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

reply to post by LaElvis


Ok so there was workmen on the 87th floor installing a backup system. So you are still clueless you cant place explosives just on 1 floor and have the entire building come down. In order to do that they have to set off explosives on multiple floors all timed to snap supports. They would need to cut other supports as well sad part is people actually think its easy to blow up a steel structure yeah just slap some thermite inside the room or c4 on a wall and you're done. It would have took months to prep it would have been blatantly obvious to the people working there. There is no way the office workers would miss this it would look like a total building renovation and worse most tenants would have probably found offices elsewhere. The funniest part is everyone assumes the government had to blow up the building they didnt crashing a plane into the building and having the towers survive still would have the same exact effects. Why do people think the government would bother trying to blow it up just making it easier to be caught. It makes zero sense nothing was gained by the government that it wouldnt have gotten if the planes only caused a fire.

reply to post by dragonridr


You act like this was a mom and pop store with people watching the door. ONE FLOOR??? Evidently you didn't READ there were dozens of floors in this ONE instance. EXACTLY where the planes hit!!! These floors were NOT occupied by people!!!! Every time I show what you ask for you ignore the links and poo poo what is in them or ignore it all together. There were hundreds of workers, cutting beams, welding, painting, and who knows what else for months prior to 9/11. There were dozens of 18 wheeler size banks of batteries and computers!!!

So you said there was NO people who worked to possibly set this up!! I show you ONE instance of hundreds for months, and you then deny it could happen.

Not only could it happen it did!!! I showed you a link that showed that it would have taken nearly 30-40 seconds for the buildings to fall according to the official Government "PANCAKE" WEIGHT THEORY!!!


READ THE LINKS IN THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS!!!!

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


What I mean is this...

Up until 11th September 2001, no one had hijacked two airliners and flew them into the WTC Towers at those speeds.

The event can never be re-created, because those airliners flew into 40 year old buildings - with their unique construction -, complete with all the stresses and strains on them, and all the maintenance over the years, and a hundred other things that would have affected the buildings overall.

The airliners themselves were individual constructions, each made to a specification with tolerances, some of which they may very well have been capable of exceeding, because no two objects are ever constructed identically.

The event is unique. It stands alone.

That makes it the rule. Not the exception to the rule.

reply to post by neformore

Hi nef,

I already addressed these issues in the following two posts

HERE

and

HERE

The scenarios are different of course, but as to controlled dive angle, i'd refer you to the DC-8 example ref'd in the OP and depicted on the comparative V-G Diagram that includes these precedents, although in that case it was modified on the leading wing edges, but as for a controlled dive in regards to speed, it's the best example of them all, and in fact there is nothing else to compare it to, except the south tower plane.

As to EA990, the point is that it began to experience structure failure when the FDR stopped recording at a PEAK speed of Mach .99 at 22,000 feet altitude, an EAS or equivalent airspeed (in terms of the dynamic pressures involved) of 425 knots EAS, which, even in an uncontrolled dive, is, in terms of dynamic pressures on the airfram, a full 85 knots LESS, 90 if we include the windspeed vector to the groundspeed (making 510 about 515 knots due to a very light wind to the N/W) than ""UA175" was recorded flying, in controlled flight, while maneuvering, and rather deftly at that while pulling G's.

As i've said earlier, you are perfectly entitled to your beliefs and to your own personal opinion or POV, but you are not entitled to alter or twist the facts in evidence, and i guess i'm here to point out to you, in light of those facts and that evidence, that you might very well be involved, whether knowingly or unwittingly in "serving" to in some way protect or guard, the worst Crime of the Century and Big Lie in modern history.

I can understand the debunker mentality when one has already formed a strong belief or bias even if only because the alternative is unthinkable, i get that, and all it might mean is that a person is a good person incapable of forming an alternative hypothesis by which to "process" what we're looking at - but, the "debunker" cannot in this case call themselves a true "sceptic" or even a "scientist", because if that were the case, they would also have the capacity to question and challenge the OS, and, if appropriate, take a stand for the sake of what is true, and right, maybe even with an aim to help one's fellow man understand and come to grips with this horror of modern history and the overall policy objectives that it enabled and helped realize.

In other words, if one were to witness a bully beating another kid to death, where the evidence was clear as to what was taking place, you would not turn away simply because you just can't bear the truth of the fact that the bully was in fact, your own best friend.

It's up to you as to how to interpret this data, but i would like to humbly ask that you might have the objectivity and scientific mindset, and if needed, the courage, to simply consider it from the POV of the alternative hypothesis capable of factoring all information and phenomenon under observation according to the proper use of Occam's Razor.


Please note also that we've not even hardly begun to address the issue of flight control and piloting skill where it is a known FACT that at higher speeds, particularly in terms of flying heavy aircraft, that it becomes increasingly difficult to pilot and fly the plane, in regards to controls and control surfaces, even by many orders of magnitude at ever-increasing speed, so it would be totally deceptive to try to make it seem like a piece of cake for these "pilots", who'd never flown a heavy aircraft in their lives. This is the point, if you cannot accept the implications of the rest of the evidence regarding the possibility of controlled flight for an unmodified Boeing 767 flying at 510 knots near sea level, that in regards to probability, as another poster pointed out in reply to Phage early in the thread, that you're really out there, just to uphold a preconceived opinion or belief, or, if done knowing that the OS isn't true, something much worse, by far.

It's up to you of course, but as a rational, relatively objective observer, i cannot bring myself to do it, to believe what is clearly in the domain of the unbelievable, even the impossible, on multiple fronts even including the nature of the destruction of those towers an hour and an hour and a half later.

Would anyone knowingly and willfully try to guard and protect such a monstrosity? Very very few people are constituted in that manner, although there ARE a few here and there who will go there. I am not one of them and in the final analysis i don't think you are either. I hope not anyway.

All i really ask here, if one is a "skeptic", is to take a step back and re-evaluate based on all information and phenomenon which includes scrutinizing the actual physical nature of what we are supposed to believe and accept in regards to the OS. Can it be believed? And if it cannot, then why would someone work hard to support it, or try to guard it? The people who were killed there and in it's wake, and all the abuses of power leveraged into place as a result, don't they (i'm reminded of the courage of the firemen and first responders), and we ourselves, deserve so much more and better?


My point is that this is a very very serious issue, not to be taken lightly. It's vital that we're clear about what we're doing here, and what our intent is, if it's not simply to try to be right at all cost, but to really BE right for the sake of being right.

My encouragement then to all "sceptics" is to be equally sceptical of the official story about what really happened on 9/11, and if you are in any sort of position of power or influence or to help shape future policy, then by God and for the love of people, it's all the more crucial that you take the time to really see these things clearly for what they are, no matter how painful to consider or what the implications.

The Four Tools of Discipline:

1) Dedication to Truth and Reality
2) Delay of Gratification
3) Acceptance of Responsibility
4) Balancing (ability to bracket one's emotional reaction/response)


I say these things, because up until now, i've been rather civilized and accommodating, but from here on in, if i see anyone trying to intentionally distort the facts or to in any way mislead the public (readership) with knowledge and awareness that that's what they are doing, over an issue of this importance and significance, then i'm going to nail them to wall with inescapable facts.

Believe what you like and hold whatever opinion you like, but the one thing you cannot do is distort the facts or willfully and intentionally seek to mislead others because of an agenda of some sort. Given the nature of what we're talking about here, such activity would be intolerable, and ought not be tolerated.

I'm not saying that that's what you yourself are doing, knowingly.

I've seen it though, first hand, and it's as abhorrent in many ways as the policy and the event itself, because of it's inherent cowardice, and sycophantic boot licking.

It's one thing to be mislead, and lacking in information and knowledge to remain in a state of ignorance, but another altogether to in turn mislead and do so knowingly with awareness. But of course I hope that's not what you're up to here.

Best Regards,

NAM

NewAgeMan
I say these things, because up until now, i've been rather civilized and accommodating, but from here on in, if i see anyone trying to intentionally distort the facts or to in any way mislead the public (readership) with knowledge and awareness that that's what they are doing, over an issue of this importance and significance, then i'm going to nail them to wall.

I strongly suggest you remain "civilized and accommodating" because that reads like a threat and I know you are aware of the T&C here.

Believe what you like and hold whatever opinion you like, but the one thing you cannot do is distort the facts or willfully and intentionally seek to mislead others because of an agenda of some sort.

I have no agenda. I have offered my opinion on an issue and given my thoughts in the same manner as you have offered yours.

You don't agree with my opinion, fine. It's not a personal thing against you. I see no need for your reaction in such a manner.

And lets be clear, because I've said it more than once - I'm not an authority on this matter and unless I missed something neither are you as you are merely offering your opinion as well

You believe the plane couldn't have done it, and have demonstrated why you believe it.

I believe that it was possible it could, and have said why I believe that.

That's discussion. This is a discussion board. Not a dictatorship where your personal belief sets the rules.

reply to post by neformore


Fair enough. Sorry for losing it a bit there. I have done a pretty good job to date maintaining composure though you must admit.

I've taken a lot of heat and ridicule in the process of putting this info together and making it available, and there are debunkers that operate here in the 9/11 forums that get away with all kinds of stuff, but you're right.

And indeed people are perfectly entitled to their beliefs and opinions and i can't be the arbiter of those views.

My apologies.

I'll just keep trying to work with the facts, nothing more and let them speak for themselves.

Best Regards,

NAM

NewAgeMan
Please note also that we've not even hardly begun to address the issue of flight control and piloting skill where it is a known FACT that at higher speeds, particularly in terms of flying heavy aircraft, that it becomes increasingly difficult to pilot and fly the plane, in regards to controls and control surfaces, even by many orders of magnitude at ever-increasing speed, so it would be totally deceptive to try to make it seem like a piece of cake for these "pilots", who'd never flown a heavy aircraft in their lives.

John Lear, celebrated pilot who has been documented to have flown more types of aircraft than any other pilot, and apparent member (or contributor for) "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" seems to think it's not a problem.

John Lear on FantasticForum.com - He even said such on Coast To Coast AM...

As I mentioned on Art's show last March it would have been a simple matter to train a non-pilot to:

Once in air and having taken over the cockpit to (1) reach up on the overhead panel and pull the ATC transponder circuit breaker (2) sit in the left seat and buckle up) (3) disconnect the autopilot (4) tune in the JFK VOR (5) turn the airplane towards New York (6) start a descent (7) when established on the heading and within 20 miles tune in the Colts Neck VOR and follow it (8) arrive in an arcing turn towards the north over Colts Neck VOR at 1000 feet (9) Visually pick up the first of maybe 4 major check points that would lead directly to the WTC (10) establish visual contact with the WTC (11) descend to 600 feet (12) when established on course to WTC and level at 600 feet put throttles full forward (aircraft hit at 605 mph according to last primary radar hit)(12) over last checkpoint, approximately 2 miles and approximately 12 seconds from impact travelling at 605 mph (aircraft is travelling 1 mile every 6 seconds) turn aircraft to 90 degrees right bank (no course change will occur because of speed) so that impact of place will cause the most damage to the most number of floors. Neither the pilot nor anybody in the airplane ever felt the slightest discomfort as there would not been enough time for any kind for sensation or pain to travel to the brain.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


That's interesting.

I will consult with Pilots for 9/11 Truth and through them, very possibly with John Lear himself, before forming a reply to this, because it seems to run completely contrary to what all their other "heavy" pilots are saying, including two who actually logged flight time on UA175, N612UA.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Lear also said somewhere here on ATS (can't find it now), that while the speed at altitude was beyond normal operating specifications, those specifications are intended for maintaining flight. He postulated that it's entirely possible to fly for a while before the airplane experiences structural difficulties, especially when the pilot intends to crash in the first place and doesn't care.

John Lear interview regarding United Airlines Flight 175 on September 11, 2001.

"It's impossible, at the height of my career as proficient as I was in every kind of airplane there's no way I could have done that, it's just too complicated." - John Lear

reply to post by seasoul


The problem with John Lear, aside from his apparently conflicting statements about what is and isn't possible for a standard Boeing 767, is that he appears to be a "no-planer" or someone who holds to the NRPT (no real plane theory), the implication of which, is that all the videos and images of the south tower on approach to impact were/are "fake" which is patently absurd. Quite obviously a plane was there and did impact the building(s). However, if it "the plane" was not and could not possibly have been the originating flight 175, which flipped it's transponder beacon twice in a minute prior to "it's" turn and descending dive and targeting acquisition of the south tower, then no other hypothesis can be made nor conclusion drawn, than that it was a swapped-in, highly MODIFIED, remotely piloted aircraft, as a retrofitted, military grade variant, of the Boeing 767-222 (or 767-300 as the case may be, as touched upon earlier in the thread).

I was really hoping that in this particular thread, we might avoid the "NRP" and "DEW" hypothesis that seems to accompany it for some strange reason, compliments of Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and James Fetzer.

John also has some unusual ideas about aliens, and moon and mars bases, but to be honest i have no interests in trying to discredit the man himself in some sort of ad hominem attack, which is unnecessary and a very poor debating tactic.

But if he's a member here at ATS, hey it sure would be nice to get a comment from him, and, given the additional research and info now available, perhaps he might see it differently, particularly in light of all the video and photographic evidence that indeed a plane was there and did in fact impact the building as observed.
Also, what does he think, if there was no plane there, was the cause of this?




He must believe that it was a missile somehow cloaked in holographics only to make it appear to be a Boeing 767, in which case you'd think they would have gotten the length and proportion of the plane correct..

What's interesting here is what would drive such a person to hold to such a theory or hypothesis in the first place?

Oh well, back on topic.. because this isn't a no-planer &/or DEW thread.

And John, if you do end up commenting, please forgive me my characterization of your views, as absurd. We would certainly welcome you to clarify what you mean or are implying.

Best Regards,

NAM

P.S. Since he's been cited and is already a member of ATS, i will place a request through P4911T that he visit this thread and submit a comment, just to clarify his position if possible.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Funny you claim in some way you're seeking the truth and you say evidence leads you to this. However you dismiss all kinds of evidence to come to your conclusion. See there were eyewitnesses that saw the plane we have video of the plane we have people that died on the plane. We have radar tracking of the planes we have parts found of the planes we have the times the planes took off from the airports. All this your willing to dismiss so whos not really using logic in their theory? Then you go on to say the official stories wrong does that really surprise you a government investigation got some facts wrong.I can guarantee they did its the government that doesnt mean the conclusion is wrong. why you might ask well there is just so much evidence that planes crashed into the buildings that even getting facts wrong they are still right.

reply to post by dragonridr


Um, just to be perfectly clear, again, i have never suggested for a moment that planes did not impact those buildings and i refuse to allow the info presented in this thread to be somehow conflated with the NRPT (no real plane theory).

I consider Devvy Kidd to be one of the foremost columnists on most conspiracy theories.
devvy.com...

Here are a number of links to her columns on the subject.
www.devvy.com...

This is her latest comment.
9/11 Mysteries: Demolitions

For all the conspiracy theories about no planes, holograms and other such nonsense, my firm belief is nano thermite was used in the basement at key locations. Even if you don't agree with Michael Ruppert about peak oil, which I don't, his book, Crossing the Rubicon, is thoroughly detailed about the rare closure of those towers over the weekend. It's very important Americans know who was in charge of security and all the tentacles. It worked so well at OKC, why not those towers? OKC was blown from inside; charges on columns. The photos don't lie, but government alphabet soup agencies do.

To this day, the FBI refuses to release any of the 27 videos taken after the Murrah Building in OKC was blown. To this day, the FBI refuses to release the two videos immediately grabbed by those co-conspirators: one at the gas station and the other from the Sheraton Hotel, which would have captured what really hit the Pentagon. What are they hiding? The truth about both 'events'.

All the NSA spying on us, the draconian "Patriot" Act and NDAA are because of September 11, 2001. Today a federal judge ruled spying by the NSA on we the people is essential to countering al Qaeda. Bull. Please watch that documentary and tell everyone you know to take the time. Open their mind, trust their eyes. What can be more important over the weekend than the truth?

No one who has seen that documentary has ever felt the same way again about what happened and what's being kept from we the people. The outrage should drown those gutless cowards in Congress to doing what is right for the families (here and in other countries), we the people and history.

LaElvis
is thoroughly detailed about the rare closure of those towers over the weekend.

Except the towers were not closed over the weekend.... but do not let facts destroy your silly conspiracy!

reply to post by hellobruce


Not sure where that came from, but how do YOU KNOW??? I would like to see more than one sentence to see what the context is! The comment talks about charges in the basement. Have you been basement diving lately??? LOL

OK, so I gather the book is what you are referring to......well READ it and get back to us!!!!
I don't need convincing, I understand the laws of physics and gravity!!!

www.amazon.com...

reply to post by LaElvis

LaElvis
I consider Devvy Kidd to be one of the foremost columnists on most conspiracy theories.
devvy.com...

Here are a number of links to her columns on the subject.
www.devvy.com...

This is her latest comment.
9/11 Mysteries: Demolitions

Even if you don't agree with Michael Ruppert about peak oil, which I don't, his book, "Crossing the Rubicon"..

Imho, the following might be perhaps considered a salient quote (given our present circumstance) from that book.

it's called

"The Honey Pot" (which i suppose might make me, and many of us, maybe even S.O., unwittingly.. in spite of what he might presume to know or know he doesn't know, or pretend he does or doesn't, even to himself - Winnie the Pooh.)

The Honey Pot

"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association” – Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184

I've touched on this in an earlier moment of clarity in running the tape back through the event to it's origin and conception, employing a complex variation of Operation Northwoods that JFK flat out rejected, angrily, which conceived of using plane swapping radar swaps, as a slight of hand method to create a false flag hoax to lead the American people into a war, in that instance an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy didn't fare too well after that as we all know, with his successor LBJ launching the US into the Vietnam war instead.

We'll look at this much more closely looking back at the events, in hindsight and under a magnifying glass to show that the whole notion of "conspiracy theory", much maligned after the JFK assassination by the CIA, and the very term "conspiracy theory" (and negative label, "conspiracy theorist") was employed and anticipated and actually utilized to a degree even a large degree for the 9/11 false flag psy-op, as a type of psychlogical hijacking of Occam's Razor, intentionally, as a "honey pot", and in the case of the Pentagon attack, another one, and in Shanksville seemingly yet another, each a honey pot for future "conspiracy theorists" and - who cares if the planes fly too fast and the buildings explode one after the other at, yes, around the impact areas, and explode to the very ground to within no more than 4-6 seconds of absolute free fall in nothing at all, but air. Who cares if it's not possible - all that's left, outside of the official story or "narrative" (Zelikow) is a "conspiracy theory" by very definition.

LaElvis
I don't need convincing, I understand the laws of physics and gravity!!!

Actually, from what you have posted here you show no signs of understanding gravity nor physics.

As to the building being closed, I am not the one making the silly claim, and it is up to those making the claim to back it up! However..
www.911myths.com...
911review.com...

NewAgeMan
reply to post by GenRadek

 

With all due respect, i don't get the impression that you've really paid close attention to the OP, it's fundamental argument or the content of the thread, but, having just popped in after a long hiatus, and welcome back btw, you of all people certainly deserve the benefit of the doubt, so i do invite you to explore the OP and the content of the thread to really come right up to speed so to speak no pun intended.

Thank you for the welcome. As to the OP I have been on this great site since 2008, so I have been across this very topic from 9/11 numerous times with many other members that are no longer with us. I have studied and read into every single topic, idea, blurb, etc the 9/11 Truth Movement was pumping out at the time. Now in the beginning, I too fell for it all. All those slick "Truth" sites with movies and pretty pictures, etc, geeze I was a believer. Until I studied further into the claims. Then the Truth Movement's lies began to shine through. I turned real quick into the old Debunker's side. But enough about my reminiscing of old times..............
Now to get to the matter at hand.

You yourself might want to look into it (China Air 006) further though, particularly as it relates to these claims about exceeding mach, not just once, but twice. You sure that's not just an internet rumor of some kind? Trust me, you haven't done your research. I mean no disrespect however when i say that. Honestly (and playfully).

China Air 006:

According to the NTSB reports it did approach Mach 1 during its drop. Now I understand that at higher altitudes the Mach numbers go down and it wouldn't be the same as Mach 1 at sea level. However, it is not the speed, but the aerodynamic forces that tear up the aircraft correct? Also it is noted the aircraft experienced 5Gs during the event. Now I am not an airline pilot or an engineer, but, I do know enough to know that it is not just speed but G-forces and aerodynamic forces that are far more dangerous than speed alone. Putting an aircraft into a shallow dive with engines at full throttle is not going to have the aircraft experience the same forces as putting the plane into a nosedive for 30,000ft and pulling out of it.

An airliner with engines at full throttle in a dive can hit speeds of 510 knots for a short period of time. It has been done. A 707 broke the sound barrier in a dive. I believe that would be going over its Vmo. Also, I would reccomend you read this little article from 2003 about Vmo and exceeding it:
Exceeding The "Never To Exceed" Speed

The question:
"If Mmo = M.82 (that's an airplane limit and cannot be intentionally exceeded) then how can the airplane go to Mmo+M.07 if the sidestick is held full forward and stabilize at between Mmo and Mmo+M.04? Is there more than one exceedance speed? I asked that question many times and never got an answer."
The manufacturer's response (abbreviated):
"Flying at Vmo/Mmo is not forbidden [and] is possible with sidestick in neutral and no forces applied on the stick.
"Flying at a speed higher than Vmo/Mmo means flying into the peripheral flight envelope; although it is not operationally authorized to fly deliberately outside the normal flight envelope, it is not unsafe (in isolation) and it may happen (strong head gust during descent at Vmo/Mmo, or engines commanded at full power in level flight and pilot momentarily not in monitor/control of the speed/trajectory). [In such cases] the high speed protection will be activated (threshold is Vmo/Mmo plus a margin less a phase advance) if the sidestick is left in neutral, the protection will command a nose-up load factor until the speed is back below Vmo/Mmo ... But if, for whatever reason, the pilot wants to hold a speed higher than Vmo/Mmo, he can by maintaining steady nose down sidestick order. He will be warned by the permanent and unusual forces to be applied to the sidestick (in addition to the oral overspeed warning); at max, for instance, it may be flying steadily at Vmo+16 knots with full nose down sidestick deflection.
"The high speed protection is tuned in a way that guarantees that any reasonable excursion into the peripheral flight envelope ... will contain the speed below VD/MD [VD is design diving speed. MD is maximum diving speed]. For instance ... in the case when the aircraft would perform a dive with a pitch attitude of minus fifteen degrees, go through Vmo/Mmo at this pitch attitude, with no pilot recovery action greater than 1.5g and occurring only after reaching the threshold of overspeed warning. This is also checked against the most severe gusts and windshears that would be encountered while flying at Vmo/Mmo."

I can also direct you to this site where they talk all about how even in a simulator they managed to to do what you claim is impossible.

Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flt 11 and Flt 175

Now I find it ironic that this comes from those old "Truth" websites, *snicker*, but it is enjoyable watching them shoot themselves in the foot.

The plane was never flying a straight and level flight at 510 knots the whole time. It was coming out of a dive, engines at full, and leveled off right before impact. If he had leveled off earlier, the plane would have slowed down a bit due to drag at that altitude.

Now I am curious as to what kind of modifications are you suggesting were used?

Planes are built with some serious safety margins. Did you know an unmodified Boeing 707 did a barrel roll not once but twice? Who knew?

NewAgeMan
reply to post by seasoul

 

However, if it "the plane" was not and could not possibly have been the originating flight 175, which flipped it's transponder beacon twice in a minute prior to "it's" turn and descending dive and targeting acquisition of the south tower, then no other hypothesis can be made nor conclusion drawn, than that it was a swapped-in, highly MODIFIED, remotely piloted aircraft, as a retrofitted, military grade variant, of the Boeing 767-222 (or 767-300 as the case may be, as touched upon earlier in the thread).

Now see, I saw this same argument years back (God I feel old) about the 767 being a special military aircraft, a Boeing KC-767. This aircraft didn't even exist yet. Now, there were Boeing E-767s with large rotodomes as AWACS, but I do not recall any rotodomes on Flight 175. So it is very doubtful of an existence of any special military grade 767s during this time. Just your humdrum boring passenger jets.