Flight 175 plane speed challenged

[Mercutio]

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

Very nice! You pretend to answer, while ignoring the substantive parts of my post--too bad the people posting here actually have functioning brains, though. Any comment on what the Boeing people actually said? You keep pretending that they are confirming your assertion, when their actual words do nothing of the sort. Not even close.

So, when are you going to present your first piece of evidence that is incompatible with the scenario believed by rational thinkers? So far, even if we grant every single assertion you have made on this thread as true, none of it--none--is incompatible with the official story. You have your work cut out for you.

 

[CurtC]

By the way, I have a buddy who's a 757 pilot for Northwest Airlines. I've emailed him asking about the top speed of a 757 at basically sea level, whether that speed is limited by engine power (and thus could be increased after leveling off from a dive), and whether this info would be similar for a 767. I'll post as soon as I get an answer.

 

[Minadin]

Right now, I'm wondering if the guy got the permission of these folks to record the phone calls.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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 or that a 767 can go the speeds and perform the maneuvers claimed in the official version without falling out of the sky never mind doing all this while being controlled by an amateur pilot who's identity can't even be confirmed.

If you want to dispute any of the evidence about 800 that it is real then go ahead. Real or not it's still more then anyone has on 175 and that’s saying a lot considering that some people still dispute the findings of the 800 investigation.

So then you admit you have no proof of flight 800. Thank you. And BTW, there is 10 times more proof of flight 175 than flight 800. Your lack of ability to show any evidence of flight 800 proves that even further.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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

No you weren't. You have no proof you were in the tower.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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

Yes, and let's revisit her response which was along the lines of "I don't know, I'd have to try to put you in touch with someone who might know".


Which is Woo speak means "Yes there absolutely is a conspiracy, continue on with the fantasy!"

And back to the proverbial clown car of research.

 

[apathoid]

By the way, I have a buddy who's a 757 pilot for Northwest Airlines. I've emailed him asking about the top speed of a 757 at basically sea level, whether that speed is limited by engine power (and thus could be increased after leveling off from a dive), and whether this info would be similar for a 767. I'll post as soon as I get an answer.

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

Seriously, though. I'll find a 767 Flight Ops Manual when I go to work tonight and make a note of the max speeds at various altitudes. I expect that they'll be significantly less than the speeds AA11 and UA175 were actually going. But as RMackey said - that Boeing builds good airplanes is hardly a conspiracy..

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Why should we?

No you shouldn't and I'm not asking any of you to just don't expect me to do the same.

 

[lapman]

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.

The issue is that all parts are not serialized. The company I work for makes hundreds of parts that go on those airplanes. Though we have serialized components, the assemblies are rarely serialized for our commercial customers. So finding one in 300,000 tons of debris probably won't happen very easily especially when mixed with all the other serialized equipment in the buildings.

 

[uruk]

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:

{snip} "

I think it's odd that Col. George Nelson only shows up in reference to 9/11 conspiracy sites.

Any proof that this person actually exists?

Anybody here a vet who can look up a military registry?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

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?

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)

 

[ZENSMACK89]

The issue is that all parts are not serialized. The company I work for makes hundreds of parts that go on those airplanes. Though we have serialized components, the assemblies are rarely serialized for our commercial customers. So finding one in 300,000 tons of debris probably won't happen very easily especially when mixed with all the other serialized equipment in the buildings.

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.

 

[SDC]

The issue is that all parts are not serialized. The company I work for makes hundreds of parts that go on those airplanes. Though we have serialized components, the assemblies are rarely serialized for our commercial customers. So finding one in 300,000 tons of debris probably won't happen very easily especially when mixed with all the other serialized equipment in the buildings.

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

Thanks. Please help me escape from my total ignorance.

 

[funk de fino]

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?

I do not care what your name is or what you do. I do know that you know nothing about aircraft and are unable to recognise when someone, you think does know about aircraft, gets it totally wrong, you fail to see this due to ignorance. You are an expert on exactly nothing.

We on the other hand are experts on aircraft and flying them, we can see the ***** that you post in your quotes and try to educate you in this. You fail to see this so you must think we are lying about things. Why would we lie about it? If one of your poster boys posts something that is correct and challenges the real story then we would have to admit it because it would be factual, all you post is falsehoods and mistakes. If you knew anything you would see this yourself. Parroting these falsehoods and mistakes only makes you look more stupid.

Your second name is not Dynamite is it? That would explain a lot?

 

[apathoid]

Don't get me started on the whole serial number BS canard. It's just another case of these morons trying to sound clever, while being bafflingly wrong.

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.

The issue is that all parts are not serialized. The company I work for makes hundreds of parts that go on those airplanes. Though we have serialized components, the assemblies are rarely serialized for our commercial customers. So finding one in 300,000 tons of debris probably won't happen very easily especially when mixed with all the other serialized equipment in the buildings.

I'd venture to say the pretty much the whole statement you quoted is wrong. As a technician, I can replace any damn part I see fit to sign off a write-up; I don't need anyone's permission to change serialized parts. I do it damn near every working day. In that sense, serialized parts are hardly married to a registration number. For example, an aircraft might go through an entire set of tires and brake assemblies in a year. No effort is made to get the re-treaded tires and overhauled brakes back on the original aircraft, the parts simply go into stock and will be used by any aircraft in the same effectivity class as the original. Most serialized installations work like this. Many times during maintenance, I'll find a serialized part has been changed with no logbook entry for the change, or any other documentation. I'll find a serial number that's supposed installed in the L position, actually in the R position(redundant parts like autopilot computers, etc). Finding a part with an incorrect serial number may be good info for the NTSB, and the FAA may issue the airline a fine - but it'd hardly be evidence of a conspiracy....

For most major maintenace tasks, like landing gear and engines changes - the new serial numbers are entered in the logbook and computer. But for more minor things like switches, sensors, connectors, etc....having the new serial number logged doesn't always happen, nor does it have to per FAA regs. I've even scratched out serial numbers because there is no tracking for a particular part.

 

[funk de fino]

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.

Yet again you display your huge ignorance, unbelievable!!

I will let you re-read your post and quote again and tell us why?

Engines will have a plate with the part number and serial number on it, usually made of aluminium and rivetted on somewhere.

Who is feeding you this stuff because they are letting you down pal?

 

[Belz...]

I don't need an alternative to dispute the version you hold as fact. If you say it's fact then show the fact.

Zen, perhaps it would be time for you to take some courses in logic, investigation, forensics, etc.

I don't think you know what evidence is, and I don't think you know what "burden of proof", or "reasonable doubt" means.

Just because the evidence COULD have been faked, doesn't mean it was.

Just because the witnesses COULD be shills, doesn't mean they are.

And just because you have unreasonable doubt about each of those pieces of evidence, would you mind telling me how you interpret their sheer overwhelming number ? How do you explain the presence of this mountain of evidence you have to try so hard to ignore ?

 

[Belz...]

Gumboot touching one by one on all these expert comments with all of their years of experience and knowledge with your blanket bare assertions that they don't know what they are talking about is proof of nothing.

You’re not preaching to the Choir here Gumboot. It’s not going to work.

Did you even READ his responses ? Did you even CHECK to see if they were true or not ?

You've quoted someone saying that intercepts take place 10-15 minutes after notification. That is physically impossible. It takes 15 minutes for them to take off.

Do you even bother to check ANY of the information you come across ?

And pray tell, if you don't, why do you choose to believe one statement and not another ?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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)

Now if you could just get a few quotes from the custodial staff, I think you might be able to seal the deal.

BTW, thank you for pretty much admitting you have no proo of flight 800. It goes well with your evidence consisting of a guy who makes yokes vibrate, a spokesperson with no engineering knowledge, and an engineer who admits to having no idea and admitting one needs to talk to someone else who might have some idea.

 

[Belz...]

I guess you didn't read the question.

How do you know better?

Zen, contrary to what you seem to believe, reality is not a popularity contest or a matter of opinion.

Either a claim is true or it isn't (other than subjective questions, of course). You could spare yourself a lot of time by just verifying Gumboot's statements. It would take just a few minutes for you.

So why don't you ?

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

How do we know that this is true ?