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

reply to post by Phage

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

But regarding specific topics, like this, your thickness is brutally evident. You are sorely lacking in the ability to evaluate probability. There are countless topics you have commented on which you entirely lack proof of your assertions, citing arguably biased sources, claiming to be a pure "scientist".

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.

The official story regarding 9/11 is a mathematical impossibility. Period. There is no model of probability which can support it. Yet you perpetually interject your complete improbabilities as if they hold merit.

I will not argue the details, as they rest on the deafest of ears. Let it be known, your words here have no more merit than the next. 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.

Lots of posts and stars about planets mean nothing to me, or to many others around here.

Cheers and Happy New Year! Having dinner with Al Gore?

reply to post by teslahowitzer


Here's some additional info to consider, which might also benefit Phage..

"VMO: Maximum operating limit speed (in knots), MMO: Maximum operating limit Mach." en.wikipedia.org...

Vmo is a margin of safety limit mandated by the FAA based on Vd (dive speed) in knots for lower altitude operations. Mmo is a margin of safety limit mandated by the FAA based on Md (mach dive), in Mach, for higher altitude operations.

Vmo/Mmo limits for a standard 767 are 360/0.86M. And this is how it is calculated...

The dive speed [Vd] is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent), as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. At the dive speed [Vd], excessive aircraft vibrations develop which put the aircraft structural integrity at stake.

theflyingengineer.com...

Vd for a standard 767 is 420 knots.

rgl.faa.gov...

Question: VMO = 360 knots ... at 35,000 feet?

False.

Vmo at FL350 is roughly 294 KCAS based on .86 Mmo. And you can actually see this happening on the airspeed indicator as you climb above the crossover altitude. The Vmo needle (or Vmo limit on the speed tape for glass cockpits) actually starts moving to lower airspeeds the higher you climb.

By the way, Jets with Air Data Computers (ADC) don't have IAS, the airspeed read on the airspeed indicator in a Jet is CAS (Calibrated Airspeed), the ADC removes instrument errors.



www.luizmonteiro.com...

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Vmo/Mmo limits for a standard 767 are 360/0.86M. And this is how it is calculated

Good. Now, what is the Mach number for 510 knots at 700 feet? Is it greater than 0.86?

reply to post by Phage


Um.. that Vmo/Mmo limit was not at Sea Level Phage, but at 23,000 feet altitude!

The Vmo/Mmo of .86 Mach does not apply at all altitudes! Didn't you see the calc?

This is ridiculous.

You're not really this confused, i can't believe that.

What are you trying to debunk here i don't get it, you cannot move the bar arbitrarily it doesn't work that way.

Edit to add: Check the EAS and CAS for the Vmo/Mmo of the Boeing 767.



And again, the Vd structural dive speed limit for the aircraft is 420, EAS, whereby 425 is the equivalent airspeed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet altitude ie: same dynamic pressure on the airframe. In other words, 420 knots EAS (at sea level) makes perfect sense as the Vd structural limit of the Boeing 767.

This WAS covered in the OP very clearly and in fine detail. I didn't just make it up. It is what it is and it can't be twisted and re-rendered with an aim to deceive or obfuscate it's fundamental truth and reality.

The plane was recorded flying at NINETY knots past it's Vd structural limit of 420, even more beyond it's Vmo, of 360 knots EAS.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

The Vmo/Mmo of .86 Mach does not apply at all altitudes! Didn't you see the calc?

Yes. I saw the calculations. I saw that the Mach number remains at 0.86 and corresponds to a higher airspeed at lower altitude. I can understand that the Vmo could be "which ever is less" when knots and Mach numbers are given (not provided by my original source).

So fiddling with the calculator I see that a TAS of 510 knots gives us a CAS of 499 (EAS of 498) knots at 700 feet and a Mach number of 0.75 (at 70º). So we have exceeded Vmo and Vd.

Now you need to demonstrate that the plane should have fallen apart at that speed. That's 16% over Vd.
Here's something to consider. Remember that Aloha Airlines 737, flight 243? I don't think it "should" have held together either. The certification documents do not say "the plane will fall apart here" they say "you really shouldn't fly faster than this."

Phage
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Here's a little something for you to chew on.

Vne/Mmo - Mach .80 (Never Exceed/Maximum Mach Number)

www.flywestwind.com...

Speaking of the difference between the 767-200 and the 767-300 (although i realize you edited that reference out of your post), that's another thing - the south tower plane does not appear to fit the profile of a 767-200 (222), which is kind of snub-nosed, but more like the 300 which is longer from the wing-join to the nose.

NewAgeMan
The South Tower Plane

Flight 175, a Boeing 767-222, registration number N612UA.

Perhaps we'll take a closer look at this later on, and i am not offering it up as anything conclusive in and of itself, just another interesting observation in terms of the apparent length and proportion of the south tower plane as it relates to a Boeing 767-200 vs. the 300, in light of the other evidence we've been considering which proves that the plane was not and cannot have been the originating flight 175 piloted by a hijacker considered by the (Zelikow led) 9/11 Commission, not any better than the likes of Hani Hanjour who allegedly piloted the Pentagon plane but who had difficulties piloting a single engine Cessna.

Phage
Remember that Aloha Airlines 737, flight 243? I don't think it "should" have held together either.

How fast, and at what altitude?

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Does it matter?
richstokoe.com...

It seems to have exceeded any reasonable expectations after this happened. Yet it made it to the airfield and landed. Pretty good airplane. And an old one with a lot of hours on it.

Phage
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Does it matter?
richstokoe.com...

It seems to have exceeded any reasonable expectations after this happened. Yet it made it to the airfield and landed. Pretty good airplane. And an old one with a lot of hours on it.

uh yeah it matters.. do you know what speed it reached, and at what altitude? I told you i'd work to bring some similar examples forward but you've got us started with this one. What it's story, and under what conditions did it start to fall apart. Did it end up in an uncontrolled dive? i'm not familiar with this one, please feel free to share more than just that photo. thanks.

This video covers some of this


forward to minute


1.20.15 - The missing black boxes

1.26:50 - Passenger planes or military drones

1.28:20 - Impossible speeds

Btw, once groundspeed is known (see radar data in post 2), to calculate airspeed, the windspeed vector would be added, which, as a light wind to the N/W would in this case increase the plane's airspeed slightly, to about 515 knots - at about 700 ft. alt. so it was over the Vd limit of 420 knots,
by about 95 knots.

reply to post by Blowback


Thanks Blowback, nice contribution.

reminded me to add this

The Black Box Conspiracy

December 19, 2005

Did the Bush Administration Lie to Congress and the 9/11 Commission?

9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI

by Dave Lindorff

One of the more puzzling mysteries of 9-11 is what ever happened to the flight recorders of the two planes that hit the World Trade Center towers. Now it appears that they may not be missing at all.

Counterpunch has learned that the FBI has them.

Flight recorders (commonly known as black boxes, though these days they are generally bright orange) are required on all passenger planes. There are always two-a flight data recorder that keeps track of a plane’s speed, altitude, course and maneuvers, and a cockpit voice recorder which keeps a continuous record of the last 30 minutes of conversation inside a plane’s cockpit. These devices are constructed to be extremely durable, and are installed in a plane’s tail section, where they are least likely suffer damaged on impact. They are designed to withstand up to 30 minutes of 1800-degree heat (more than they would have faced in the twin towers crashes), and to survive a crash at full speed into the ground.

All four of the devices were recovered from the two planes that hit the Pentagon and that crashed in rural Pennsylvania. In the case of American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, the FBI reports that the flight data recorder survived and had recoverable information, but the voice recorder was allegedly too damaged to provide any record. In the case of United Airlines Flight 93, which hit the ground at 500 mph in Pennsylvania, the situation was reversed: the voice recorder survived but the flight data box was allegedly damaged beyond recovery.

But the FBI states, and also reported to the 9-11 Commission, that none of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered.

There has always been some skepticism about this assertion, particularly as two N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them. (The FBI denies the whole story.) Moreover, these devices are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition (and the cleanup of the World Trade Center was meticulous, with even tiny bone fragments and bits of human tissue being discovered so that almost all the victims were ultimately identified). As Ted Lopatkiewicz, director of public affairs at the National Transportation Safety Agency which has the job of analyzing the boxes’ data, says, "It’s very unusual not to find a recorder after a crash, although it’s also very unusual to have jets flying into buildings."

Now there is stronger evidence that something is amiss than simply the alleged non-recovery of all four of those boxes. A source at the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency that has the task of deciphering the date from the black boxes retrieved from crash sites-including those that are being handled as crimes and fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI-says the boxes were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB.

"Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You’d have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."

The official word from the NTSB is that the WTC crash site black boxes never turned up. "No recorders were recovered from the World Trade Center," says the NTSB’s Lopatkiewicz. "At least none were delivered to us by the FBI." He adds that the agency has "always had a good relationship’ with the FBI and that in all prior crime-related crashes or flight incidents, they have brought the boxes to the NTSB for analysis.

For its part, the FBI is still denying everything, though with curious bit of linguistic wiggle room. "To the best of my knowledge, the flight recording devices from the World Trade Center crashes were never recovered. At least we never had them," says FBI spokesman Stephen Kodak.

What the apparent existence of the black boxes in government hands means is unclear.

If the information in those boxes is recoverable, or if, as is likely, it has been recovered already, it could give crucial evidence regarding the skill of the hijacker/pilots, perhaps of their strategy, of whether they were getting outside help in guiding them to their targets, of how fast they were flying and a host of other things.

Why would the main intelligence and law enforcement arm of the U.S. government want to hide from the public not just the available information about the two hijacked flights that provided the motivation and justification for the nation’s "War on Terror" and for its two wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, but even the fact that it has the devices which could contain that information? Conspiracy theories abound, with some claiming the planes were actually pilotless military aircraft, or that they had little or nothing to do with the building collapses. The easiest way to quash such rumors and such fevered thinking would be openness.

Instead we have the opposite: a dark secrecy that invites many questions regarding the potentially embarrassing or perhaps even sinister information that might be on those tapes.

www.counterpunch.org...

Now I'm not a big fan of the way Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" plays this stuff as "entertainment" while at a certain level marginalizing the info as such, which reminds me of Alex Jones in way, as a type of unwitting controlled opposition where what may be true and real is twisted into a parody of sorts, but nevertheless the show did a reasonable job in covering this issue of the "lost" "black box" flight data recorders, so I'm adding it here anyway because of the nature of the information, not for the "entertainment value".

And this too, can't forget this item..


They found the PASSPORT! (so why not black boxes?)



Pasport found!

Satam Al Suqami's remarkably undamaged passport




November 5, 1998-September 24, 2000: 9/11 Hijacker Al Suqami Frequently Travels around Middle East and AsiaEdit event
Satam Al Suqami.
Satam Al Suqami. [Source: US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division]
On August 11, 1998, 9/11 hijacker Satam Al Suqami is issued a Saudi Arabian passport. [FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 10/2001, PP. 29 pdf file] This passport will allegedly be discovered in the wreckage of the 9/11 attacks in New York, allowing investigators an unusually detailed glimpse into the movements of one of the hijackers. While a majority of the hijackers seem to have traveled little prior to coming to the US, Al Suqami travels widely:
bullet November 5, 1998: He enters and departs Jordan, enters Syria.
bullet November 11, 1998: departs Syria; enters and departs Jordan.
bullet November 12, 1998: enters Saudi Arabia.
bullet February 19, 1999: enters Saudi Arabia.
bullet February 24, 1999: enters and departs Jordan; enters Syria.
bullet February 25, 1999: departs Saudi Arabia.
bullet March 7, 1999: departs Syria.
bullet March 8, 1999: enters Jordan.
bullet May 13, 1999: departs Bahrain.
bullet May 15, 1999: enters Saudi Arabia.
bullet January 18, 2000: enters United Arab Emirates (UAE).
bullet April 4, 2000: enters UAE.
bullet April 6, 2000: departs UAE.
bullet April 7, 2000: enters Egypt.
bullet April 18, 2000: departs Oman, enters UAE.
bullet July 11, 2000: departs Egypt.
bullet July 12, 2000: enters Malaysia. [FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 10/2001, PP. 33, 37-39, 42, 59-62, 75 pdf file]
On September 24, 2000, Al Suqami enters Turkey and stays there for most of the next six months (see September 24, 2000-April 1, 2001). Then he will travel to Malaysia again before finally flying to the US. The above records are obviously incomplete as there are sometimes records of him leaving a country without entering it or vice versa. His travels to Afghanistan and Pakistan are also not mentioned, as there was probably an effort to keep them out of his passport. In 2007, al-Qaeda leader Luai Sakra will claim that Al Suqami was not just another hijacker but led a group of the hijackers.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

NewAgeMan
And this too, can't forget this item..
They found the PASSPORT! (so why not black boxes?)

sorry if I got ya off topic of the speed of the planes ,,we should probably keep this thread only about stuff related too the planes themselves


That said .. this video has an analysis of the only security video released of the "plane" that hit the pentagon ,, & it reports to show the video was altered

forward to minute

0.18:30 - Security video analysis

Phage
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Please provide evidence that unmodified commercial aircraft will break apart at an IAS (which represents the actual airflow) of 425 kt. Please provide wind tunnel and flight testing data which indicates this.

edit on 12/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Ohhh I'm shocked! shocked! They did not include this in the report ?

I think the report should be reopen, they miss something or maybe, a lot of things.



The passport would be safe, of course, it should be near or within grab of passengers at all time (for custom purposes), preferably in his coat, so, it SHOULD be safe, even though the owner turned to crusts. Yep, indestructible indeed.

Next thing they will find is SATAM detail takeover plan and videos of himself planning the crash, saying "Hello world, I made this video". Its somewhere in the park, still there.

911 wont die, need bigger hole to cover it. The smell gone away a bit though.
What a joke

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force:

"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93... I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

"The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...

Air Traffic Controllers Recall 9/11:

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe"... This must be a fighter.

Nice work on the thread however I can't think of anything more irrelevant.

other evidence we've been considering which proves that the plane was not and cannot have been the originating flight 175 piloted by a hijacker considered by the (Zelikow led) 9/11 Commission, not any better than the likes of Hani Hanjour who allegedly piloted the Pentagon plane but who had difficulties piloting a single engine Cessna.

Can't you see the problem with statements like this?

All I have to do is ask where are all the passengers that got on flight 175?

All you can do is change the subject-or answer the question with a question.

Again, there are 18 confirmed and recorded conversations between the passengers and persons on the ground-how did they(who ever 'they' is) fake that?

All you can do is change the subject-or answer the question with a question.

You just don't have the experience to understand the goals of the researcher.

That is to present unbiased, non opinionated factual statements based on the evidence at hand. In that statement you have opinionated 6 times-therefore the statement is null and void.

I went back through 10 of your statements and every single one has multiple bias in the context. Until you learn how to present research in the proper form no one is ever going to take you seriously!

Sorry but that is just life.

reply to post by Phage

Now you need to demonstrate that the plane should have fallen apart at that speed. That's 16% over Vd.
Here's something to consider. Remember that Aloha Airlines 737, flight 243? I don't think it "should" have held together either. The certification documents do not say "the plane will fall apart here" they say "you really shouldn't fly faster than this."

So the pilots hijackers...having in mind their mission...and that was to hijack planes and slam them in to buildings, simply ignored all the aircraft safety regulations and just pushed wildly beyond the structural capabilities of the planes...simply disregarding their mission...and going for it...and still managing it...almost as planned. They were willing to risk breaking the plane apart before reaching the target...sounds like an awful risk to take...if the plane broke apart before hitting the buildings...the "mission" would be ruined. But I guess...they are "crazy" and don't care about success of the missions they partake.


The only thing you managed to prove so far...is that perhaps planes wouldn't break apart after reaching 420 knots...because it doesn't state that...it only states you shouldn't exceed that speed....probably because 100 knots over that limit...still nothing happens to the plane...it's just a wild number those guys trow into flight manuals.

But, let's humor you...let's say it doesn't break apart...would you be able (or anyone who isn't an experienced airbus pilot) to fly that plane at that speed...and hit the building as planed ? I'm a betting man...I wouldn't give you good chances of pulling it off.


reply to post by NewAgeMan


OP...nice work. Keep em coming...one day...this sad charade will be over...

spooky24
Nice work on the thread however I can't think of anything more irrelevant.

other evidence we've been considering which proves that the plane was not and cannot have been the originating flight 175 piloted by a hijacker considered by the (Zelikow led) 9/11 Commission, not any better than the likes of Hani Hanjour who allegedly piloted the Pentagon plane but who had difficulties piloting a single engine Cessna.

Can't you see the problem with statements like this?

All I have to do is ask where are all the passengers that got on flight 175?

And all I have to do to burst your bubble is to ask you how you know ANY passengers boarded the plane that crashed into the South Tower? There's no firm proof of any passengers or hijackers ever doing this - certainly not a planted hijacker's passport! It is purely an assumption on your part. If the hypothesis that a military cargo plane was substituted mid-air for Flight 175, then the passengers on board Flight 175 presumaby died when the plane was ditched secretly in the Atlantic after its controls were taken over (yes - the technology WAS available then to do this).

Can't you see the problem with a statement like yours? Don't pretend your vacuous replies are so impossible to rebut ("All I have to do....")

Again, there are 18 confirmed and recorded conversations between the passengers and persons on the ground-how did they(who ever 'they' is) fake that?

"They" are clearly the black op guys within certain intelligence agency(ies) who helped carried out this mass murder. Creating false telephone conversations based upon recorded, real words and phrases is well within the technological capabilities of Darpa and intelligence agencies. Try researching on the internet before asking questions as though they had no answers.

I went back through 10 of your statements and every single one has multiple bias in the context. Until you learn how to present research in the proper form no one is ever going to take you seriously!

Sorry but that is just life.

Your reply is just as biassed as the one you complain about. A case of the pot calling the kettle black, methinks.

MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by Phage

 

Now you need to demonstrate that the plane should have fallen apart at that speed. That's 16% over Vd.
Here's something to consider. Remember that Aloha Airlines 737, flight 243? I don't think it "should" have held together either. The certification documents do not say "the plane will fall apart here" they say "you really shouldn't fly faster than this."

So the pilots hijackers...having in mind their mission...and that was to hijack planes and slam them in to buildings, simply ignored all the aircraft safety regulations and just pushed wildly beyond the structural capabilities of the planes...simply disregarding their mission...and going for it...and still managing it...almost as planned. They were willing to risk breaking the plane apart before reaching the target...sounds like an awful risk to take...if the plane broke apart before hitting the buildings...the "mission" would be ruined. But I guess...they are "crazy" and don't care about success of the missions they partake.
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

OP...nice work. Keep em coming...one day...this sad charade will be over...

Good point! Also, why would they risk using inexperienced pilots. The whole operation was a complete gamble, resulting in a 75% success rate (3/4 planes hit targets). They also were lucky enough to bring down 3 skyscrapers with 2 planes. Maybe the US military should start hiring cavemen from now on for the more difficult and technical missions. They are remarkably skilled. Then those sob's got their homeland bombed to pieces (oh wait, 15 of them were Saudi nationals, and none were Afghani or Iraqi). And have been hunted down worldwide ever since. That reads like a bad Hollywood movie script.

soulwaxer