Flight 175 plane speed challenged

[Dave Rogers]

I don't have to prove anything to you. I was in the tower plenty of times.

Prove it.

Dave

 

[apathoid]

I don't have anything other than my own opinion on this, but I don't think a relatively light 767-200 would have a problem reaching 550 mph in level flight at low altitude. 757s and 767-200s(which we sometimes lovingly refer to as stubbies) have a reputation as hotrods. And despite it's appearance, the 767 is also fairly slippery, as the pilots of the Gimli Glider found out when they had to sideslip the airplane to get it to slow down while they were gliding it in.

And it's not like the throttles are to the firewall during normal cruise at 550 mph, the engines typically have to be throttled back to about 85% N1(max is about 117%).

 

[Mercutio]

Actually the phone calls were to Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard and Boeing engineer Lori Bechtold. Did you follow the links?

Gee, did you miss my post a few pages back? The serious part is the middle paragraph--did you listen to the link yourself?

[mode=zen]
There is no proof that those calls were made to Boeing. It would not be difficult for someone to have switched those calls to Crank Yankers, while the caller was waiting to be connected--even if we know that the correct Boeing number was dialed, which we have no proof of. It would be simple for a youtuber to fake the video. It would be child's play for Homeland Security to hijack the site such that the link you posted is switched to a different one, one that does not support your contention.

For instance, on my version of the link, the first person called says "I think it will take quite a while to find the specific person--it's a big company." This is clearly not an authoritative answer by a person in the know, but rather an admission of ignorance, backed up by another statement: "I don't know how to explain it in technical terms." Again, it is clear that this person is not making an official statement on behalf of Boeing, but is admitting that she does not have the capability of answering the question. The second person's first response is "I don't know", followed by advice for the caller to seek publicly available sources, since his question is phrased so generally.

Clearly, neither of those people are making a claim on behalf of Boeing that it is impossible for a 767 to fly at that speed at that altitude. Clearly, then, the video you think you linked has been replaced by members of the NWO with a more benign video. I don't need to have proof of this--I am simply pointing out that there is no proof at all that the video in the OP was a call to Boeing, or that the call wasn't intercepted, the youtube video switched, or even *horrors* that the OP wasn't invisibly modded by Darat, who has switched the original sensible prose with the insane rantings of a lunatic.
[/mode]

 

[apathoid]

Actually the phone calls were to Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard and Boeing engineer Lori Bechtold. Did you follow the links?

Does anyone here have any ideas on how amateur pilots were able to maintain control of the planes at the speeds claimed let alone not have the planes fall apart in mid-flight?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY

Added: September 21, 2007
From: pumpitout
Here is a clip confirming what Joseph Keith had already established, that flight 175 could not have possibly traveled anywhere near 500 MPH at 700ft altitude. Verified by Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard and Boeing engineer Lori Bechtold.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC_total__rept.pdf

Yeah, I followed the first link and got Joseph Keith talking about things he has no earthly business discussing. Didn't get to the part with Lori Bechtold, maybe I'll do that now.....thanks.

 

[jsiv]

There is a datalink system, yes. It's called ACARS. It's mostly for weather reports, gate assignments, engine trend monitering, as well as other maintenance functions via another system called ACMS. There is some capability now which can actually download FDR data through ACARS but I don't know that that was possible in 2001, or if AA or UA have that option installed...

I see. I understand that the FDR logs too much data for it to be feasible to transmit in real time, but I guess what I'm really curious about is whether the airlines have any (near) real-time system for logging the position of all the aircraft in their fleet while they're en route, be it via ACARS or whatever else. Something that is automatically logged continously for all flights, rather than "on-demand" when there is a need (which I assume ACARS messages normally are.)

I don't remember seeing any mention of it in the reports, they seemed to be based only on voice, radar and the FDRs (for the flights they were recovered,) so I guess not?

 

[CurtC]

And I still claim it but I wasn't the one who brought it up. The only reason anyone wants to talk about 800 or DNA of passengers is because they have nothing to prove the identification of what hit the tower...

I was the one who brought it up.

I'm sorry the point of that whooshed over your head, but the point was that we have the same kind of proof that the 747 in your picture (Zen posted the pic of it) was TWA800, as we have that the plane that hit the South Tower was UAL175. You are asking for data that matches parts to maintenance logs for 175, but the data for 800 is just the same. Would you be able to prove to us that the plane in the picture is 800? Yes, but it wouldn't be through serial numbers, it would be through the fact that everyone knew an airplane was there, that remains of people who got on the plane were recovered, there was a 747 missing and one found, it was being tracked by radar, etc. etc.

I don't have to prove anything to you. I was in the tower plenty of times.

My head asplode!

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Still waiting for Zen Smack to retract his lie about 175 wreckage not matching maintenance records.

Stop posting more lies until you deal with your first ones.

No that's your job.

Colonel George Nelson, a retired United States Air Force Officer wrote an article concerning this subject matter entitled: “911 and the Precautionary Principle: Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity.” He wrote in part:

“The precautionary principle is based on the fact that it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the hijackings were a part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.


In July 1965 I had just been commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously. It was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year career in the field of aircraft maintenance.


As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California. In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, Head Quarters Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.


In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model and specific registration number of the aircraft – and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for the safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.


Following a certain number of flying hours, or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within the specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators, pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible. "

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Gee, did you miss my post a few pages back? The serious part is the middle paragraph--did you listen to the link yourself?

You mean they faked the part where Boeing hung up on them? LOL

 

[jsiv]

I don't get it. Weren't the airlines (and Boeing) in on it anyway? Does it matter if they tell you the serial numbers match or not?

 

[apathoid]

Actually the phone calls were to Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard and Boeing engineer Lori Bechtold. Did you follow the links?

Okay I got to the part with Lori.

Kook: "How fast can a Boeing 767 go at 700 feet?"
Lori: "I have no idea.....probably pretty slow"
Kook: "Can it go 500 mph at 700 feet?"
Lori: "I don't think so"..."I need to reference you to ....sources...."
"I'd love to help you, but your questions seems to be.....really...general"

She really didn't seem all that sure, Zen. And Ms Hazzard isn't an engineer and probably wouldn't know too much about aircraft performance...

If I really, really wanted to know how fast a 767 can go at 700 feet - I'd be calling a 767 test pilot, or any 767 pilot for that matter. Who knows, maybe the caller did and didn't get what he wanted to hear.

 

[DavidJames]

Okay I got to the part with Lori.

Kook: "How fast can a Boeing 767 go at 700 feet?"
Lori: "I have no idea.....probably pretty slow"
Kook: "Can it go 500 mph at 700 feet?"
Lori: "I don't think so"..."I need to reference you to ....sources...."
"I'd love to help you, but your questions seems to be.....really...general"

Gee, CT boy cherry picks and is disingenuous all at the same time, I’m shocked.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

I was the one who brought it up.

I'm sorry the point of that whooshed over your head, but the point was that we have the same kind of proof that the 747 in your picture (Zen posted the pic of it) was TWA800, as we have that the plane that hit the South Tower was UAL175. You are asking for data that matches parts to maintenance logs for 175, but the data for 800 is just the same. Would you be able to prove to us that the plane in the picture is 800? Yes, but it wouldn't be through serial numbers, it would be through the fact that everyone knew an airplane was there, that remains of people who got on the plane were recovered, there was a 747 missing and one found, it was being tracked by radar, etc. etc.

At what point did they turn the transponder off on 800 or change the code? How many hijackings were reported the day 800 crashed? Can you produce the same kind of picture or investigative reports available on 800 for 175?

My head asplode!

I never said 175 didn’t exist.

 

[Matthew Best]

Can you prove that it did exist?

 

[apathoid]

I see. I understand that the FDR logs too much data for it to be feasible to transmit in real time, but I guess what I'm really curious about is whether the airlines have any (near) real-time system for logging the position of all the aircraft in their fleet while they're en route, be it via ACARS or whatever else. Something that is automatically logged continously for all flights, rather than "on-demand" when there is a need (which I assume ACARS messages normally are.)

I don't remember seeing any mention of it in the reports, they seemed to be based only on voice, radar and the FDRs (for the flights they were recovered,) so I guess not?

I don't know if they actually do moniter position, but the capability is there. Basically, any ARINC data that gets sent to the Flight Data Acquisistion Unit can also go the ACARS Data Management Unit. Parameters can get downlinked manually by the pilots, automatically by software(ie - if an engine records an abnormal oil pressure, a report will automatically get downlinked to Maintenance Control), or by ground request.

I thought I read something about AA77 sending an ACARS report just before impact....I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

[funk de fino]

No that's your job.

Colonel George Nelson, a retired United States Air Force Officer wrote an article concerning this subject matter entitled: “911 and the Precautionary Principle: Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity.” He wrote in part:

Following a certain number of flying hours, or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within the specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators, pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible. "

This guy is an idiot and he is passing off incorrect info

It is not impossible to destroy the serial numbers on these parts. Most of the time they are on plates held on by rivets, easily knocked off or destroyed by fire or other forms of damage. The parts may indestructible but as we see from engine remains, parts attached to the engines like aluminium serial number plates held on by rivets could very easily fall off or be destroyed

He also does not know if hard evidence regarding these parts was found yet assumnes it was not just cause he has not seen it

I have never seen serial numbered parts from AC crashes I was involved in but it does not mean they did not exist or were not identified I just did not have to see them. Everything else pointed to the AC being the one that they said it was and I had less evidence than we had about 175

Zen takes the word of a retired 911 kook over real experts on here cause it fits his fantasy but fails to explain why any of us would lie about it?

he is a juvenile playing a juvenile games about a situation in which many people lost their lives

it is sick IMO

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Gee, CT boy cherry picks and is disingenuous all at the same time, I’m shocked.

Is that all they say in those calls? Who is cherry picking?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

This guy is an idiot and he is passing off incorrect info

It is not impossible to destroy the serial numbers on these parts. Most of the time they are on plates held on by rivets, easily knocked off or destroyed by fire or other forms of damage. The parts may indestructible but as we see from engine remains, parts attached to the engines like aluminium serial number plates held on by rivets could very easily fall off or be destroyed

He also does not know if hard evidence regarding these parts was found yet assumnes it was not just cause he has not seen it

I have never seen serial numbered parts from AC crashes I was involved in but it does not mean they did not exist or were not identified I just did not have to see them. Everything else pointed to the AC being the one that they said it was and I had less evidence than we had about 175

Zen takes the word of a retired 911 kook over real experts on here cause it fits his fantasy but fails to explain why any of us would lie about it?

he is a juvenile playing a juvenile games about a situation in which many people lost their lives

it is sick IMO

I don't know who any of you are nor do I care. If you want people to take your word on things and nothing else then what good is a name like funk de fino?

I'm not really ZenSmack I'm Napoleon and I own a Mansion and a Yacht. Will you please believe anything I assert now?

 

[Spins]

I don't know who any of you are nor do I care. If you want people to take your word on things and nothing else then what good is a name like funk de fino?

I'm not really ZenSmack I'm Napoleon and I own a Mansion and a Yacht. Will you please believe anything I assert now?

The reason we are not taking your claims seriously on this thread is because you are just wrong, and badly so.

 

[8den]

I don't know who any of you are nor do I care. If you want people to take your word on things and nothing else then what good is a name like funk de fino?

I'm not really ZenSmack I'm Napoleon and I own a Mansion and a Yacht. Will you please believe anything I assert now?

Why should we?

 

[apathoid]

Is that all they say in those calls? Who is cherry picking?

Sorry I couldn't provide the entire transcript, pleasantries were exchanged but didn't think they were relevant. I'll sum up the clip here:

Joseph Keith: 76 y/o retired software engineer and no-planer, laughably wrong stating the 767 would break up at 220 mph @ 700 ft. I cannot stress how absurb that claim is.

Leslie Hazzard: No engineering credentials; answered how any normal person would've in her place.

Lori Bechtold: Boeing engineer; first answer was "I have no idea" on how fast a 767 can go at 700'....wasn't sure if a 767 could do 500 mph @ 700 feet.

You sure you linked the right clip, Zenny?