Flight 175 plane speed challenged

[maxpower1227]

Let me guess.... "still no facts, I see" will be the response?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Mr. Smack, this has gone far enough. Think about what you're saying.

You claim that Flight 175 couldn't have hit at the speed NIST claimed due to engineering limits of the plane, and the laws of aerodynamics. That's your claim. Apparently this "truth" is so obvious that even you, with no background whatsoever in the subject, can see this by inspection.

Unlike you, I do have background in the subject. I have a Master's and Engineer's degree in Aeronautics from GALCIT. Furthermore, on the morning of the attacks, I was at the Boeing Commercial Aircraft facility in Everett, Washington, talking with real Boeing engineers. You want names? Sure. Our team lead for the day was Dr. Kirby Keller of Boeing Phantom Works, based in St. Loius. (Aside: I can hardly wait to see what the nutters think of "Phantom Works.")

So here's another fact for you. I'm planting my feet and telling you that the impact speed and trajectory of Flight 175 violates no physical laws, and was well within the performance envelope of the aircraft. Your "obvious" truth is wrong.

Now, it's possible that I've made a mistake. But I've given my unequivocal opinion. That's the fact. To reconcile this fact with your worldview, there are a few possible consequences:

1. You're simply wrong, as usual;

2. I'm a complete fraud, having bought my way somehow through grad school; or

3. I'm an Agent working under the direction of teh Conspiracy.​

I know you desperately want either 2. or 3. to be true, but unfortunately, this just isn't so. How can we tell?

What about all the other Boeing engineers? Let's start with Case 2. If the "truth" is really so obvious as you claim, and I can't see it just because I'm a moron, then any competent engineer should agree with you. Where are they? Boeing aircraft do fly, so clearly they have at least some capable engineers on staff. Why has not every single one of these people stood up and pointed out that this is impossible? What makes you think you're more versed in this subject than they are?

For that matter, why would NIST even put forth such a proposal if they knew it was physically impossible? Don't they know they'd be laughed out of their jobs? Don't they know Boeing would sue them from stem to stern for lying about their aircraft?

Which brings us to Case 3. Maybe I'm taking my orders, right now, over a little earbud speaker. Maybe I know you're right but I have orders to confuse you, because you're such a danger to our plans.

Again, what about all those other Boeing engineers? If I'm lying, and NIST is lying, why are they going along with it? Are they in on it too?

Do you know how many people work for Boeing?

Even if they are all in on it, what about Airbus? What about Canadair, Beechcraft, Pratt&Whitney, Burt Rutan, etc.?

If you're right about the physics of the situation, then it should be trivial to prove it once and for all. And you and your little friends would be the absolute last people to prove this. You bring no expertise to the table. The alternative is that basically the entire industrialized world is conspiring against you, and made up something clumsy and easily falsified anyway out of sheer laziness, when a more reasonable explanation would have sufficed.

This is, to put it mildly, mad.

Your insistence that Flight 175 couldn't have hit that fast is no less insane than Christopher Brown's insistence that the WTC Towers had a concrete core. You have no evidence. At best, someone made a mistake. Mistakes can be corrected, and in this case are easily corrected.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

I will tell you one more time that what I posted was a phone call where Boeing states the planes could not reach the speeds claimed. But you would rather attack me and then when I respond report me to your friend and savior moderator because you have nothing.

Now Mr. Macky how was flight 175 definitively identified? Do you have any facts on that?

 

[A W Smith]

I will tell you one more time that what I posted was a phone call where Boeing states the planes could not reach the speeds claimed. But you would rather attack me and then when I respond report me to your friend and savior moderator because you have nothing.

Now Mr. Macky how was flight 175 definitively identified? Do you have any facts on that?

DNA of the passengers, And theres the passport of one of the hijackers landing in the streets of Manhattan.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

does the person have a name?

Read the OP.

 

[TjW]

That's a funny name.

 

[R.Mackey]

I will tell you one more time that what I posted was a phone call where Boeing states the planes could not reach the speeds claimed. But you would rather attack me and then when I respond report me to your friend and savior moderator because you have nothing.

Now Mr. Macky how was flight 175 definitively identified? Do you have any facts on that?

Boeing did not "State" that, son. An individual said something over the phone, on a cold-call initiated by Jeff Hill of Sault Ste.-Marie, that may have been misinterpreted. If you call me at 3 AM and I mistakenly tell you that the speed of light is 3x10⁶ km/s instead of 3x10⁵, that doesn't mean I have changed time and space. Boeing's official position is not in conflict with the NIST report, nor will any engineer make a verifiable statement that supports your position. You have nothing.

And I don't even have to verify that it was Flight 175. All Boeing 767's have roughly the same performance, and the object on video is a Boeing 767. You're just tapdancing now. Your act is a joke, so please find a new one.

P.S.: I haven't reported you to the moderator. Not once. You are flirting with my Ignore list, however.

 

[DGM]

Zen:
The video clearly shows a 767 right? The speed of the aircraft can be estimated from the video, right? So the person in your video is wrong, right? This is a simple thing to figure out, but you don't care to.

 

[funk de fino]

I will tell you one more time that what I posted was a phone call where Boeing states the planes could not reach the speeds claimed. But you would rather attack me and then when I respond report me to your friend and savior moderator because you have nothing.

Now Mr. Macky how was flight 175 definitively identified? Do you have any facts on that?

Go out in your car (or your moms) and drive it as fast as you can along a straight and level road and see how fast you can get it.

Then find a hill and do the same both up and down the hill

Compare the results

What is it that changes your results?

The car can only travel at a certain speed so what is it that made it go faster down hill?

Mr Mackey has done you up like a kipper here, if i were you i would walk away from the thread

There are many aircraft technicians, engineers and pilots on here including myself, why do you think you know more than us?

What type of plane do you think hit the tower?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

The drills that were not running you mean?

Who owns 767 and who would have supplied one so that someone could crash it into the towers and where is the one that took off and where are the passengers? It was a 767 or do you disagree with this?

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.

The reports of the landed planes were false. Believe me if any of those planes landed anywhere in the world the aircraft spottters would have seen them and recorded it. They really are dedicated, in fact more dedicated than you because you cannot even do the bare minimum of investigation into claims before you spout them here.

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

A retraction is not an investigation so nothing has been proven false. You really need to watch you mouth and what spouts from it because if you don’t have any evidence proving the identity of the object that hit the towers then don’t bother with your nonsense replies.

Is this your thought, that the planes that hit were supplied by someone else and the real planes were made to dissappear with the passengers?

I stated in the OP what my questions were in response to Boeing claiming (not me) that a 767 can’t reach the speeds claimed in the official version. I also want to know before we get into a whole discussion of whether or not amateur pilots could take over and operate a 767 four times in one morning at the speeds and maneuverability claimed if it was ever definitive identified as a thee 767 flight 175 in the first place.

The other thing I want point out is how some of you claim thousands of people can eyewitness attest to this 767. Tell me how did they do that in the last minute dive you all claim and at the speeds you claim?

if so why? this overly complicates the plot do you not think? Much simpler just to crash the hijacked ones?

Maybe it’s more complicated in the fantasy you have in your head so why don’t you start a thread and address that?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

No evidence proving what hit the towers? Did I really just read that?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Boeing did not "State" that, son. An individual said something over the phone, on a cold-call initiated by Jeff Hill of Sault Ste.-Marie, that may have been misinterpreted. If you call me at 3 AM and I mistakenly tell you that the speed of light is 3x10⁶ km/s instead of 3x10⁵, that doesn't mean I have changed time and space. Boeing's official position is not in conflict with the NIST report, nor will any engineer make a verifiable statement that supports your position. You have nothing.

And I don't even have to verify that it was Flight 175. All Boeing 767's have roughly the same performance, and the object on video is a Boeing 767. You're just tapdancing now. Your act is a joke, so please find a new one.

P.S.: I haven't reported you to the moderator. Not once. You are flirting with my Ignore list, however.

They were answering and fielding these calls at 3:00 am and both of them got it that wrong? They sounded pretty positive to me. Now all you're offering up is a lot of hand waving as usual.

Grainy videos of something you claim to be going 590 miles an hour isn’t definitive identification of an aircraft. That's why they put serial numbers on the parts. Got any?

If you are not reporting me or others to the moderators then what you have is a moderator guardian angel with one-way eyes. Ignore list? Whatever will I do? I’m already finding it so hard to live without gravy and all his scary facts. lol

 

[R.Mackey]

Mr. Smack,

767's are capable of those speeds at that altitude. That is my professional opinion.

Am I:

(1) Correct,
(2) Stupid, or
(3) In on the conspiracy?

Choose only one, and explain your answer.

 

[Firestone]

ZENSMACK89, why don't you just contact Boeing by email or letter, and ask them to confirm/deny the information the person gave on the phone?
You know, real investigators like to crosscheck their information.

Please keep us informed of the response you get. Thanks.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Go out in your car (or your moms) and drive it as fast as you can along a straight and level road and see how fast you can get it.

Then find a hill and do the same both up and down the hill

Compare the results

What is it that changes your results?

The car can only travel at a certain speed so what is it that made it go faster down hill?

Got any facts on flight 175 funk?

Mr Mackey has done you up like a kipper here, if i were you i would walk away from the thread

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.

There are many aircraft technicians, engineers and pilots on here including myself, why do you think you know more than us?

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.

What type of plane do you think hit the tower?

I don't know it wasn't identified.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes, clearly the RADAR, and the admission, and the phone calls form the plane are all useless. I imagine that one phone call from the plane that was actually cut off by the plane impacting the building is moot as well. All those witnesses that saw it were also clearly delusional.

And more importantly, if it's not captures in slow-mo HD video, it does not exist. Before the advent of high quality video, nothing ever happened. One of my favorite arguments was that there is no evidence the hijackers boarded the planes because there is no video footage of them stepping on the planes.

This is like arguing with a 2 year old.

 

[apathoid]

Read the OP.

Can you say fraud?

This guy is no aerospace engineer - he is a software engineer. He is also a member of a 9/11 truth group......and a no-planer. So much for "Boeing states the planes could not reach the speeds claimed".

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=no_planer_resigns

A No Planer Resigns from S.P.I.N.E.
Morgan Reynolds — August 1, 2006
Printer friendly copy of this article available here.

Joseph Keith is a retired 76-year-old software engineer who worked in the aerospace industry and just resigned from a professional group known as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE) founded by Canadian scientist, A.K. (“Kee”) Dewdney.....

 

[funk de fino]

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.

Did you look at the date on that report? Please retract this stupid attempt at a claim

A retraction is not an investigation so nothing has been proven false. You really need to watch you mouth and what spouts from it because if you don’t have any evidence proving the identity of the object that hit the towers then don’t bother with your nonsense replies.

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.

I stated in the OP what my questions were in response to Boeing claiming (not me) that a 767 can’t reach the speeds claimed in the official version. I also want to know before we get into a whole discussion of whether or not amateur pilots could take over and operate a 767 four times in one morning at the speeds and maneuverability claimed if it was ever definitive identified as a thee 767 flight 175 in the first place.

Not Boeing, someone at Boeing, you can see this is a difference cant you?

The other thing I want point out is how some of you claim thousands of people can eyewitness attest to this 767. Tell me how did they do that in the last minute dive you all claim and at the speeds you claim?

where did i claim this? but in any case the same way that a camera did, our eyes are really wonderous things you know

Maybe it’s more complicated in the fantasy you have in your head so why don’t you start a thread and address that?

Nice dodge, you must have an answer, why do this rather than just crash the hijacked flights?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

ZENSMACK89, why don't you just contact Boeing by email or letter, and ask them to confirm/deny the information the person gave on the phone?
You know, real investigators like to crosscheck their information.

Please keep us informed of the response you get. Thanks.

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?

 

[Bell]

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?

At least you can try, can you?

 

[A W Smith]

They were answering and fielding these calls at 3:00 am and both of them got it that wrong? They sounded pretty positive to me. Now all you're offering up is a lot of hand waving as usual.

Grainy videos of something you claim to be going 590 miles an hour isn’t definitive identification of an aircraft. That's why they put serial numbers on the parts. Got any?

If you are not reporting me or others to the moderators then what you have is a moderator guardian angel with one-way eyes. Ignore list? Whatever will I do? I’m already finding it so hard to live without gravy and all his scary facts. lol

Jeff Hill never mentioned it was a dive to 700 feet in that audio. His question was dishonest. The passenger lists and the relatives of the flight victims confirm their presence on flight 175. the fact that DNA was recovered at the crash site confirms a 767 flight number 175 flew into the building. The idiocy of troofers attempting to find the smallest contradiction by spokespersons in a weak attempt to build plausibility into their fantasies amazes me. Thankfully the general populace is not that stupid.