Flight 175 plane speed challenged

[Belz...]

"Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators, pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. "

Does that make sense to you, Zen ?

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

Evidence, Zen. Something you are lacking.

Evidence is what we use. I don't believe people just because they say something, but I don't automatically doubt everything they say just because I didn't live through it myself.

 

[apathoid]

Okay Zenny, lets try to think about this another way. There are two facts which are indisputable. One, the aircraft depicted in all the South Tower impact videos is a 767. Agree? Two, it's moving reaaalllly fast. Agree? Logically, since you seem to buy the notion that 767's can't go 500 mph at 700' - you must also believe that the speed of the object in the video supports that assertion. So I ask, whats your estimate of the speed of the WTC2 aircraft? 219 mph?

Faster than this? What's your estimate for the speed of this plane?




(The A310 in the video is estimated to be doing 700 kmh/450 mph and note that it isn't breaking apart)

 

[Dave Rogers]

"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. "

So crashing an airliner into a non-existent tower which then collapses taking the wreckage of the airliner with it is now "ordinary", Zensmack?

I'm still waiting for you to prove this tower existed. So far you've misrepresented my position, quoted anecdotal evidence of which you yourself are the source, and claimed to be Napoleon. This isn't doing much for your credibility. Can you prove that this tower ever existed?

Dave

 

[apathoid]

Does that make sense to you, Zen ?



Evidence, Zen. Something you are lacking.

Evidence is what we use. I don't believe people just because they say something, but I don't automatically doubt everything they say just because I didn't live through it myself.

So steel is virtually indestructable? Heh. Is that like being almost pregnant?

He does have a point though. Being stronger, landing gear and engine parts would be more likely to survive violent crashes. What comprises much of the evidence at all the crash sites? Landing gear and engine parts. Now if we just blow up the pictures to 1,000X we might be able to read a serial number.

 

[DGM]

Originally Posted by ZENSMACK89
"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. "

Your right for once. Can I ask why the "truth" movement claims this happened? You still have not proved this to be true. Why do YOU claim it. Liar.

 

[beachnut]

Oh come on if you are going to cherry pick then pick the good parts and don't forget all the laughing at the mere suggestion of a 767 going 500 mph at 700 ft...


Jeff Hill: So there is no way it could be going 500 miles an hour at 700 feet attitude then?

Leslie Hazzard: (LAUGHS!) Not a chance. Not that fast.


Jeff Hill: Would it be possible for it to go 500 miles an hour at 700 feet attitude?

Lori Bechtold: I don’t think so. (that is before she hung up)

Sorry Zen, she is not an engineer and she does not have any facts. There is a manual with speeds. As you see on 9/11 the planes did go faster than the max speed for the plane. I have told you I flew Boeing Jets; I flew them from 1975 to 1996. When someone went faster than the low altitude speed to catch me one day, his plane lost some skin. Yes if you over speed your aircraft day after day you will bend it, and break it. But on 9/11 we all saw 175 hit the WTC. It is verified by many methods much more factual than the junk you are slinging. You have no facts and you are pushing an idiot phone call as Boeing's official position and now this is a lie. You are posting lies. You now are telling lies by repeating it and standing by your false story. Boeing actually verified 175 hit the WTC it is in a document at the NTSB. Too bad you and the drones of 9/11 truth are too challenged to collect rational facts and use logic when you try to make up stories with no support in reality.

So far you have zero facts to support your ideas, you OP was flawed the crack pot in the video with speeds was off and seems to be an alcoholic, he did not even get close to the correct max speeds or what happens at low altitude when you over speed your aircraft. Why are you using a person who is wrong? The Joseph guy is nuts; he rants using random speeds and things that happen to planes in the Wright Brothers day. How does 9/11 truth dredge up idiots who are stuck in the 1920s or 1930s with outdated flying information.

 

[funk de fino]

OK, serious question. In this matter, what does "serialized" mean with regard to components?

Thanks. Please help me escape from my total ignorance.

Any part on an aircraft will have a part number. If you have lots of these parts (for example - screws of a specific size and length and thread) they will all have the same part number. They will not however have the part number on them anywhere. Some parts will have the part number on a plate rivetted on the part (for example - door panel). Some will have the part number written on with permanent pen to make it easier for stores and techs to recognise and identify parts that they are handling.

If you have a part that requires tracking (for hours flown etc) it will have a Serial number assigned to it as well as the part number. The engines for example will have identical part numbers but unique serial numbers. These again can be on plates rivetted to the engine somewhere. Not all parts have serial numbers on them and in fact it is normally the major lifed parts that do like engines and landing gear but can also be radar LRU boxes etc. The plates are not indestructable neither are the parts. Admittedly larger parts like the engines and landing gear will survive even if very badly damaged and possibly having lost the plate due to damage or fire (this is not definite though but a possibility especially in the Twin Tower attacks due to the extreme nature of the damage and fires followed by crushing on collapse)

There could possibly be serial and part numbers on the landing gear and engine that was thrown out of one of the towers but i would find it very unlikely if there was any others that survived. The part of the fuselage that was found on the roof nearby would almost certainly not have had a serial number on it. It is very rare that numbers are etched onto parts but this would probably mean they would survive the damage better. If it was painted on then very unlikely they would survive.

Think of part numbers as your family name ie. Cheney. There can be many in the same house.

The serial number would be the given name ie, Dick

The given name differentiates him from others in is family

 

[SDC]

Any part on an aircraft will have a part number. If you have lots of these parts (for example - screws of a specific size and length and thread) they will all have the same part number. They will not however have the part number on them anywhere. Some parts will have the part number on a plate rivetted on the part (for example - door panel). Some will have the part number written on with permanent pen to make it easier for stores and techs to recognise and identify parts that they are handling.

If you have a part that requires tracking (for hours flown etc) it will have a Serial number assigned to it as well as the part number. The engines for example will have identical part numbers but unique serial numbers. These again can be on plates rivetted to the engine somewhere. Not all parts have serial numbers on them and in fact it is normally the major lifed parts that do like engines and landing gear but can also be radar LRU boxes etc. The plates are not indestructable neither are the parts. Admittedly larger parts like the engines and landing gear will survive even if very badly damaged and possibly having lost the plate due to damage or fire (this is not definite though but a possibility especially in the Twin Tower attacks due to the extreme nature of the damage and fires followed by crushing on collapse)

There could possibly be serial and part numbers on the landing gear and engine that was thrown out of one of the towers but i would find it very unlikely if there was any others that survived. The part of the fuselage that was found on the roof nearby would almost certainly not have had a serial number on it. It is very rare that numbers are etched onto parts but this would probably mean they would survive the damage better. If it was painted on then very unlikely they would survive.

Think of part numbers as your family name ie. Cheney. There can be many in the same house.

The serial number would be the given name ie, Dick

The given name differentiates him from others in is family

Thanks! Any day in which I've learned something new is a day not wasted.

 

[Belz...]

Which means truthers waste their entire lives.

 

[CurtC]

How about the engines?

http://cbs2chicago.com/seenon/local_story_012111942.html

Small Piece Of Airplane Crashes Through Roof

Pamela Jones reports the FAA issued a statement saying the piece is a turbine wheel from the engine of a multi-engine aircraft. They say it's registered to a firm called American Check Transport - outfitted for cargo.

The plane had left Milwaukee at 12:45 a.m., approaching midway to land at 1:30 Friday morning.
It landed safely, with no report of distress from the pilot.

The piece fell off when an engine failed.

CBS 2 checked the aircraft record. The plane is registered out of Colorado. The company also operated under the name Flight Line Incorporated.

Why did you bother to post this? Does it have anything to do with the discussion? It makes no mention of serial numbers on parts. It says that the part fell off a particular plane, but makes no mention of how they figured that out. Probably because the plane came in with a missing part and it was reported to the FAA. What's your point?

 

[apathoid]

Why did you bother to post this? Does it have anything to do with the discussion? It makes no mention of serial numbers on parts. It says that the part fell off a particular plane, but makes no mention of how they figured that out. Probably because the plane came in with a missing part and it was reported to the FAA. What's your point?

I missed that post, too bad really, I coulda had fun with it. This may come as a shock to Zen, but turbine disks, rotors, fan blades, etc have no part numbers or serial numbers on them. They are serialized by assembly(ie N1 section). It shouldn't be too hard to figure out why. All the junk attached to the engines like valves, generators, gearbox, sensors, cowls, oil tanks, etc. usually have their own serial numbers.

 

[funk de fino]

Why did you bother to post this? Does it have anything to do with the discussion? It makes no mention of serial numbers on parts. It says that the part fell off a particular plane, but makes no mention of how they figured that out. Probably because the plane came in with a missing part and it was reported to the FAA. What's your point?

I tried to point him back to this to see if he could figure out why this was a stupid post

I guess he could not

oh well, its even more evidence that he is ignorant of what he posts

 

[Spins]

Ask him if a 767 will break up at 220 mph at sea level first!

I'll hazard a guess and say he'll reply no.

In fact here is a 767 flyby at the Middle Wallop Airshow 2000 (in the UK), the pilot is obviously crazy because the according to Zen and his loony sources the planes wings are about to get ripped off (or something), it must be a modified military version. Either that or the pilot was only doing 219 mph and enjoys dicing with death and living on the edge.

Is it merely a coincidence this 767 flyby footage was shot before 9/11?

 

[apathoid]

I'll hazard a guess and say he'll reply no.

In fact here is a 767 flyby at the Middle Wallop Airshow 2000 (in the UK), the pilot is obviously crazy because the according to Zen and his loony sources the planes wings are about to get ripped off (or something), it must be a modified military version. Either that or the pilot was only doing 219 mph and enjoys dicing with death and living on the edge.

That 219 mph must be with one hell of a tailwind! Perhaps we finally have proof of one of Malcolm Kirkmans ex-military bad boys. Too bad he's no longer here to see it..

Is it merely a coincidence this 767 flyby footage was shot before 9/11?

Not only that, it's a United 767. How ominous...

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Why did you bother to post this? Does it have anything to do with the discussion? It makes no mention of serial numbers on parts. It says that the part fell off a particular plane, but makes no mention of how they figured that out. Probably because the plane came in with a missing part and it was reported to the FAA. What's your point?

http://cbs2chicago.com/seenon/local_...012111942.html

Small Piece Of Airplane Crashes Through Roof

Pamela Jones reports the FAA issued a statement saying the piece is a turbine wheel from the engine of a multi-engine aircraft. They say it's registered to a firm called American Check Transport - outfitted for cargo.

http://www.cio.com/article/26826/RFID_Tags_Take_Flight_at_Boeing_Airbus

Porad said before Boeing started using RFID tags, ground crew members had to inspect parts and check serial numbers visually. To find out when a certain part was last inspected, personnel had to look up written records.

In the pre-RFID days, he said, Boeing used to stamp numbers onto steel plates that were affixed to parts. This proved to be expensive in the long run because new plates had to be produced when part numbers changed.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3720/is_199707/ai_n8767747

The tail number tells us a few things about the plane. If it begins with an N, it is registered in the United States. Then we can check its background in federal databases. If it begins with a C, it is Canadian; G is for the United Kingdom, and so on. But after that, the numbers and letters hold less meaning. They may be unique to that plane at that time, but another plane several years earlier may have had that same number. It's analogous to car license plates. The trick is to parlay a tail number into an aircraft serial number. This can be done by checking an airplane registration database. The serial number is like a plane's social security number. Among other things, the serial number can be checked against maintenance records.

 

[funk de fino]

http://cbs2chicago.com/seenon/local_...012111942.html

Small Piece Of Airplane Crashes Through Roof

Pamela Jones reports the FAA issued a statement saying the piece is a turbine wheel from the engine of a multi-engine aircraft. They say it's registered to a firm called American Check Transport - outfitted for cargo.

http://www.cio.com/article/26826/RFID_Tags_Take_Flight_at_Boeing_Airbus

Porad said before Boeing started using RFID tags, ground crew members had to inspect parts and check serial numbers visually. To find out when a certain part was last inspected, personnel had to look up written records.

In the pre-RFID days, he said, Boeing used to stamp numbers onto steel plates that were affixed to parts. This proved to be expensive in the long run because new plates had to be produced when part numbers changed.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3720/is_199707/ai_n8767747

The tail number tells us a few things about the plane. If it begins with an N, it is registered in the United States. Then we can check its background in federal databases. If it begins with a C, it is Canadian; G is for the United Kingdom, and so on. But after that, the numbers and letters hold less meaning. They may be unique to that plane at that time, but another plane several years earlier may have had that same number. It's analogous to car license plates. The trick is to parlay a tail number into an aircraft serial number. This can be done by checking an airplane registration database. The serial number is like a plane's social security number. Among other things, the serial number can be checked against maintenance records.

Chrrist almighty, you just repeat your stupidity and the add more to it

Unbelievable

Will you post more stupidity if someone points out this lot to you as you cant seem to figure yourself

 

[CurtC]

Pamela Jones reports the FAA issued a statement saying the piece is a turbine wheel from the engine of a multi-engine aircraft. They say it's registered to a firm called American Check Transport - outfitted for cargo.

Wow, your reading comprehension is really poor. They said that the piece is from a plane registered to American Check Transport. They say nothing about the part having a serial number nor how it was identified, though undoubtedly it's pretty obvious when a plane comes in with an engine part missing.

Porad said before Boeing started using RFID tags, ground crew members had to inspect parts and check serial numbers visually.

So? No one doubts that some parts on airplanes have serial numbers.

The serial number is like a plane's social security number. Among other things, the serial number can be checked against maintenance records.

Yes, planes have serial numbers. Again, so what? Is this all a result of poor reading comprehension? Do you think this is related to the 175 discussion somehow?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Chrrist almighty, you just repeat your stupidity and the add more to it

Unbelievable

Will you post more stupidity if someone points out this lot to you as you cant seem to figure yourself

I'm sorry I'm so stupid. BTW I've heard of Christ but who is Chrrist?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm sorry I'm so stupid. BTW I've heard of Christ but who is Chrrist?

Kee-ryest's first cousin; both of whom are related to Jesus H.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Wow, your reading comprehension is really poor. They said that the piece is from a plane registered to American Check Transport. They say nothing about the part having a serial number nor how it was identified, though undoubtedly it's pretty obvious when a plane comes in with an engine part missing.

Yeah they must have just guessed. I mean it's not like there are many planes they would have to check for missing parts or anything.

So? No one doubts that some parts on airplanes have serial numbers.

LOL... So where are they for 175?

Yes, planes have serial numbers. Again, so what? Is this all a result of poor reading comprehension? Do you think this is related to the 175 discussion somehow?

So? So what? I know you are but what am I? LOL

Classic