

In 9/11 we can be sure the engines had power because in the first hit video the noise of the engines can be heard very clearly, also the perpetrators did not have a huge experience with procedures.

How convenient that the CVR and FDR were not recovered.

and while at it maybe the huge speed and wind made by these planes knocked down WTC 7?

The 767 manual states very clearly this maximum speeds and curves related to altitude and barometric pressures, any pilot who pushes the aircraft beyond these published VMAX are just trying to commit suicide.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 



I appreciate the feedback...

I'll be asking some hard hitting questions of my own in my thread. (Which may include some of what you suggested and if it's not a problem to you, while I'll be ignoring the less than necessary over the top innuendo or continually regurgitated non relevant sleight of hand tactics often associated with this topic)


Thank you, I'm presently packing to move, I'll try to reply further if needed or required later tonight If I can or once I'm settled in sometime after the 1rst.



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join