• 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.

Help with Boeing 767-222

GlennB

Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
GlennB
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
33,182
Location
Wales
Arghhhhh

I'm debating elsewhere and could really do with a photo/diagram of the undersides of a Boeing 767-22 (WTC2) that I'm sure I saw over here. Can't find it now. I've viewed about a jillion poxy plane photos at airliners.net, but they're mostly unclear as to the undersides of the plane :rolleyes:

My stock of various resources is growing daily, but this could help shoot down a "drone plane" moron in an unmentionable forum. Actually it won't shoot him down at all because he's flying on angel wings. But what the hoo.
 
cant be a drone plane. there is no technology for it (if they are referring to planes piloted by radio control)

what would hte undersides prove?
 
Arus808 said:
cant be a drone plane. there is no technology for it (if they are referring to planes piloted by radio control)
Click to expand...

??? Not sure what you mean, but UAV = Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Think Hunter, Predator, Global Hawk. Heck, even Loose Change shows a large airliner that was flown and then crashed all via remote control. I mean, they even got it to take off 13 times and land 16!
 
Last edited:
Arus808 said:
cant be a drone plane. there is no technology for it (if they are referring to planes piloted by radio control)

what would hte undersides prove?
Click to expand...

It would help demonstrate the WTC2 plane was actually a 767-222 and not the proposed drone ;)
 
Arkan, Blackadder - thanks for the replies but these are pretty much the photos I've seen ad infinitum. They (and many others) show the "double-bulge-thingy" running along the undersides but pretty much only the length of the roots of the wings.
Whereas, film shows :

4pods.jpg


Now I'm sure I've seen a technical diagram/photo or somesuch of the undersides of a 767-222 here or elsewhere that looks just like the film.
Sod the "pod", that's an artefact, it's the "sticking-out-bit" along the undersides that will sort out the argument elsewhere ;)
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
Arkan, Blackadder - thanks for the replies but these are pretty much the photos I've seen ad infinitum. They (and many others) show the "double-bulge-thingy" running along the undersides but pretty much only the length of the roots of the wings.
Whereas, film shows :

[qimg]http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/podimages/4pods.jpg[/qimg]

Now I'm sure I've seen a technical diagram/photo or somesuch of the undersides of a 767-222 here or elsewhere that looks just like the film.
Sod the "pod", that's an artefact, it's the groove along the undersides that will sort out the argument "elsewhere" ;)
Click to expand...

This was the one from the PM mag article http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/pm-pod.jpg. If I remember, I'll bring in the PM book and scan the other diagram tomorrow (no promises though, my short-term memory is teh suxx0rz)
 
And oh, GlennB, if they bring that flash crap on you, point them to this video, and let them look at (aprox) 0:24 :)
 
Bell said:
And oh, GlennB, if they bring that flash crap on you, point them to this video, and let them look at (aprox) 0:24 :)
Click to expand...

Nice one, a good resource - earlier I replied with

"What's not to flash? The film suggests a missile to "ignite" the (jet) fuel. Dear Lord we don't need that. Huge friction temperatures, jet engines flying around at vast temperatures, huge amounts of electrics shorting out, oxygen canisters in the planes just to stoke things up a tad"

which might blow my different i.d. over there and is slightly manic. But basically who cares? Thanks Bell and all youse others ;)
 
GlennB said:
Nice one, a good resource - earlier I replied with

"What's not to flash? The film suggests a missile to "ignite" the (jet) fuel. Dear Lord we don't need that. Huge friction temperatures, jet engines flying around at vast temperatures, huge amounts of electrics shorting out, oxygen canisters in the planes just to stoke things up a tad"

which might blow my different i.d. over there and is slightly manic. But basically who cares? Thanks Bell and all youse others ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, that one statement cracked me up as well.

And you're very welcome :)

About the flash btw, must have to do with the energy release from crashing an airplane at 500+ miles per hour into a inmobile object (no st. elmo's fire, as some debunker think it might be), but I'm sure there are some members to elaborate on that.
 
Bell said:
About the flash btw, must have to do with the energy release from crashing an airplane at 500+ miles per hour into a inmobile object (no st. elmo's fire, as some debunker think it might be), but I'm sure there are some members to elaborate on that.
Click to expand...


There's a number of options...

1) The speed of impact produces enough heat energy to vapourise the front particles of aluminium that made first contact, forming a bright white flash.
2) An aircraft displaces air ahead of it. At high speed this displaced air would easily have the force to smash windows - doing so moments before impact. Smashed windows will reflect light differently to their neighbours, and could produce a "Flash".
3) The low quality of the video makes determining precise impact next to impossible. The "flash" could infact be windows smashed on the moment of impact.

-Andrew
 
GlennB said:
Arghhhhh

I'm debating elsewhere and could really do with a photo/diagram of the undersides of a Boeing 767-22 (WTC2) that I'm sure I saw over here. Can't find it now. I've viewed about a jillion poxy plane photos at airliners.net, but they're mostly unclear as to the undersides of the plane :rolleyes:

My stock of various resources is growing daily, but this could help shoot down a "drone plane" moron in an unmentionable forum. Actually it won't shoot him down at all because he's flying on angel wings. But what the hoo.
Click to expand...

glenn,

My wife is an FA for MaxJet. The plane she works on most is a 767-200ER which is basically the same danged thing... I earlier found a great pic of her plane (the livery is very cool) to put on my screen saver:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?...FP&photo_nr=9&prev_id=1085203&next_id=1071827

It shows the underbelly of the 767-200 series with great clarity in a climbing turn somewhat like the angle that the doomed UAL plane that hit the south tower was shot from.

-z
 
rizkilla, I assume that picture was taken at takeoff instead of landing, since the gear is up. Is it normal to have leading-edge flaps extended at takeoff?
 
CurtC said:
rizkilla, I assume that picture was taken at takeoff instead of landing, since the gear is up. Is it normal to have leading-edge flaps extended at takeoff?
Click to expand...

Yeah...I'm not sure but I think so. I do remember a crash in Atlanta once where witnesses say the pilots failed to extend the leading edge slats. I think it depends upon how heavily loaded the plane is as these slats give the plane greater lift at slow speeds....and yes the plane is departing JFK as this pic is taken.

Nice pic though, eh? Great resolution quality and shows the underbelly of a 767-200 series in detail and from nearly the same angle as the 9/11 UAL flight.

-z
 
rikzilla said:
Nice pic though, eh? Great resolution quality and shows the underbelly of a 767-200 series in detail and from nearly the same angle as the 9/11 UAL flight.

-z
Click to expand...

Agree. If I was still on the LC board, I would post it for SunZoo and the Missile CT folks to look at and discuss. They would fail to see the relevance, I am sure, but it's pretty clear to me

Nice shot.
 
Hutch said:
Agree. If I was still on the LC board, I would post it for SunZoo and the Missile CT folks to look at and discuss. They would fail to see the relevance, I am sure, but it's pretty clear to me

Nice shot.
Click to expand...

Indeed a great photo.
But I like Bell's better ;)

"The groove is part of the UA paintscheme."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom