IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
767 Modification, UAL @ 540 knts.

marvinsannes
post Jul 13 2014, 06:51 PM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,593



I did not hear a single witness i.d. the WTC2 aircraft as a "United". That rudder logo would have been a bill board at 1,000'.

Did anyone i.d. the plane by mentioning the logo on the rudder?

How can a 767 be modified to reach the speeds measured? Can that airplane be 'stiffened' to fly that fast? The control dynamics re-designed to be flyable at that speed? Does the military modify 767 to fly 540 knts. at sea level?

Can the leading edges of wings and rudder and nose be depleted uranium?

Thx.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FirstUsedBooks
post Jul 13 2014, 07:21 PM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 31
Joined: 30-July 11
Member No.: 6,103



What logo was being used at that time?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
beijingyank
post Jul 13 2014, 07:22 PM
Post #3





Group: Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: 29-November 09
From: beijing, China
Member No.: 4,722



QUOTE (marvinsannes @ Jul 13 2014, 05:51 PM) *
I did not hear a single witness i.d. the WTC2 aircraft as a "United". That rudder logo would have been a bill board at 1,000'.
Did anyone i.d. the plane by mentioning the logo on the rudder?
How can a 767 be modified to reach the speeds measured? Can that airplane be 'stiffened' to fly that fast? The control dynamics re-designed to be flyable at that speed? Does the military modify 767 to fly 540 knts. at sea level?
Can the leading edges of wings and rudder and nose be depleted uranium?

Thx.

We are on the same page, in the same book.
Military drone...is my take...photos of a drone beacon attached to the undercarriage, and the excessive speeds is shocking, unique and are very impressive.
Your take on DU wingtips is a great question!
I would like to see an experiment of what aluminum wings do to the type of WTC steel it ran in to and compare the results. I suspect something else was going on to make the cutout it did.
Who modifies the aircraft? There has got to be a "Who's Who" list regarding members of the Modification of Aircraft.
I'd start asking around. It's a small world out there. "Seek and you shall find."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TampaDave
post Jul 13 2014, 10:51 PM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 10-June 12
From: Tampa, Florida USA
Member No.: 6,889



QUOTE (beijingyank @ Jul 13 2014, 06:22 PM) *
Your take on DU wingtips is a great question!


Yes, some way for an aircraft's wing to turn concrete and steel to jello would be nice. I don't know how so many people can believe that a relatively soft aircraft could mush into a much harder concrete-and-steel structure like it was hitting goop. I believer we all know most or all of the aircraft would have fallen as debris in a true case. Just look at the videos on youtube of aircraft breaking up from hard landings to see how much structural strength these behemoths have. Fortunately, they're not normally called on to perform maneuvers that require much in the way of structural strength.

With that in mind, I powerfully expect that just giving the leading edges strength to punch through still wouldn't be enough for the structure to withstand the sudden deceleration that would be required to punch though so much steel and concrete. To have enough strength to see the tail of the craft follow the fuselage in, and not "accordion" in or break off entirely, the weight would be increased significantly. Could such a plane fly? I wouldn't bet on it. Just my 2 cents. cool.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
marvinsannes
post Jul 14 2014, 01:04 AM
Post #5





Group: Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,593



QUOTE (FirstUsedBooks @ Jul 13 2014, 03:21 PM) *
What logo was being used at that time?


I am pretty sure the logo was in transition at that time: Some planes had the old UU and some had the current colored stripes. But, again, did anyone hear anyone mention the logo on the rudder? There was a news reporter that mentioned the "Blue Logo" on the front of the plane. Any mention of "United" by anyone?

The depleted uranium would not take much - when used as a tank round it self sharpens as it penetrates the armor steel - steel which is much harder than the column steel of WTC2. And, there are very many modified 767 used as tankers, etc.

There is a site which mentions NASA and Pratt and Whitney working together on the 747 engine to get more speed - I think that was what was found on Murray St. a modified 747 engine that could suck up the soup at 1,000'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peterauty
post Jul 14 2014, 05:40 AM
Post #6





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 17-May 14
From: England
Member No.: 7,814



QUOTE (TampaDave @ Jul 14 2014, 02:51 AM) *
Yes, some way for an aircraft's wing to turn concrete and steel to jello would be nice. I don't know how so many people can believe that a relatively soft aircraft could mush into a much harder concrete-and-steel structure like it was hitting goop. I believer we all know most or all of the aircraft would have fallen as debris in a true case. Just look at the videos on youtube of aircraft breaking up from hard landings to see how much structural strength these behemoths have. Fortunately, they're not normally called on to perform maneuvers that require much in the way of structural strength.

With that in mind, I powerfully expect that just giving the leading edges strength to punch through still wouldn't be enough for the structure to withstand the sudden deceleration that would be required to punch though so much steel and concrete. To have enough strength to see the tail of the craft follow the fuselage in, and not "accordion" in or break off entirely, the weight would be increased significantly. Could such a plane fly? I wouldn't bet on it. Just my 2 cents. cool.gif

The no planers argue all the time that the damage to the WTC towers was too great given the competition between Aluminium and steel and cite how flimsy the frame of a plane can be. They also show the damage done by bird strikes which I would say counts against their argument. Surely aluminium trumps light weight bird bone and yet we see the bird embedded deep into the plane structure. I am no physicist but I believe that when to substances of whatever strength or density collide at such speeds neither if them come out of it well. DU wing edges are a step too far and I believe unnecessary to explain the entrance silhouette. As for the planes managing to survive those speeds at that altitude is another matter but the answer has got to be simple although not obvious.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jul 14 2014, 11:15 PM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (TampaDave @ Jul 13 2014, 09:51 PM) *
...I don't know how so many people can believe that a relatively soft aircraft could mush into a much harder concrete-and-steel structure like it was hitting goop. I believer we all know most or all of the aircraft would have fallen as debris in a true case....

With that in mind, I powerfully expect that just giving the leading edges strength to punch through still wouldn't be enough for the structure to withstand the sudden deceleration that would be required to punch though so much steel and concrete.


Dave when I first began looking into 9/11 I too shared your beliefs stated above.

However after much time and research I discovered how the planes could have entered the towers and created the silhouettes we all saw.

I won't give it all away at once, I'll let you do some research, but I will give you some leads.

The planes did not slice through the steel. They couldn't have.
They did however punch their way in to the towers.

The momentum of the jets was enough to overcome the bolts holding together one set of columns to another set. Once these bolts gave the columns were just pushed inside the building (intact).

And once one set of columns began to give the column sets surrounding them were basically holding onto very little and could give much more readily.

The strike areas were also likely prepped beforehand (taking out floors, bolts etc.)

Look at the videos/photos. You will never see a column sliced in two. What you will see are column sets that have broken apart where they were bolted to another column set.







Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
marvinsannes
post Jul 15 2014, 08:16 PM
Post #8





Group: Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,593



Something moving fast is seen by the croc. brain - a remnant from when we came out of the trees and lived on the grasslands and needed to i.d. fast moving predators. That 2nd jet was planned to be seen.

But prepping the bldg. would require a very exact navigation, getting that plane into a spot within a few meters. AA11 went into Brenner's office so they could certainly work on that wall, but can they navigate a weaponized 767 at 500 knots to within a few meters?

I wish there were some anonymous people on this site from Raytheon or Boeing or Air Force people who work on 767 tankers, etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jul 15 2014, 10:46 PM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (marvinsannes @ Jul 15 2014, 07:16 PM) *
But prepping the bldg. would require a very exact navigation, getting that plane into a spot within a few meters. AA11 went into Brenner's office so they could certainly work on that wall, but can they navigate a weaponized 767 at 500 knots to within a few meters?


I don't know how precise a drone could hit a target, but it wouldn't need to be within a few meters.
Quite a number of floors would have been prepped. The plane would just have to hit somewhere within those floors.


QUOTE
I wish there were some anonymous people on this site from Raytheon or Boeing or Air Force people who work on 767 tankers, etc.


Never in a million years would they give out that info.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 17 2014, 04:36 PM
Post #10





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Good to see some new posters here. cheers.gif

My theory is that the planes were not going as fast as the radar said they were going, only because we know that the radar systems were spoofed that day because of Vigilant Guardian playing out.

Radar injects were used to trick and confuse controllers. If true, and it was reported in several places, all bets are off as to precise ground speed figures.

Secondly, if the aircraft were flown over Vmo the world does not end. Aircraft will fly over Vmo, but one risks structural damage. Not certain structural damage, but likely structural damage, depending upon how far over Vmo the craft is taken.

Nobody really knows what the first aircraft was, but those calling the police after they saw it mostly said it was a smaller aircraft, corporate or commuter.

The second aircraft appears to have been modified into the tanker role, judging from external fairings that could be seen. If so, it was likely stronger than the average 757.

Also the exoskeleton of the towers enters into the equation. As I recall the window centers were about 40 inches apart and the windows themselves were about 2 feet wide, and much taller. Thus the surface penetrated was not a solid steel wall, but one with glass windows and space making up a fair amount of the surface area the plane hit.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 13 2014, 07:15 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 17 2014, 04:36 PM) *
My theory is that the planes were not going as fast as the radar said they were going, only because we know that the radar systems were spoofed that day because of Vigilant Guardian playing out.


keep in mind, the radar speed data has been cross-checked with video data having similar results.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st October 2019 - 07:13 PM