Boeing spokesperson laughs at the idea of a Boeing 767 going at 500 MPH at 700 feet

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by weedwhacker

OrionStars,

I have tried and tried to give you information. Now, you come along, and 'snip' a sentence or two out of a very long and informative post I wrote, in order to make another unrelated point?

Because you start out with words I heard from the time time I was a child. And then proceed to address me as if I know nothing about what goes on at airports or with airplanes.

I have to address you as if you know nothing about what goes on at airports or with airplanes because from what you post, it seems you really do NOT know anything about what goes on at airports or with airplanes...

reply to post by OrionStars


OrionStars,

Since you know so much about airplanes and such, here are a few simple questions, any airline pilot could answer...

What is an APU?

What does the 'battery switch' do...almost all Boeings have similar electrical systems...tell me what bus (or buses) are powered by the battery switch.

Tell us about nose wheel steering...and how to push back an airplane from the gate...how is this done?

(you said you know everything about airplanes and airport operations...or did I get it wrong?)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by OrionStars

 

(you said you know everything about airplanes and airport operations...or did I get it wrong?)

Actually, this is what I stated, and you also cited it in your previous post.
Because you start out with words I heard from the time time I was a child. And then proceed to address me as if I know nothing about what goes on at airports or with airplanes.

And yet you ask me the question I cited above, which is nothing comparable to the original way I worded it above.

Are you finished with derailing the topic and concentrating on me with your red herring and ad hominem? Can you now concentrate on the topic instead?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


That's another point that many pilots say proves that it WASN'T a professional pilot or under the control of someone who had been flying for a long time.

I love how just because only a few pilots have come forward saying how the plane COULD do that move that means that most have said it couldn't. We don't know how many pilots think that the planes could do those maneuvers, because the only ones we ever hear about are the ones that think that it COULDN'T be done. What a surprise.

[edit on 2/7/2008 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by L driver

Originally posted by OrionStars

Is this your main question concerning the maneuvering of the alleged flight 175? If so, let me know if that's the best way to ask it. For example: "Can a 767-200 perform a high speed sharp banked angle turn, while not drastically slowing down, particularly close to sea level, at say, 700 ft?"

Why not ask the exact questions that will give the answers to help either validate or dismiss the parameters the NIST used in establishing their "more severe damage model"? Why are we talking about 60 degree bank angles when there is no evidence of either plane rolling to a 60 degree angle during the approach to, or at the impact of, the buildings?

Here are the parameters the NIST used to model damage due to impact:

EDIT NOTE: I have rewritten these questions to use the data listed in the following tables from NISTNCSTAR1-2B - "More Severe" damage model along with the roll angles listed in Tables 7-4 and 7-5.





So if we're going to ask questions that produce answers - let's ask ones that produce USABLE answers.

From a performance standpoint:

1. Is it possible for a 767-200 to achieve 472 mph in a 7.6 degree pitch down and a 25 degree roll at approximately 960 feet altitude? (taking 10 feet/floor)

2. Is it possible for a 767 to achieve 570 mph in a 5.0 degree pitch down, 13 degree yaw, and a 38 degree roll at approximately 810 feet altitude?

From an airframe standpoint:

3. Is it possible for a 767 airframe to hold up to the conditions of 1?

4. Is it possible for a 767 airframe to hold up to the conditions of 2?

From a maneuverability and controllability standpoint:

6. What control forces would be required in 1?

6. What control forces would be required in 2?

From a piloting standpoint:

7. Do you have to have a pilot license or any training past what cockpit controls do what in order to hit a 209 feet wide skyscraper under the conditions of 1?

8. Do you have to have a pilot license or any training past what cockpit controls do what in order to hit a 209 feet wide skyscraper under the conditions of 2?

Those are the answers we need to get in order to validate the assumptions used by NIST in their impact damage models - and to answer for ourselves whether the flight parameters they used were achievable either by plane or pilot.


[edit on 2-7-2008 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Zaphod58

I love how just because only a few pilots have come forward saying how the plane COULD do that move that means that most have said it couldn't. We don't know how many pilots think that the planes could do those maneuvers, because the only ones we ever hear about are the ones that think that it COULDN'T be done. What a surprise.

I would venture to say that those pilots saying it could not be done, most likely have experience in what commercial jetliners are capable of doing and not doing. Which very probably is why they state what the "official" reports tout is impossible.

Of course, if some pilots chose to accept the "official" reports, it would stand to reason they would not agree for specific reasons they have not revealed.

I am not saying this has happened. However, on anonymous forums people can claim to be anything they please because they never have to prove it.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Zaphod58

I love how just because only a few pilots have come forward saying how the plane COULD do that move that means that most have said it couldn't. We don't know how many pilots think that the planes could do those maneuvers, because the only ones we ever hear about are the ones that think that it COULDN'T be done. What a surprise.

I would venture to say that those pilots saying it could not be done, most likely have experience in what commercial jetliners are capable of doing and not doing. Which very probably is why they state what the "official" reports tout is impossible.

Of course, if some pilots chose to accept the "official" reports, it would stand to reason they would not agree for specific reasons they have not revealed.

I am not saying this has happened. However, on anonymous forums people can claim to be anything they please because they never have to prove it.

Orion, pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

You know so much about airports and airplanes, you've said so, saying that I speak to you as a child, then answer my earlier questions in order to give yourself some credibility. So far, based on what you have written, your choice of words and language show that you DO NOT know what you are talking about. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated frequently that I DO know. It is your turn, SIR.

What is an APU?

What does the Battery Switch do? (this is for Boeings only, and you don't have to be specific, just tell me what busses are powered and de-powered by that switch)

How can an airplane be pushed back, when the nosewheel is hydraulically operated?

Three simple questions, any airline pilot could answer. We are waiting.

The topic is possible top speed of a Boeing 767 at 700'. Two people at Boeing, one listed on the Internet as an engineer, hedged ("I don't know. Pretty slow."), but agreed no 767 could fly at high speed at 700' altitude. Neither is it going to maneuver in banks and turns at high speed at 700' altitude either.

I do not need to be a pilot to understand the reason commercial jetliners cannot fly at high speed at 700' altitude. However, I do have to know the aerodynamic and design reasons why that is impossibe at that altitude. Which I definitely do.

On the poll I mentioned, it's from the latest Zogby, a poll sponsored by a 9/11 truth site. I believe it agrees pretty much with the NY Times poll you cited. When asked if the government is telling the whole truth, only about 16% think so. However, Zogby then asked a more specific question: which of the following three theories would you most likely agree with? The results were:

Official story 63.6%

Let it happen 26.4%

Made it happen 4.6%

Not sure 5.4%

I speculate that the reason the 4.6 number isn't nearly as widely known as the 16% one, is partly because, having been done on behalf of the truth mvt, they are keener on promoting the numbers that indicate the most skepticism.

Orion,

A few questions. In response to Valhall's latest post, given no FDR, how were bank angles, other maneuvering parameters, established for F175? Was this an estimate by NIST only? Or was it based on the few videos of the approach?

Also, is it your contention some large aircraft did hit the South Tower, but at a lower speed?


Thanks

Originally posted by L driver
On the poll I mentioned, it's from the latest Zogby, a poll sponsored by a 9/11 truth site. I believe it agrees pretty much with the NY Times poll you cited. When asked if the government is telling the whole truth, only about 16% think so. However, Zogby then asked a more specific question: which of the following three theories would you most likely agree with? The results were:

Official story 63.6%

Let it happen 26.4%

Made it happen 4.6%

Not sure 5.4%

I speculate that the reason the 4.6 number isn't nearly as widely known as the 16% one, is partly because, having been done on behalf of the truth mvt, they are keener on promoting the numbers that indicate the most skepticism.

However, you did not mention the 26.4% stating they believed the Bush administration allowed it to happen. That is almost 31% of the US population not believing the White House "official" reports. Which is much different than what you stated. That poll is old, and your statement was fully misleading. When Zogby polled those in NYC, the adverse numbers were much higher than the general population.

I did place more recent poll information in one of my posts. The numbers have drastically shifted against the Bush administration "official" versions. This is supposed to be a democracy. The people are supposed to be the goverment per the US Constitution. The people have spoken in majority. It is long passed time a new independent hearing needing to be held, with a full forensic investigation actually done and done correctly.

Originally posted by OrionStars




However, you did not mention the 26.4% stating they believed the Bush administration allowed it to happen. That is almost 31% of the US population not believing the White House "official" reports. Which is much different than what you stated. That poll is old, and your statement was fully misleading.

I don't believe so. My exact words were "The latest poll shows only 4.6% of the US pop believing in an inside job." That is precisely what the poll showed, and that is precisely what I stated. As far as this being an old poll, this was Zogby's latest (I think), and was conducted not more than 6 months ago.

cont'd. . .

I didn't mention the "LIHOP" numbers because my point was specifically in regard to questioning the basics of the Pentagon crash. LIHOP, in that sense, is absolutely in agreement with the official theory in saying that a real 757 piloted by a real Hani Hanjour hit the Pentagon. So there was no point in bringing the IHOP numbers into that discussion. The fact is that given the 4.6% MIHOPers, that indicates a very small # of people who question the Pentagon crash. Seems a reasonable claim to me.

Cheers

Originally posted by OrionStars
The topic is possible top speed of a Boeing 767 at 700'. Two people at Boeing, one listed on the Internet as an engineer, hedged ("I don't know. Pretty slow."), but agreed no 767 could fly at high speed at 700' altitude. Neither is it going to maneuver in banks and turns at high speed at 700' altitude either.

I do not need to be a pilot to understand the reason commercial jetliners cannot fly at high speed at 700' altitude. However, I do have to know the aerodynamic and design reasons why that is impossibe at that altitude. Which I definitely do.

No, OS, you do not need to be a pilot. BUT, you state, categorically, without any evidence, that "commercial jetliners cannot fly at high speed at 700' altitude" YOUR words. Then, you say, "...I do have to know the aerodynamic and design reasons why that is impossible at that altitude. Which I definitely do."

I will repeat myself here...despite all of the evidence I, and others, have presented, you seem to stick to your same premise. OK, that's fine. Believe what you want. The premise of ATS is to deny ignorance...that sounds harsh, at first glance. 'ignorance' is usually understood to be a 'slap'....but I think, in this context, it means 'ignorance' is simply the 'lack of knowledge'.

Example...a new born baby is 'ignorant'. That doesn't mean that baby is stupid...it means he/she is not fully educated yet......

Originally posted by weedwhacker

No, OS, you do not need to be a pilot. BUT, you state, categorically, without any evidence, that "commercial jetliners cannot fly at high speed at 700' altitude" YOUR words. Then, you say, "...I do have to know the aerodynamic and design reasons why that is impossible at that altitude. Which I definitely do."

Rather than concentrating on me, as you continue to do, let us put concentration elsehwhere to those saying the same as I, and many times more due to their qualified expertise in aeronautics.

Boeing engineer interviewed by phone as shown in the video
Experienced pilots posting to these forums
Dr. Robert Boman, PhDs in aeronautics and nuclear engineering, plus, a member of Pilotsfor9/11Truth

www.uncommonthought.com...

Pilotsfor9/11Truth

Are you saying we are all wrong but you are right? If so, then please prove what you say is right. Doing nothing but insisting I do not know anything does not prove you right.

Originally posted by L driver

I don't believe so. My exact words were "The latest poll shows only 4.6% of the US pop believing in an inside job." That is precisely what the poll showed, and that is precisely what I stated. As far as this being an old poll, this was Zogby's latest (I think), and was conducted not more than 6 months ago.

Wording it that way deliberately skewed the statistics. Anyone not believing the "official" reports needs to be included in the figures with those believing it was an inside job. That was my point.

The way you worded it inferred 95% disagree with 4%. That is not true as evidenced by the poll figures you finally did post. It is certainly not true when compared to the links I gave for more recent poll figures.

reply to post by OrionStars


OS,

You provided a link where is says 'seven' people are refuting the 'official' story...

Seven people?!? Why do these seven have any more incredible intelligence than THOUSANDS of others?!?

I am sorry, OS. I have tried and tried. I have asked you questions, simple questions that any airline pilot could answer...and you dodge them. You said, yourself, that I spoke to you as if you were a child, the implication being, in your comments, that you knew a lot, and I was speaking to you as if you knew nothing. But when tasked with a simple answer, from me, or others, you do NOT answer at all. Instead, you either ask another question, or you claim you are being attacked.

I welcome anyone who has the time to read through all of the exchanges and decide for themselves...

I have tried to present my knowledge and experience in this thread. Others have contributed as well. I invite anyone to pick apart what I have posted, and find flaws.

Brng it on....

edit to add...I found a flaw...I misspelled 'bring'!!!

OK, carry on

[edit on 7-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

I probably mispelled 'misspelled'...oh, dear!

[edit on 7-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

Can anyone see the humor in any of this???

[edit on 7-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


You can rationalize your way through anything dealing with the "official" reports. However, until you can physically prove anyone wrong, you are only opining and nothing more.

The fact is Boeing has laboratories to test their products under simulated atmospheric and gravitational conditions. The engineers do the lab testing. As do test pilots working for Boeing, when they test fly Boeing aircraft under actual atmospheric and gravitational conditions, for laboratory comparisons.

If you desire to keep on insisting Boeing and others are wrong, then by all means please do physically prove Boeing wrong. Merely talking about it proves nothing.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by L driver

I don't believe so. My exact words were "The latest poll shows only 4.6% of the US pop believing in an inside job." That is precisely what the poll showed, and that is precisely what I stated. As far as this being an old poll, this was Zogby's latest (I think), and was conducted not more than 6 months ago.

Wording it that way deliberately skewed the statistics. Anyone not believing the "official" reports needs to be included in the figures with those believing it was an inside job. That was my point.

But that's not a good point, because it isn't related to the point I was making. The context I limited myself to was: those who question that a 757 piloted by Hanjour hit the Pentagon. ONLY MIHOPers, BY DEFINITION, might think that. So, why should I mention all the other shades of skepticism mentioned in these polls? It has nothing to do with the context. Why should, say, the % of LIHOPers have any relevance to the basic claim of a 757 piloted by a Hanjour-level trained pilot striking the Pentagon? I fail to see the relevance.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

You can rationalize your way through anything dealing with the "official" reports. However, until you can physically prove anyone wrong, you are only opining and nothing more.

The fact is Boeing has laboratories to test their products under simulated atmospheric and gravitational conditions. The engineers do the lab testing. As do test pilots working for Boeing, when they test fly Boeing aircraft under actual atmospheric and gravitational conditions, for laboratory comparisons.

If you desire to keep on insisting Boeing and others are wrong, then by all means please do physically prove Boeing wrong. Merely talking about it proves nothing.

OS, this is why I keep trying to point out your incredible lack of understanding...I had to pull this 'full quote' for others to see...

You say, " ...Boeing has laboratories to test their products under simulated atmospheric and gravitational conditions."

Did you not read anything I have posted lately? You throw in the word 'gravitational' like it means something.

You speak in nonsense terms, sorry OS.

I am watching now, live, the launch of Atlantis. Wanna tell us, oh great OS, how this is fake??

edit spelling

[edit on 7-2-2008 by weedwhacker]