there was no moon landing .... discus

[readingstockport]

I hate to say this but a large Boeing such as a 767 cannot fly at 500mph at an altitude of 500 meters/ sea level. The best it could manage without the aircraft starting to become uncontrollable for the pilot would be about 300mph.
As the aircraft climbs to a higher altitude where the air is thinner, it can increase it's performance as in go faster and use less fuel.

Oh god, so now you are an expert on flying and aircraft as well. Do you have a pilots licence colinz? I do. You are wrong. What you are referring to is straight and level flight in ideal conditions.

Additionally I believe that the 360 kts you are no doubt referring to is what is called Vno, or maximum speed in normal operating conditions. It is NOT the maximum speed at which the aircraft is capable of moving. I spent 10 months studying flight principles and the other subjects in order to gain my licence, how long have you spent studying (not visiting conspiracy sites by the way) to gain your knowledge.

If the aircraft was cruising at a higher altitude and dived then the speed would FAR exceed 360 kts.

Oops, another string of your theory soundly debunked.

 

[One Love]

Still waiting for your explanation. Me thinks your referring to this post there was no moon landing .... discus - Page 9

I think Dominoid has given you a very adequate analogy.

 

[colinz]

Oh god, so now you are an expert on flying and aircraft as well. Do you have a pilots licence colinz? I do. You are wrong. What you are referring to is straight and level flight in ideal conditions.

Additionally I believe that the 360 kts you are no doubt referring to is what is called Vno, or maximum speed in normal operating conditions. It is NOT the maximum speed at which the aircraft is capable of moving. I spent 10 months studying flight principles and the other subjects in order to gain my licence, how long have you spent studying (not visiting conspiracy sites by the way) to gain your knowledge.

If the aircraft was cruising at a higher altitude and dived then the speed would FAR exceed 360 kts.

Oops, another string of your theory soundly debunked.

No I'm not a pilot I watch the news.
Last year you may remember the volcano in Chile & the large dust cloud, it caused similar problems to air craft flying in the southern hemisphere as what the dust cloud from the Icelandic volcano did to air traffic in the Northern hemisphere.

Air New Zealand decided to still fly to it's southern hemispher destinations and beyond, by making the decision to fly at lower altitude.
The other airlines decided against this, because the travel times would be a lot slower relative to the comfort of their passengers. Plus the extra amount of fuel required would be prohibitively expensive.

Which surprised me, because although I was aware of an aircraft's performance being affected by the altitude at which it flies, I thought the extra cost of the fuel would be easily off set by not having to give passengers refunds, re-scheduling flights & regular passengeres (customers) etc., flying on rival air lines.

I pointed this out to an aviation expert and he said, anyone who's not aware of the huge extra fuel cost to an airline when flying at low altitude doesn't know what they're talking about.

Also the New Zealand Air force go to great expense to have their Boeing 757s modified, so as to be able to fly 400mph at sea level.
To go to such expense you would expect the aircraft's performance to increase by at least 25%

 

[colinz]

I think Dominoid has given you a very adequate analogy.

fully laden aircraft travelling at 500mph. With enough momentum, anything can be destructive.

Yet the building with reinforced steel columns, poured concrete flooring etc., is not destructive to the aircraft crashing into it.

 

[readingstockport]

No I'm not a pilot I watch the news.
Last year you may remember the volcano in Chile & the large dust cloud, it caused similar problems to air craft flying in the southern hemisphere as what the dust cloud from the Icelandic volcano did to air traffic in the Northern hemisphere.

Air New Zealand decided to still fly to it's southern hemispher destinations and beyond, by making the decision to fly at lower altitude.
The other airlines decided against this, because the travel times would be a lot slower relative to the comfort of their passengers. Plus the extra amount of fuel required would be prohibitively expensive.

Which surprised me, because although I was aware of an aircraft's performance being affected by the altitude at which it flies, I thought the extra cost of the fuel would be easily off set by not having to give passengers refunds, re-scheduling flights & regular passengeres (customers) etc., flying on rival air lines.

I pointed this out to an aviation expert and he said, anyone who's not aware of the huge extra fuel cost to an airline when flying at low altitude doesn't know what they're talking about.

Also the New Zealand Air force go to great expense to have their Boeing 757s modified, so as to be able to fly 400mph at sea level.
To go to such expense you would expect the aircraft's performance to increase by at least 25%

A classic example of someone with little knowledge jumping to an erroneous conclusion based on flawed reasoning.

The reason that jets fly at high altitude it that the engines are more efficient when flying high. It has nothing to do with the performance of the airframe which is the main restricting factor in aircraft performance. Face it, you do not know that of which you speak and you are getting soundly thrashed in this thread by a LOT of people who know a damn sight more than you do.

Go away, spend £10,000 either learning to fly or studying aeronautical engineering and then come back and we can talk again about a subject you evidently know absolutely nothing about at the moment.

 

[One Love]

Yet the building with reinforced steel columns, poured concrete flooring etc., is not destructive to the aircraft crashing into it.

You seem to be leading somebody into a certain direction because you have proof that it didn't happen that way so I will comply.

I would imagine that the nose of the fuselage entered the outer casing of the building like a knife through butter as the windows etc would not be reinforced to withstand such an impact, severely reducing the structural integrity of said casing.

The rest of the aircraft would then enter the building unimpeded apart from the part of the wings that met a concrete floor. These would presumably be broken with the part attached to the fuselage continuing into the building and the part broken entering the building the other side of said concrete floor.

Do you know different?

 

[thejackal]

I think you are completely correct. Discus wouldn't be a particularly good game to play at the moon landing, for obvious reasons. But if they had done it, it could either prove or disprove the moon landing conspiracy once and for all! Good thinking.

My thoughts exactly. If someone were capable of throwing a discus as far as the moon then I reckon we probably would have heard about it by now.

 

[beorhthelm]

I hate to say this but a large Boeing such as a 767 cannot fly at 500+mph at an altitude of 500 meters/ sea level. The best it could manage without the aircraft starting to become uncontrollable for the pilot would be about 300mph.
As the aircraft climbs to a higher altitude where the air is thinner, it can increase it's performance as in go faster and use less fuel.

this is false, it is what some people with no knowledge, or worse a little knowledge, tell you. just because an aeroplane doesnt fly at lower altitudes at full speed under normal operational procedures, it doesnt it cannot fly at that speed. The average terrorist really isnt worrying about the fuel consumption, put the pedal down hard.

anyway, you miss the point i was making earlier, you present lots of information not available from the picture. the picture says nothing about the law of motion.

 

[Manx Shearwater]

So, the change in momentum of the plane equals the forces acting on it by the building, yes? And the forces are determined by mass and velocity.

The building is made up of layers, some are spaces with glass on the edge (offices) some are concrete with glass on the edge (floors). There are metal supports for the concrete floors. So the forces acting on the plane on impact will be different depending on which bits of the plane hit which bits of the building. The effects on different parts of the plane will be different.

The parts hitting the office space will continue into the building, and presumably come to a halt when they hit the central support pillars, the parts hitting the concrete will compress violently (like stamping on a coke tin) and may even disintegrate due to the level of force involved.

The problem here is that the photo doesn't give you the critical information you need to make a proper assessment of what is happening and is about to happen a split second later.

It is two dimensional, so you cannot judge the depth of field, the floors of the building are not easily defined. More importantly, however the photo is from the rear of the plane. You cannot actually see the nose. You have made an assumption that the nose is inside the building, but this is not necessarily true. The condition of the nose at the point the photo is taken could be one of several things.

1. It HAS entered the building, in a space between floors.
2. It has slightly entered the building, in the sense that it has penetrated the glass skin, but is already compressing inwards on itself through the impact of hitting a concrete floor (like a concertina).
3. A combination of the above.

Number 3 being the most likely.

Sadly you would probably need a photo taken from inside to prove what actually happened, but your photo doesn't really cut it. You cannot see what has happened to the nose of the plane inside the outer glass skin of the building.

 

[colinz]

Manxie, I'm extremely disappointed with your reply I had you down as someone pretty intelligent.

First of all this strange occurance on 9/11 is X2. To say that a Boeing 767 can twice land in a building between 2 floors with a floor to ceiling height of less than 4 meters, is absolutely laughable and you tell me that I know f*** all about Physics, were you brain washed at school or what.
Your in serious denial old chap.

The problem here is that the photo doesn't give you the critical information you need to make a proper assessment of what is happening and is about to happen a split second later.

You don't get it do you, the photo is a 'still' from faked footage rammed down our throats for weeks after 9/11.
Similar to faked footage we had rammed down our throats 40 years ago, of Astronots bouncing up & down on the moon, like a couple of teletubbies..

 

[readingstockport]

I know f*** all about Physics

First accurate statement you've written in this entire thread.

 

[petercg365]

I'm an arse

 

[colinz]

First accurate statement you've written in this entire thread.

You must also think that a Boeing 767 can squeeze it's way into a 4 meter high space at 500+mph twice in 20 minutes.
But of course you can't comment on such a manoeuvre unless you are a qualified pilot.
You've lost the debate boy get over your self, go watch the Palace game, but don't take your frustration out on any of their fans.

Removing Truth's protective layer

 

[narly101]

I thought this was a thread about discussing the moon landings?

 

[colinz]

I thought this was a thread about discussing the moon landings?

Back on topic, 3 pissed off astronots.



Collins didn't see any stars, what was he doing, whilst his mates were bouncing up and down on the moon
.

 

[readingstockport]

You must also think that a Boeing 767 can squeeze it's way into a 4 meter high space at 500+mph twice in 20 minutes.

Where did I say that? The fact that you brought the performance of aircraft at sea level into farce of your misunderstanding and were soundly humilated by someone who actually knows the theory and practice should tell you something about the standard of your understanding.

But of course you can't comment on such a manoeuvre unless you are a qualified pilot.

No, more selective misunderstanding and quote mining from your lack of knowledge. You shouldn't try to comment on the performance of aircraft when you know little or nothing about the topic. And don't try to argue with a qualified pilot about the topic - really - DON'T. You will lose every time.

You've lost the debate boy get over your self

Irony, thy name is colinz.

go watch the Palace game, but don't take your frustration out on any of their fans.

1. Not frustrated.
2. Not a BHA fan as most on here know.
3. Not a Palace fan either.

 

[colinz]

Where did I say that? The fact that you brought the performance of aircraft at sea level into farce of your misunderstanding and were soundly humilated by someone who actually knows the theory and practice should tell you something about the standard of your understanding.



No, more selective misunderstanding and quote mining from your lack of knowledge. You shouldn't try to comment on the performance of aircraft when you know little or nothing about the topic. And don't try to argue with a qualified pilot about the topic - really - DON'T. You will lose every time.




Irony, thy name is colinz.



1. Not frustrated.
2. Not a BHA fan as most on here know.
3. Not a Palace fan either.

All you've got on me is your newly found obsession that I'm incorrect about a Boeing 767/ 757 performance at low altitude.

Didn't you read my previous post about the Air lines deciding to ground their Boeing passenger craft, rather than fly at low altitude going slower in the heavier atmosphere & using more fuel. (would you like me to try & find the news article for you, when you stop sulking)

After I saw the video clip of the New Zealand Air Force 757 flying 400mph at sea level. I visited their web site, contacted them about how the plane could fly so fast at a low altitude, they replied saying that they send their 757s to some place in Kansas to get modified. And yes (re your post) I think they do some reinforcing to the frame.

 

[One Love]

You don't get it do you, the photo is a 'still' from faked footage rammed down our throats for weeks after 9/11.
Similar to faked footage we had rammed down our throats 40 years ago, of Astronots bouncing up & down on the moon, like a couple of teletubbies..

Let me get this right. You are saying that no plane was flown into the World Trade Centre.

Is that what you are saying?

 

[Manx Shearwater]

Manxie, I'm extremely disappointed with your reply I had you down as someone pretty intelligent.

First of all this strange occurance on 9/11 is X2. To say that a Boeing 767 can twice land in a building between 2 floors with a floor to ceiling height of less than 4 meters, is absolutely laughable and you tell me that I know f*** all about Physics, were you brain washed at school or what.
Your in serious denial old chap.



You don't get it do you, the photo is a 'still' from faked footage rammed down our throats for weeks after 9/11.
Similar to faked footage we had rammed down our throats 40 years ago, of Astronots bouncing up & down on the moon, like a couple of teletubbies..

Less of the insults fucktard. And learn to read.

The problem here is that the photo doesn't give you the critical information you need to make a proper assessment of what is happening and is about to happen a split second later.

You f*cking idiot.

 

[pastafarian]

Let me get this right. You are saying that no plane was flown into the World Trade Centre.

Is that what you are saying?

i hope he isnt.......it could get ugly