• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flight 175 plane speed challenged

ZENSMACK89 said:
Now I'm not claiming what hit the towers was identified as a 767 for sure but if you want to know apparently not just the airlines use 767’s….

http://www.afa.org/magazine/aug2003/0803world.asp#anchor5

Plans Set for Tanker Basing
The Air Force in June announced its preferred plan for basing the 100 KC-767 aerial refueling aircraft it expects to lease from Boeing. (See “100 Tankers,” p. 64.) According to USAF’s “tanker roadmap” the following bases will be affected:
Fairchild AFB, Wash., will receive 32 KC-767s by 2010 and will get up to $200 million in military construction funds.
Grand Forks AFB, N.D., will receive 32 KC-767s by 2009 and $176 million in construction funds.
MacDill AFB, Fla., will receive 32 KC-767s by 2011 and some $200 million in milcon funds.
Robins AFB, Ga., will eliminate its existing tanker inventory, creating room for future missions.
The remaining four KC-767s will be backup inventory. The lease arrangement will also allow the Air Force to retire its 133 aged KC-135Es.
Air Reserve Component units at the following bases will transition from E model KC-135s to R models as part of the tanker realignment:
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• Bangor, Maine
• Pittsburgh, Pa.
• Forbes Field, Kan.
• McGhee Tyson ANGB, Tenn.
• McGuire AFB, N.J.
• Scott AFB, Ill.
• Sioux City, Iowa
• Beale AFB, Calif.
• Phoenix, Ariz.
• Selfridge ANGB, Mich.



You really need to try harder and check your claims before embarrassing yourself on here with them.
Click to expand...


Speaking of which....are you aware that Boeing has still not yet built a single KC-767 for the USAF? Check the dates above, which I've bolded for you....



The other thing I want point out is how some of you claim thousands of people can eyewitness attest to this 767.
Click to expand...


Barring video fakery, it's pretty clear to me that the airplane is a 767-200 in a United paint scheme. But what do I know, it's not like I'm a plane-spotting, aviation geek aircraft mechanic....or anything like that.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Someone already did contact Boeing that's what the OP is. Did you read it? Now when he tried to get more information out of them they hung up on him. Why would I or anyone else have better luck?
Click to expand...
Ok. As Bell said, you could try, but let's go on.

Here is what you can do next.
Contact university specialists in the relevant fields in a number of European countries and ask them your questions about the speed of a Boeing 767.
Surely you don't believe they are ALL "in on it", right?

You can address them in English, they'll understand.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Got any facts on flight 175 funk?
Click to expand...

You could not answer it without destroying your little fantasy could you?

Your on the slippery slope here sunshine

Zen said:
Oh how nice. Is Macky your hero? That's so cute. Just don't ask your hero for any facts on 175 he doesn't have any either. If I were you I’d get a new hero.
Click to expand...

I dont even know him but I am nice enough to spell his name right if i use it. My hero is Davie Cooper but I guess you dont know him?

Zen said:
If you want to talk about how you put fly your model airplanes in the yard and get them stuck on your mothers roof start another thread. It's not hard to assume to know more then the likes of you.
Click to expand...

Insults again when you are pulled up by someone with actual qualifications and experience working on jet aircraft? Why do you think you know better than the pilots or engineers on here?


I don't know it wasn't identified.
Click to expand...

You do not know that? Have you seen all the evidence? Why should you get to?
 
funk de fino said:
Did you look at the date on that report? Please retract this stupid attempt at a claim
Click to expand...

I didn't claim it was before 9/11. You asked who uses 767's. Can you follow?

funk de fino said:
You posted a claim that has been proven to be false and a retraction was given to this claim. None of these planes landed anywhere, if they had they would have been spotted, you have seen plane spotters before and their websites? They would not have missed it and they would have evidence of the landings. You want evidence that a 767 hit the tower? Well you make a claim that the planes landed elsewhere but you have no evidence of this. Smacks of double standards pal. No need for the petty insults.
Click to expand...

None of this is proof of anything nor identification of flight 175. Why do you bother?

funk de fino said:
Not Boeing, someone at Boeing, you can see this is a difference cant you?
Click to expand...

LOL

funk de fino said:
where did i claim this? but in any case the same way that a camera did, our eyes are really wonderous things you know
Click to expand...

Still nothing. Congratulations on your goose egg batting average.


funk de fino said:
Nice dodge, you must have an answer, why do this rather than just crash the hijacked flights?
Click to expand...

Dodge? Who's dodging? How was flight 175 identified? Come on answer it.
 
Firestone said:
Ok. As Bell said, you could try, but let's go on.

Here is what you can do next.
Contact university specialists in a number of European countries and ask them your questions about the speed of a Boeing 767.
Surely you don't believe they are ALL "in on it", right?

You can address them in English, they'll understand.
Click to expand...


He doesn't even have to do that. All he has to do is register at pprune and start asking the 767 drivers......many(most?) of whom are European and Asian.
 
Firestone said:
Ok. As Bell said, you could try, but let's go on.

Here is what you can do next.
Contact university specialists in the relevant fields in a number of European countries and ask them your questions about the speed of a Boeing 767.
Surely you don't believe they are ALL "in on it", right?

You can address them in English, they'll understand.
Click to expand...

Well I could do that but someone will have to prove it was a 767 in the first place and flight 175 or what's the point?
 
What of the fact that the aerodynamic forces on a 767 at cruise are higher than those at 220 mph at sea level, which your "expert" claimed would cause the plane to "start to shake apart"?
 
apathoid said:
Speaking of which....are you aware that Boeing has still not yet built a single KC-767 for the USAF? Check the dates above, which I've bolded for you....






Barring video fakery, it's pretty clear to me that the airplane is a 767-200 in a United paint scheme. But what do I know, it's not like I'm a plane-spotting, aviation geek aircraft mechanic....or anything like that.
Click to expand...
What it means is airlines are not the only ones who have a use for 767's which was the question I was answering.

Now how do we know for sure it was a 767 and flight 175?

Anyone?
 
Terry said:
What of the fact that the aerodynamic forces on a 767 at cruise are higher than those at 220 mph at sea level, which your "expert" claimed would cause the plane to "start to shake apart"?
Click to expand...
Why don't you ask the expert who is not my expert but Boeings. Just don't be surprised if they hang up on you.
 
Zen I'm not an expert on burden of proof and all that, but don't you kinda have to prove it wasn't flight 175 in this situation?
 
ZenSmack, where on earth are you going with this thread? By that I mean:

- If you think what was identified as Flight 175 was not a 767, what do you believe it was?
- What do you think hit the OTHER tower?
- Why is the scenario you espouse more plausible than the prevailing theory that 767's was piloted into the towers?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
What it means is airlines are not the only ones who have a use for 767's which was the question I was answering.

Now how do we know for sure it was a 767 and flight 175?

Anyone?
Click to expand...

You keep trying to change the subject.

We only need something other than a 767 if 767's are incapable of that level of performance.

I say they fit the bill just fine.

You say they don't. Only you.

SO, for the third time, am I (a) correct, (b) stupid, or (c) in on the plot?

You have all the information you need to answer this question.
 
R.Mackey said:
You keep trying to change the subject.

We only need something other than a 767 if 767's are incapable of that level of performance.

I say they fit the bill just fine.

You say they don't. Only you.

SO, for the third time, am I (a) correct, (b) stupid, or (c) in on the plot?

You have all the information you need to answer this question.
Click to expand...
The links I provided in post #8 I believe claim that they can be modified so yes you would have to prove it was flight 175.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
What it means is airlines are not the only ones who have a use for 767's which was the question I was answering.
Click to expand...



I'm well aware of that, but I think it needs to be pointed out to you - still - that the US government doesn't own a single 767 airframe....


Now how do we know for sure it was a 767 and flight 175?

Anyone?
Click to expand...


I know for sure what it was....as would most people aviation people. Go over to pprune or airliners.net and you'll quickly learn that there is no question about what type of aircraft it was.

How do we know it was Flight 175? Process of elimination, radar, DNA, the fact that 175 didn't land anywhere, etc.....
 
Last edited:
ZENSMACK89 said:
Well I could do that but someone will have to prove it was a 767 in the first place and flight 175 or what's the point?
Click to expand...
In the OP YOU raised the speed-issue.

You have been given answers on that, as well as ways to check it for yourself.

Once you resolve the speed issue, you should read the evidence that the flight was indeed flight 175, evidence provided by others in this very thread.

But please, one thing at a time: try first to resolve the speed issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom