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.
Originally posted by CB_Brooklynou're right?
Every one of the videos violates laws of physics, therefore they're fake.
No planes hit the towers.
[edit on 23-9-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]
This has to be one of the most absurd things I have read. I compare this to a cheese grinder. Chese is definately softer than the metal grinder so how does the block of cheese go through the grinder.
Have you figured it out yet? The grinder is not solid (has holes in it) so for the cheese to go through somone applies force on the cheese block and shoves it though the holes. Same thing with the tower and the plane. The tower is not solid metal,
Originally posted by johnlear
And if you think a pilot can ignore the overspeed warning its because you haven't heard one.
Thanks for the post.
Originally posted by johnlear
I was wrong!
In double checking with my sources for my post on the circuit breaker for the overspeed warning in the Boeing 757/767 I found out that I was wrong.
In fact there is a circuit breaker for the aural warning. On the Boeing 757 it is on Panel P-11 and it is either B16 or H35. One of those is the overspeed warning and one is the cabin altitude.
Please accept my apologies for the misinformation I have posted on the overspeed warning. There is in fact a circuit breaker that can disable the overspeed warning.
Originally posted by johnlear
Today I got the Vmo of a 757 (from a friend who flys one) which is 347 knots at sea level. There is no reason it should be higher for a 767 because the limitation is usually the windshield which are both the same. But I called Boeing to be sure and the lady was at lunch and hasn't called back
Well not totally John...
Here is a Airworthiness Directive from 2004 that suggests there are 7567-200s out there that do not have the C/B yet
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, 747-
400F, 757-200, 757-200PF, 757-200CB, 767-200, 767-300, and 767-300F
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
excerpt...This action is necessary to ensure that
the flightcrew is able to silence an erroneous overspeed or stall aural
warning. A persistent erroneous warning could confuse and distract the
flightcrew and lead to an increase in the flightcrew's workload. Such a
situation could lead the flightcrew to act on hazardously misleading
information, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.
This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Last time I checked, a hologram is two light sources. The light bisects, creating a hologram out of light (bisecting 2 dimmer lights = brighter light hence the 3d effect) . I'll look it up on my spare time.
Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by GreenFloyd
Here's some information that I posted from a different thread.
I done some more digging and found a link to the Zacharias Moussaoui trial exhibit and there is a photocopy of Hanis logbook and some jet tech records of his 737 simulator training. Document #'s are PX00021 and PX00021.1 (PDF)
255 hours total time
74.5 hours IFR (Instrument Flight Rules)
29.9 hours AMEL Turbine (Aircraft Multiengine Land)
12 hours B737-200 simulator time
Remember that these records were recorded at 255 hours total time and that leaves almost 350 hours of flying for him to learn more.
They had more experience than a couple of hours in a Cessna.
Dear Boone 870,
Thank you for digging out this information, I was unaware of it.
Is it safe to assume the other planes each had a highjacker with the same level of training?
[edit on 25-9-2007 by Boone 870]
Originally posted by Gorman91
Actually, a hologram is very simple.
In fact, you can buy one:
www.io2technology.com...
Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
This is further proof that the idea of real jetliners hitting the towers is ridiculous!
Hear three people speak on the subject:
Retired Aerospace Engineer, Joseph Keith, was the lead engineer designing the "shaker system" for these types of aircraft. He's thoroughly familiar with this topic.
Two Boeing officials, one of them an engineer.
Running the 767 airframe through the x-plane simulator (laminar flow model) and using stock thrust values for the engines, balls to the wall (and assuming it doesn't fall apart) it tops out at about 530kts near sea level (~1000 ft). I know that's not totally scientific, but the laminar flow model is quite good. There is a fair amount of excess lift at that speed at sea level, so the plane flies pitch-down about 3 degrees to maintain level flight. For what it's worth, anyways, it seems that the plane could, in theory, do something of the sort we saw on 9/11. That's not to say that it did, but it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility.
Cockpit View Of AA Flight 11 on 9/11
Just a little memory jogger here not one piece of an airliner was found in either tower footprint. No trace of the two 6 ton jet engines, no trace of the wing plank center section, no trace of the horizontal/vertical tail structure, no oxygen tanks, no flight recorder, no voice recorder, no hydraulic cylinders, nothing. I mean where is all of that stuff?