Craig Lamson Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 That as well as the F-4A "Sageburner", Jackie Cocquirine flew an T-38, etc - but that is NOT the B767. It is indicative that the laws of physics do not prevent an aircraft from flying that fast, though. Correct, the point of the photo was to show the proof of concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 If the South Tower "collapsed" it should have fallen downward bygravity. So why is this large many-ton section of exterior in the middle of Church Street, more than a block away? To get there it flew HORIZONTALLY completely over WTC4. Jack WTC 2 was 1362 feet tall and about 400 feet from Church st. WTC 4 was only 9 stories tall I think we've all seen the effects of rocks dropped into water. Under Jack's understanding of physics water being projected outward is inexplicable Explain how the multi-ton intact section of wall flew horizontally more than 400 feet. The physics of that must present an interesting equation, when the rest of the building was falling by gravity. Just what OUTWARD force detached the wall and hurled it horizontally? I am depending on your physics expertise here, because it is beyond my understanding. According to Newton, there had to be a horizontal force, but I cannot figure what it was. Tell us. Jack That’s easy Jack, the collapse of the towers compressed the space between the floor slabs with a tremendous amount of force, violently dislodging the exterior column panels and ejecting some hundreds of feet. Put a cracker between the palms of your hands, place it near the edges. Push the top one down as quickly and forcibly as you can. By your logic since the forces acting on it are both straight down (gravity and your top hand) the bits should all move straight down but most will be ejected outwards because that is the path of least resistance. Now of course the Towers were not made of crackers but that is an easy illustration of the principle involved. If you are feeling ambitious you can construct a mini WTC in your garage and drop a rock on it. Explain how your invisible death ray from space theory or the super duper thermate theory or even the plain old explosive CD theory better explains this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/joseph_keit...1607_planes.mp3He (Mr Keith) also says that the planes would have shaken themselves apart at that altitude at over about 220 mph, and also something to the effect that the thicker air would also have stalled the engines... Keith asks "how stupid do you think people should be?" to believe this stuff. Some more interesting stuff - B767 pilots discussing various limitations: http://www.pprune.org/forums/tech-log/9961...vmo-mmo-uk.html Please note that it is not a 9-11 discussion, simply professional B767 pilots discussing performance with each other. Note that one talks about the Flap Limitations; he talks about a Flap 15/20 (degrees) airspeed limitation of 210 knots - which is about 240 miles per hour. Why would they have a flap limitation (which is used at low level, during takeoff and landing) 20 mph ABOVE the speed which it is claimed by this "expert" the aircraft would break apart? How stupid does this Keith think people are, that they won't check on "facts"? IMO, more evidence that the "truth movement" is an oxymoron. Still, this is only discussion by B767 pilots on an aviation forum from 6 months PRIOR to 9-11. Take it with a grain of salt until I produce evidence to support those figures. Evan I clicked your link but got an error message saying I had to be signed in to see that page. Can you post a screen shot of the relevant portion "Commercial aircraft are capable of, and in fact, do, operate at high speed (>250 knots indicated airspeed [KIAS]) at low altitude (below 10,000’ above ground level) worldwide." HIGH SPEED FLIGHT AT LOW ALTITUDE: HAZARD TO COMMERCIAL AVIATION? Paul F. Eschenfelder, Capt., Aviation Consultant http://www.int-birdstrike.org/Athens_Paper...C27%20WPI-3.pdf The author is FAA certified to fly 757's, 767's, DC9's and IIRC Airbus 310's An Airbus 310 flying at over 400 MPH (700 KPH) can be seen here http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tVBCX8yDQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Evan I clicked your link but got an error message saying I had to be signed in to see that page. Can you post a screen shot of the relevant portion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Quit posting such non sequiturs to fool the unwary. 250 knots = 287 mph. The alleged speed of the two 767s exceeded 500 mph. Your examples are irrelevant. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Lewis and I agree on at least one thing... "I still think he's an idiot with a speech impediment." Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 (edited) Quoting Colby.... "An Airbus 310 flying at over 400 MPH (700 KPH) can be seen here http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tVBCX8yDQ" Colby cannot do simple math: ~400 mph = ~460 knots per hour, NOT 700, I think. As a refresher from my days in the navy, I googled a conversion table, which confirmed the multiplier is 1.15, about what I remembered. Whom is he trying to fool? Jack Edited August 1, 2008 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 If the South Tower "collapsed" it should have fallen downward bygravity. So why is this large many-ton section of exterior in the middle of Church Street, more than a block away? To get there it flew HORIZONTALLY completely over WTC4. Jack WTC 2 was 1362 feet tall and about 400 feet from Church st. WTC 4 was only 9 stories tall I think we've all seen the effects of rocks dropped into water. Under Jack's understanding of physics water being projected outward is inexplicable Explain how the multi-ton intact section of wall flew horizontally more than 400 feet. The physics of that must present an interesting equation, when the rest of the building was falling by gravity. Just what OUTWARD force detached the wall and hurled it horizontally? I am depending on your physics expertise here, because it is beyond my understanding. According to Newton, there had to be a horizontal force, but I cannot figure what it was. Tell us. Jack That’s easy Jack, the collapse of the towers compressed the space between the floor slabs with a tremendous amount of force, violently dislodging the exterior column panels and ejecting some hundreds of feet. Put a cracker between the palms of your hands, place it near the edges. Push the top one down as quickly and forcibly as you can. By your logic since the forces acting on it are both straight down (gravity and your top hand) the bits should all move straight down but most will be ejected outwards because that is the path of least resistance. Now of course the Towers were not made of crackers but that is an easy illustration of the principle involved. If you are feeling ambitious you can construct a mini WTC in your garage and drop a rock on it. Explain how your invisible death ray from space theory or the super duper thermate theory or even the plain old explosive CD theory better explains this. Colby's "cracker theory" is pure bs. He attributes theories to me which are totally imaginary. I have no theory about what happened to the WTC. BUT I DO KNOW WHAT DID NOT HAPPEN, and that is not theory. NO PLANES hit the towers if the videos are the evidence. The videos are faked. That is not a theory. The buildings did not "pancake" according to Colby's theory; that would violate Newton's laws. Colby's theory of "compressed air" expelling multi-ton sections of perimeter walls is laughable. I do not know what brought down the twin towers and 7. Only the plotters of the conspiracy know. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 (edited) Quoting Colby...."An Airbus 310 flying at over 400 MPH (700 KPH) can be seen here http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tVBCX8yDQ" Colby cannot do simple math: ~400 mph = ~460 knots per hour, NOT 700, I think. As a refresher from my days in the navy, I googled a conversion table, which confirmed the multiplier is 1.15, about what I remembered. Whom is he trying to fool? Jack kph is kilometers per hour, not knots. Knots are not correctly expressed with "per hour" as the definition of a knot is a nautical mile per hour. Edited August 1, 2008 by Matthew Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 If (and only if) floors had pancaked, compressed air "might" blow out glass windows...BUT NOT BLOW OUT STEEL WALLS. Once the windows break, the air escapes without pressure to the steel. If he wants to defend his ridiculous theory, let him show us the math formulas for the air compression versus the steel walls, to see which is stronger, the air or the steel. It is merely an engineering physics problem. If he says glass is as strong as steel, we know for sure his grasp of physics. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Quoting Colby...."An Airbus 310 flying at over 400 MPH (700 KPH) can be seen here http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tVBCX8yDQ" Colby cannot do simple math: ~400 mph = ~460 knots per hour, NOT 700, I think. As a refresher from my days in the navy, I googled a conversion table, which confirmed the multiplier is 1.15, about what I remembered. Whom is he trying to fool? Jack kph is kilometers per hour, not knots. Knots are not correctly expressed with "per hour" as the definition of a knot is a nautical mile per hour. I think you are correct. Someone earlier had mentioned "knots per hour, and that stuck with me. I stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Quoting Colby...."An Airbus 310 flying at over 400 MPH (700 KPH) can be seen here http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tVBCX8yDQ" Colby cannot do simple math: ~400 mph = ~460 knots per hour, NOT 700, I think. As a refresher from my days in the navy, I googled a conversion table, which confirmed the multiplier is 1.15, about what I remembered. Whom is he trying to fool? Jack kph is kilometers per hour, not knots. Knots are not correctly expressed with "per hour" as the definition of a knot is a nautical mile per hour. I think you are correct. Someone earlier had mentioned "knots per hour, and that stuck with me. I stand corrected. It is an easy mistake to make. I applaud you for acknowledging your error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Jack, Over the last few days I have sent you three PMs regarding your biography. The link does not appear to be working. It is a requirement of the Forum that you have a link to your biography. Please rectify it immediately. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 (edited) Quit posting such non sequiturs to fool the unwary.250 knots = 287 mph. The alleged speed of the two 767s exceeded 500 mph. Your examples are irrelevant. Jack No Jack, they are not. Your Mr Keith said, and I quote from your post: He also says that the planes would have shaken themselves apart at that altitude at over about 220 mph, and also something to the effect that the thicker air would also have stalled the engines. This Keith person is wrong about the most basic of matters; for him to make such a statement demonstrates his lack of credibility in aeronautical matters. That is why it is very relevant. Edited August 1, 2008 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 (edited) Prior knowledge? Jack Image deleted. May have been a Post 911 photo. Edited August 2, 2008 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now