anthony @ 17:35 GMT, updated 14:27 GMT, December 7, 2007
The planes which flew into the Twin Towers on 9/11 could not possibly have been Boeing 767s, as we have been led to believe.
In the first place, the planes which hit the Twin Towers were estimated to be doing more than 500 miles per hour, an impossible speed for Boeing 767s to be flying at at an altitude of 700 ft (they would simply disintegrate at that speed because of the density of the air), a fact established by Joseph Keith and confirmed by Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard and Boeing engineer Lori Bechtold in this video.
That immediately rules out flights 11 and 175 which were both Boeing 767s.
Secondly, the planes which hit the Twin Towers were seen to penetrate the wall of the buildings leaving a huge gaping hole. This, a Boeing 767, which is constructed of aluminium, could not do unaided by some other agency. I earlier speculated whether some kind of laser weapon like the one mounted on the 747 was used, but I think we can discount this possibility in the light of Jaclyn Cady’s comments. It would appear, then, that some more conventional weapon mounted on the plane’s fusilage was used. It is interesting in this respect in that videos of the planes hitting the Twin Towers show a bright flash just before the moment of impact.
Thirdly, eyewitnesses reported that both planes did not have commercial markings and did not have windows.
Fourthly, the aircraft engine found at the site of the South Tower was a CMF-56, which does not have enough power to lift a Boeing 767 off the ground!
Lastly, Flight 93, the plane purportedly shot down over Pennsylvania was spotted at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport on April 10, 2003, and according to the FAA, Flights 93 and 175 are still valid.
As to the kind of plane used in the 9/11 Twin Tower attacks, the most likely culprit would seem to be the Boeing 737. Compare this video of the South Tower aircraft and pictures of the South Tower plane below with the pictures of a Boeing 737 plane above and a Boeing 767 further below:
Look especially at the engines on the South Tower plane and how on the 737 they are on pods below the wings whereas on the 767 they are integrated with the wing.
And BTW, what engine does a Boeing 737 use? Yes, you’ve guessed it, a CMF-56!
Suzie-Que's Truth and Justice Blog 
Excellent post Anthony. These are some of the reasons that Bu$hco won’t allow an independent investigation and there are many more reasons that have surfaced since the NIST investigation started. The NIST bucket is so full of holes that it can carry no water and as time marches on more truth will come to light. I guess that what’s going on here is no different than what went on with all of the other cover-ups by this Machivalian administration. It is fraught with mistruths and requires a concerted effort to propogate them…G:
Wordgeezer,
This administration is just like the Nazi’s in 1933….and the American people are acting exactly like the Germans did back then too…
Silent sheep that just let Adolf’s Blitzkreig Wars and the Holocaust occur!
Sound familiar ?
Yep…The parallel with Bu$hco is something we must pay attention to. I watched the video by Naomi Wolfand will bookmark it as reference. If I could enroll in one of her courses, I wouldn’t fall asleep in class. I remember seeing an article about hitler in a 1930’s edition of life Magazine that depicted Hitler as a playboy in the social circles of Europe.
…………zzzzzzzZZZZZZZZ
I don’t see how the ABL can possibly have been used in the 9/11 conspiracy, given that it didn’t even exist at that time.
The modified Boeing 747-400F aircraft that mounts the laser system didn’t make its first flight until 2002, and even then it didn’t have the laser system armed yet because the targeting systems weren’t ready yet. In fact, the system /still/ isn’t ready; they had to cancel the planned 2004 live-fire test and are now hoping to test in 2009.
Even if we assume that the CIA secretly built their own ABL aircraft and solved the targeting issues on their own, the ABL weapon is patently unsuitable for taking down buildings — it’s an extremely powerful laser, but it can only fire for five seconds before the capacitors run out of power and it takes several hours to recharge between shots. We’re not talking the Death Star here, this is a very limited-capability system.
Thanks for your comment, Jaclyn.
I did not say that it was a Boeing 747 which was used in the 9/11 attacks. (It has been speculated that the planes used were 737s, tho’ I don’t know whether 737s could fly at the speed that the planes that flew into the Twin Towers were estimated to be flying at that height without disintegrating, as a 767 would.)
All I can say is that something, whether it was the laser weapon, or some kind of missile, made it possible for an aluminium-constructed plane to penetrate the Twin Towers, which a Boeing 767 could not have done unaided by another agency.
And one of the videos I have linked to clearly shows a flash just prior to one of the planes hitting the building.
Even if we assume the CIA had a functional ABL system in 2001 even though the Air Force won’t have one until 2009, there’s simply no way a laser weapon would fit on board a 737 — if you look at a schematic of the ABL aircraft, pretty much the ENTIRE aircraft is taken up by power generators. That’s why they used the 747-400F platform in the first place; no other plane was big enough to mount the system. In addition, there’s no way all those eyewitnesses could have missed the extremely distinctive laser turret on the nose of an ABL aircraft.
Also, the COIL laser system operates at a frequency of 1.513 microns and is invisible to the human eye. The flash in the video has to be something other than a laser shot.
Basically, it looks like the answer to your question, “Was a laser weapon like the one mounted on the 747 used?” is a pretty definite no.
1. The laser system was not operational at that time. In fact, it’s not even operational now.
2. Even if we assume the laser system was functional at that time, it would not fit in a 737 (or for that matter a 767).
3. Even if we assume that an operational laser was somehow fitted to a 737, the flash of light we see in the video is not something the COIL laser system would have produced.
4. The damage to the Twin Towers is inconsistent with the effects of a five-second burst from a megawatt-class laser. A five-second laser burst would burn a slice into the building , not weaken the side so that a kamikaze jetliner could penetrate.
5. The two towers were hit within 17 minutes of each other. This is not sufficient cycle time for the laser system to be cooled down and recharged for a second shot.
Welcome to Suzie-Q Jaclyn Cady!
We love people who can think on their own and we have many here who do!
*Cheers*
😉
Thanks for the warm welcome.
I’m not saying there isn’t a lot missing from the government’s explanations for 9/11; I’m saying the facts don’t seem to support the laser theory.
Oh, and for the record, the picture on the article isn’t the ABL. It’s an artist’s rendition of the Navy’s new P8-A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft, the future replacement for the old P-3C Orion of Cold War fame. It’s based on the 737-800, but has the larger wings from the stretched 737-900 for enhanced cargo capacity. Pretty neat aircraft and seems to be a pretty solid use of taxpayer $$$, although they’re not fielding any until 2013.
Jaclyn Cady,
We’ve posted here this week on the ABL..
You may want to peruse our comments..
You just cannot accept the fact that humans like OSB are evil and want nothing more than to kill us all. Get over it.
Welcome Jaclyn – it’s good to have some further info on this topic. It seems your thoughts and information has even caused a troll to form.
Please don’t speak or address it’s idiocy – it’s living in 2002.
Have fun on the blog!
Wow, that’s some first class crazy.
My girlfriend at the time saw the planes hit the towers — her brother was a fireman who died when the towers came down. I guess she’s a victim of mass government brain control and her brother is vacationing on an island somewhere.
How messed up does your life have to be for you people to buy into this bizarre crap?
Ed,
If you don’t like what you read then tell the Government to open up an Independent investigation and find us some REAL answers to 9/11/2001 because the story they are giving us so far stinks up to high heaven and the majority of the American people think the same way…
Anthony,
I believe you struck a nerve with this post.
Your next recourse would logically be to follow this line of questioning…
God Speed to ya and good luck!
😉
Excellent post Anthony! 🙂
Welcome to all of you and even the trolls… just behave and verbal attacks are not tolerated on my blog!
Thanks!
S-Q
I’m not trying to be disrespectful to you and your stormtroofers. It’s just that this is such an old, worn out, tired, simple minded, out of touch, crazy, ignorant, desperate, far-fetched, BushHitler, left wing, wacky, disrespectful, unintelligent, desperate attempt at… What exactly are you trying to say? That the government created all of this and drugged all of Manhattan, the US, everyone who lost people on that day and everyone in the entire world as well as everyone who were on those planes while doctoring thousands of pieces of film that was broadcast through out the known universe in order to help push the “Powers That Be” into a global war on terror in order to drive up profits of the banking system that has corrupted the worlds open markets into a stock crash in order to cause the US government to impose marshal law thus moving the monetary system further away from the gold-standard and allowing global conglomerates like Halliburton to step in and take no-bid contracts making them billions in revenue in both oil and arms? Or are you just saying that a bunch of crazy Koran-Thumping, cave dwelling, right-wing, durka sniffin’ Arabs (yes they were mostly Saudis) couldn’t have been smart enough to do this? I’m just wondering…
Please don’t use your powers of deletion, then what will you be? I’ll tell you what you’ll be, you’ll be no better than the CIA destroying those torture videos, that’s what you’ll be. Are you not open to counter-points? This is a discussion of facts right?
Ed,
Welcome to the blog, and please respect our ethos of tolerating others even if we do not share their views:
Quote: “This is a discussion of facts right?”
Earlier quote: “You’re an idiot.”
This kind of language is not a discussion of facts, but an ad hominem attack, i.e. attack the messenger rather than the message.
The evidence that the official account of 9/11 is baloney is overwhelming. In this article I have concentrated on just one small facet of the case, and I am grateful to Jaclyn for discounting the laser theory. But the anomalies in the 767 scenario are still valid.
If you wish to pursue this enquiry further, please visit my own blog where I have colected a number of articles on the subkect of 9/11.
And by all means continue the discussion, but please avoid insults.
And by the way, I’m not particularly left-wing, and I bought into the official “lonely goatherd” theory of 9/11 for about five years until I began to look into it futher.
Ed, I forgot to post link to relevent page on my blog.
GEF:
Quote: Your next recourse would logically be to follow this line of questioning…
I’m still drooling!
Hi, mesablue, and welcome to this blog. Only please avoid the personal insults.
I’m sorry to hear about your girlfriends brother and if you read my post carefully, you’ll realise that I’m not denying that planes flew into the Twin Towers on 9/11, only that there are some serious anomalies in the official account, which is baloney.
Like you, some of us on this blog don’t like Hillary Clinton and I remain unconvinced by the widely-accepted view that global warming is caused by human CO2 emisions.
In the meantime, here is a link to a Fred Thompson cartoon for you to enjoy. The Hollywood scriptwriters strike must be especially hard for him!
Please address the issues, Leo, rather than indulging in ad hominem attacks.
And by the way, welcome to the blog.
Anthony,
Leo who ?
Personal attacks just vanish in this blog much like good ice cream!
yum.. 😉
[…] the one mounted on the 747 was used, but I think we can discount this possibility in the light of Jaclyn Cady’s comments. It would appear, then, that some more conventional weapon mounted on the plane’s fusilage was […]
GEF, I think it’s best to leave the personal attacks on this blog for a while, reply to them with courtesy and give the person time to reflect and, hopefully, re-read what I’ve written, as with the exception of the laser comments, I think it’s well-nigh irrefutable.
If Flights 11 and 175 were not diverted to New York, then what happened to them?
It is possible that the passengers for the one got on the other, and that the pssengers on all four flights, 11, 175, 93 and 77 were herded onto the one plane (93?) which was either shot down over Pennsylvania or over the sea.
Interesting that Ed would come here out of the blue to ask “what exactly are you trying to say?”, followed by a ludicrous either / or situation of his own design. It would be my suggestion that he read the information and opinion here, and I believe he will find that we have a lot to say about seeking truth, justice, and the American way.
If you are just wondering what we have to say Ed, here is a link to some of the 911 related articals from this blog.
https://suzieqq.wordpress.com/?s=wtc+911+&searchsubmit=Find+%C2%BB
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
Does Ed believe that a new and independent investigation would be necessary determine what really happened on this fateful and world changing day. Just wondering? G:
There is no way you can put the passengers from all four flights onto one. Even if you stack and pack them like a Civil War era slave ship, the plane can’t fly with that much weight on board.
The government may lie, but the laws of physics do not.
BTW Ed
Do you have any documentation showing that it was the CIA that deleted those torture videos. Just wondering? G:
The engine placement evidence for the 737-vs-767 issue seems inconclusive to me. The 767’s engines are indeed podded, they’re just on much shorter pylons which hold the engine pod closer to the wing. If you look closely at the picture above, you can see the pylon. Podded engines are preferred on airliners because they’re much, much easier to access for maintenance purposes.
From the angle those pictures are taken at, it could be either a 737 or a 767. Because the aircraft is rolled with its belly towards the camera, you can’t see how far away from the wings the engines are, only that they’re mounted forwards on pylons.
Total passengers was 279, while Wikipedia shows the seating for a 757 to be 180. Too many passengers for a 757…Thanks for your input Jaclyn….G:
Jaclyn:
Quote: There is no way you can put the passengers from all four flights onto one. Even if you stack and pack them like a Civil War era slave ship, the plane can’t fly with that much weight on board.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are assuming that all the planes flew at full capacity.
This, according to the official account is what happened on 9/11:
• UA Flight 93, a Boeing 757, departs from Newark Airport at 8:01 a.m. for San Francisco, taking off with between 26 and 38 passengers (about 16% of capacity) and seven crew members on board. (This is the jet which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania at about 10 a.m.)
• UA Flight 175, a Boeing 767, departs from Logan Airport, Boston, at 7:58 a.m. for Los Angeles with between 47 and 56 passengers (about 26% of capacity) and nine crew members aboard. (This is the jet which allegedly hit the South Tower at 9:03 a.m.)
• AA Flight 11, a Boeing 767, leaves Logan Airport, Boston at about 7:45 a.m. headed for Los Angeles, with between 76 and 81 passengers (about 39% of capacity) and 11 crew members aboard. (This is the jet which allegedly hit the North Tower at 8:45 a.m.)
• AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, leaves Dulles Airport in Washington D.C. at about 8:10 a.m bound for Los Angeles, taking off with between 50 and 58 passengers (about 27% of capacity) and six crew members aboard. (This is the jet which allegedly hit the Pentagon at about 9:35 a.m.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In other words, if all the passengers were herded onto the one plane, it would be flying at 108% capacity.
This, of course, assumes that the passengers from all four planes were indeed herded onto the one plane.
While you address the issue of the plane pictures and the fate of the passengers (unsuccessfully IMHO), you do not address the issue of the aircraft engine found 3 blocks away from the North Tower, which was a CMF-53, which, according to my information was the powerhouse of the 737 and didn’t have the power to get the bigger 767 off the ground.
Geezer:
Quote: Total passengers was 279, while Wikipedia shows the seating for a 757 to be 180. Too many passengers for a 757…Thanks for your input Jaclyn….G:
According to the most generous estimate (based on the info above), there were 233 passengers on board those 4 (if indeed 4 planes took off) flights.
A plane with seating for 180 could, I think, accommodate that number.
Another point, Geezer, is that you are assuming the plane shot down over Pennsylvania was Flight 93, a 757.
It could have been one of the other planes and a 767, which can carry up to 245 passengers, more than enough space for the 233 passengers who, according to my reckoning were aboard those flights.
Jaclyn,
You also did not address the speed issue (a 767 cannot have flown at the speed estimated at 700 ft) or the eyewitnesses who said that the plane did not have markings or windows.
Jaclyn,
It seems to me that the 767 engines are not on pylons at all, but embedded in the wing.
If you look at the video of the South Tower plane I have linked to, the pylons holding the engines on this plane are a lot more obvious than in the pictures.
There is simply NO WAY that the plane in this video is a 767.
The engine issue is potentially one of the most damning pieces of evidence against the government’s version of 9/11. However, more information is needed before this argument can truly be considered conclusive.
See, virtually all 767s use the General Electric CF6 series engine. The CFM-56 is a kissing cousin to said CF6, developed by a partnership between General Electric and the French engine company Snecma — it’s basically the engine core of the CF6 combined with the much more compact and efficient fan section of Snecma’s prototype M56. The CFM-56 name reflects this in that it’s a hybrid of the two “parent” engines, CF6 and M56.
The bottom line here is that although the two engines don’t look similar when fully assembled, they’re more or less exactly the same when stripped down to the core. And given how badly smashed up the engine core fragments recovered in NYC are, there’s just no way we can say with absolute certainty that they’re CFM-56s and not CF-6s unless we can dig up additional evidence such as serial numbers.
“It seems to me that the 767 engines are not on pylons at all, but embedded in the wing.”
Technically speaking, an embedded engine is like what the British Vulcan bomber had — the engine is completely buried in the wing.
The picture you showed does indeed make it look like the engine is directly mounted on the wing, but take a careful look at the centre and rear sections of the engine and you can clearly see that there is a pylon. Better yet, look at this picture of a 767 from the side:
The 767’s engines are clearly podded, they just don’t /look/ that way from a head-on picture because they’re forward of the wings as opposed to below them.
Did you look at the video I linked to, Jaclyn. There it is clear that the South Tower has engines mounted on pylons and are totally separate from the wings like those of the 737.
And the speed issue, and the eyewitness statements?
Not mentioned in my article is the length of the plane in the photographs viz-a-viz the dimensions of the WTC.
A 737-900, the longest 737 is 138 ft, compared to the 159 ft of the 767-200.
The dimensions of the Twin Towers were 87 ft by 135 ft.
Is the plane in the pictures the larger or smaller plane in your opinion?
Quote: “There it is clear that the South Tower has engines mounted on pylons and are totally separate from the wings like those of the 737.”
Yes, I did.
What I’m saying is that the 767’s engines are also podded and completely separate from the wings, as clearly shown in the side-on picture that I linked in my previous comment. They are slightly below and well ahead of the wings; at no point does the engine pod come in direct contact with the wing.
It only /looked/ that way in the picture you posted because of the angle of that picture — from forward angles, the pylons are foreshortened and it appears that the engine pods are directly attached to the wings. They are, in fact, not.
This picture of a Boeing KC-767 (the tanker transport variant of the 767-200ER) clearly shows the layout of the 767’s engine pods.
I think we’ll just have to agree to differ on the question of the engines.
You have yet to address the other issues I raised in the articles,
-the impossibility of the speed the plane was going if it had been a 767,
-the eyewitness statements about the South tower plane, and of course
-the relative size of the plane viz-a-viz the dimensions of the South Towers inthe photos.
Wordgeezer.There are those that are pinged therefore they come.
Curious did the 767’s actually “fly” into the towers ? At 80 + and 94 + stories they are “flying” higher than 700 ft. “Crashing” into the buildings would also describe the theories of material dispersement that both sides of the discussion seem to agree on.Pre- impact disintegration is not a given is it ? “Crashing” would also seem to be of credit to the theory that the terrorists had not received enough training to “fly”. I could supply a photo that shows a tail marking also one that shows windows in the wreckage which clearly no one thinks was shipped in by FDNY. Also if the “fact” of x ft at z speed is to be fully embraced..How does anyone see windows and discern them not there as opposed to how plane windows look with shades down and or the cargo model which shows the metal work outline of where windows are in passenger craft ? All questions but that goes with the call sign. I respect the fact that people actually try to discuss even if my personal views and real life evidence prevents me from agreeing w/the thesis. Thx
I’m not arguing that the plane /was/ a 767 as the government claims, I’m merely pointing out that some of the evidence in favor of it being a 737 is a bit shaky — especially the engine argument, given the core commonality between the CFM-56 and the CF6 and that the 767 does in fact have podded engines.
You stated that the 767’s engines are “embedded” in the wings. This is by definition not true. Embedded engines are by definition /entirely/ within the wings, such as on the de Havilland Comet and its military half-sibling the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod.
The Boeing 767 has engine pods mounted on wing pylons. The engine is nearly level with the wing, but it is /in front of/ the wing, not directly below it. This is especially evident in the third picture below, because the engine is painted blue.
Jaclyn:
It’s 23:11 here in the UK.
-speed
-eyewitnesses
I’m beginning to suffer from Boeing fatigue. Please address.
Over and out.
Intothefray
Howdy…Pre-impact disintegration a given? I think not, neither is disintegration by the impact of an airliner or fire in the skyscraper. I am not an expert, but it appears that the NIST investigation doesn’t hold water. There has been a lot of evidence found that doesn’t make sense, like the microwaved vehicles surrounding the WTC buildings, some of them being pretty far from the collapse, and a lot of evidence that was sent to the smelters and the Fresh Kills landfill. etc. Etc. that really should be addressed. What are your personal views on an independent investigation…G:
Here’s some more proof on the engine pod issue:
In this picture, the engine pods clearly appear to be mounted directly underneath the wings, with no pylon between:
However, in this picture of the EXACT SAME AIRCRAFT it becomes apparent that the engines are indeed pylon-mounted:
And in this picture, the “secret” of the 767’s disappearing pylons is revealed. Whereas the pylons on most aircraft are angled to hold the engine pod in front of and below the wing, the 767’s pylons hold the engine pod in front of but nearly level with the wing.
As to the speed of the airliner, I’m not an aerospace engineer. I do know several very good aerospace engineers whom I trust, and will be consulting them on this issue ASAP.
Wordgeezer
“Do you have any documentation showing that it was the CIA that deleted those torture videos. Just wondering? G:”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/08/washington/08intel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
White House and Justice Department officials, along with senior members of Congress, advised the Central Intelligence Agency in 2003 against a plan to destroy hundreds of hours of videotapes showing the interrogations of two operatives of Al Qaeda, government officials said Friday.
The chief of the agency’s clandestine service nevertheless ordered their destruction in November 2005, taking the step without notifying even the C.I.A.’s own top lawyer, John A. Rizzo, who was angry at the decision, the officials said.
The disclosures provide new details about what Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, has said was a decision “made within C.I.A. itself” to destroy the videotapes. In interviews, members of Congress and former intelligence officials also questioned some aspects of the account General Hayden provided Thursday about when Congress was notified that the tapes had been destroyed.
It’s from the NY Times… would they lie?
Thanks a lot Ed, and the answer is nope…not intentionally, but we both know that Cheney runs the show. The blame is pinned on Jose Rodriquez, who has now resigned and is unavailable for comment. A common modus operendumb for Bu$hco, who remembers nothing…G:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004845.php
Eyup. Scapegoating an underling and forcing the poor schmuck to retire is pretty much standard operating procedure in dirty politics, not just from Bu$hco’s gang.
Jaclyn,
While I accept the fact that the engines of a 767 have pylons, those of the plane in the video resemble those of the 737, not 737, in which the entire engine is seperate from the wing. The front of the 767 engine makes contact with the wing.
There’s still the issue of…
– eyewitneses who say that what they saw was not a commercial airliner, one of them a reporter on CNN, and
– how it was an aluminium-constructed plane could penetrate the steel-frame walls of the Twin Towerrs without disintegrating and which were built to withstand such an impact.
Another point not mentioned in the article is the colour of the fireball that emerged after the impact, too reddish for aircraft fuel, more like napalm.
I have concentrated on one small facet of 9/11.
There are many others, such as the way in which the Twin Towers collapsed (at freefall speed into their own footprint, something unprecedented for such buildings in modern civilization), the way in which WTC7 collapsed (a blatant and obvious controlled demolition), the stated need for a “new pearl harbor”, explosions heard in the basement of the Twin Towers BEFORE the plane hit the building, the anomalies in the official account of flight 93, the fact that mobile phones could not make contact with the ground at that time, why one of the passengers introduced himself to his mother using both forename and surname (!), the lack of plane debris at the Pentagon, Norman Mineta’s testimony about Dick Cheney ordering a standown of NORAD, the company responsible for security on which Melvyn Bush sat stoppping security procedures two weeks before the attacks, the money made on wall street, Larry Silverstein’s “stroke of luck” in which he did not have to fork out the millions needed to refurbish the asbestos-clad twin towers and could claim instead on insurance and make millions, the microwaved cars around the Trade Center…
…I could go on, but I think this is a fairly pointless exercise…
You can pick holes in each little piece of evidence, but doesn’t it seem to you that there are so many pieces of evidence to pick holes through, and can you honestly pick holes in all of them.
Still, it’s important to challenge the kind of statements I’ve made in my article and GEF is right, it’s important that people think for themselves and don’t just take what I say as a given without challenging it.
Over and out.
Quote: While I accept the fact that the engines of a 767 have pylons, those of the plane in the video resemble those of the 737, not 737, in which the entire engine is seperate from the wing. The front of the 767 engine makes contact with the wing.
Did you look at the pictures I posted? They make it quite clear that the 767 engines in front of the wings and /do not/ in fact touch them. It only looks that way in your picture because the angle that picture was taken at causes the pylons to be foreshortened. In other words, it’s an optical illusion.
In this picture, it looks like the engine pod touches the wing as you claim: http://widebodyaircraft.nl/b767mart.jpg
However, this picture clearly illustrates that the above effect is only an optical illusion. The engine does not touch the wing: http://www.2747.com/2747/buy/1988/airplane/boeing767300er.JPG
This picture makes it even more clear: http://www.iiptc.com/images/planes/gallery/Boeing767-233.jpg
Quote: “the fact that mobile phones could not make contact with the ground at that time”
I talked to one of the engineers who designed the GSM system, and he explained that regular GSM phones /always/ lose signal at speeds of over about 80 MPH because they can’t lock onto a cellular tower at that speed. They were able to simplify the network design quite a bit by setting it up for low speed only like that.
CDMA phones are a newer and more advanced system which can connect at higher speeds, although CDMA networks (especially back in 2001) have much more limited area coverage.
Quote: You can pick holes in each little piece of evidence, but doesn’t it seem to you that there are so many pieces of evidence to pick holes through, and can you honestly pick holes in all of them.
Absolutely. I simply pick at the ones I feel are flawed because the only way to really expose the government is to have a rock-solid case.
Hi Jaclyn
I found some information, in the nitty gritty department, on airliner speeds at low elevations.
According to this Airline pilot the 767 couldn’t fly any faster than 375 mph…G:
9/11 Truth Movement Forums
From: David Hoshour (Professional airline pilot)
The Vne of most commercial jets is an instrument term that is related to True AIrspeed (TAS) EVEYTHING in aerodynamics is realted to TAS. TAS is how fast the airplane is moving through the air around it. What affects TAS is density altitude, how hig or low you are and temperature, the higher the temoerature the thinner the air, therefore the airplane behaves like it is at a higher altitude. This means less air resistance and therefore a higher TAS. Vne is a term that is related to to the structural strength of the aircraft and is read by the pilots from the aircraft instruments. It is measured in KIAS (Knots, indicated Air speed)It is a measure of the difference in compressibilty between static air pressure and dynamic air pressure (pitot tube and static ports measure these inputs, Air DAta computers figure it out and convert this info to usable form to the pilots). So what we are talking about in Vne is an Indicated airspeed on the instruments. Now this value does have a correlative value to how fast the aircraft is actually travelling through the air (TAS) but it is affected like I said by altitude and temperature but only by a few percent 10-20% at an extreme. So an aircraft will display the approximately the same KIAS at all altitudes and temperture. Most jets Vne around 320-340 KIAS. This value is the same at low and high altitudes, because as I previously mentioned KIAS measures the differential pressure of the aircraft moving thriugh the air. That is the limiting factor (TAS) the amount of force or pressure incurred against the structure of the aircraft, the output of the engines is the important and limiting thing. That is why an airplane can have a 200 kt tailwind and not fall apart. It may be trveling at nearly 600mph but the resistance and forces applied to the body are only at 500mph. These values are at high altitude where the air is much thinner, there is much less resistance, pressure and forces acting on the airplane. So the real number we’re looking for is TAS not Ground Speed (GS) At sea level, at standard (International Civil Aviotion Authority, ICAO kinda like ISO 9000) temperature 59F standard pressure 29.92 “Hg. KIAS and TAS are exactly the same! Pressure decreases 1″Hg. per one thousand feet of altitude gained and TAS increases 1% per every thousand feet of altitude. Temperature affects it even less. So at 700ft at near normal temperatures on 9-11 in NYC KIAS is going to be very close to TAS give or take 2-3% Given Vne of 340 KIAS we’re talking about a TAS of about 340kt TAS. convert kt into MPH it’s about 375 MPH. To get to 500+ MPH you’d need that much in difference in tailwind. HMMM? 150+MPH winds at 700 feet altitude in NYC. Was there a level 5 hurricane that day? I hope that adds some fuel! You can qoute me on all of this!!!
This is a picture of the South Tower aircraft, side-by-side with a non-government computer rendering of a Boeing 767 at exactly the same angle. As you can see, the engine placement is an exact match.
Quote: According to this Airline pilot the 767 couldn’t fly any faster than 375 mph…G:
The pilot is talking about VNE, which is short for “Velocity Never Exceed”. That is the maximum /safe/ flight speed for an aircraft; a plane won’t instantly come apart in midair at speeds above VNE, but does experience dangerously high stress levels. All modern commercial aircraft are significantly overbuilt in order to provide a safety margin; above VNE you’re playing with fire by using up the safety margin.
It should also be noted that the VNEs for airliners are very, very conservative because the airlines don’t want to stress the airframe any more than they have to. Wheras military fighter jets have very aggressively calculated VNEs and run right to the edge of their maximum performance, airliners are very sedate.
The ~500 MPH impacts of the WTC airliners exceed VNE for both the 737 and the 767, but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have happened — only that the airframe was badly stressed in the process. Not something the terrorists (be they Al-Qaeda or “Al-CIA”) were particularly concerned about, obviously.
Sorry, forgot to post the actual picture. This is the 767 side-by-side comparison I mentioned.
This would be a good time to come up with a few facts from reliable witnesses Jaclyn…G:
Investigation anyone?
About what? I do know a couple of airline mechanics who may be able to dig up info on just how overbuilt a 767 is. As I explained above, the VNE alone doesn’t prove it can’t fly that fast, especially not just for a brief suicide dive.
Quote: Absolutely. I simply pick at the ones I feel are flawed because the only way to really expose the government is to have a rock-solid case.
Good point, Jaclyn, and I feel we will be able to make a rock-solid case. As you will have seen, I have removed all references in this article to laser weapons, which I don’t think helped to do this.
I’ve looked at the pictures of the 767s and yes, the engines are on pylons and they don’t touch the wings.
Having said that, there is clear blue sky between the engines and the wings of the plane which flew into the south tower if you look at the video and this would be impossible with the 767 at any angle.
Jaclyn, how do you explain the fact that an aluminium (aluminum, you call it in the US), constructed plane was able to penetrate a steel-framed building which was built to withstand collisions by Boeings airliners?
One of the videos shows flashes just before each plane crashes into the wall of the buildings. Could this be a missile, and could the plane have penetrated the building without this help?
Another of the videos shows that the plane would have disintegrated outside the building and only the steel engines would have penetrated.
Is this one of the stronger pieces of evidence or do you feel this has flaws as well.
According the film, “Loose Change”, flight 93 was spotted at Chicago airport in 2003 and according to the FAA flights 93 and 175 are still valid.
BTW, what is your background? You are very knowledgable about aviation. My background is history. Geeezerpower is the scientist amongst us.
Quote: “Having said that, there is clear blue sky between the engines and the wings of the plane which flew into the south tower if you look at the video and this would be impossible with the 767 at any angle.”
I would hesitate to be that definitive; the video is rather blurry and I think the case is stronger without arguments that are based on “fuzzy stuff”. Frankly, technical evidence is far and away the best; blurry videos and pictures can be interpreted any which way and eyewitnesses are often honestly (or not so honestly) mistaken.
The CFM56 engine was the strongest single point you mentioned on the 737 vs 767 issue, and it’s really too bad that the engine core commonality between the CF6 and the CFM56 makes it a moot point.
Quote: BTW, what is your background? You are very knowledgable about aviation. My background is history. Geeezerpower is the scientist amongst us.
I’m a biologist, actually, with a specialty in cognitive science (neurobiology + psychology + computer science = lots of fun stuff!).
Quote: One of the videos shows flashes just before each plane crashes into the wall of the buildings. Could this be a missile, and could the plane have penetrated the building without this help?
I don’t think it’s a missile. Those flares don’t match the launch signature of any air-to-air or air-to-surface missile, and the plane is much too close to the building when the flare is seen — any missile fired that late wouldn’t have enough time to arm itself before hitting the building.
What we really need here is a digitally enhanced and cleaned up version of that video from a source we can /trust/. The raw footage is just too poor quality for serious analysis work.
Thanks for that, Jaclyn.
Quote: The CFM56 engine was the strongest single point you mentioned on the 737 vs 767 issue, and it’s really too bad that the engine core commonality between the CF6 and the CFM56 makes it a moot point.
You’ve not yet dealt with the “impossibility” of an aluminum-constructed plane being able to penetrate unaided the steel-framed Twin Towers…
…and the flash.
Quote: Jaclyn, how do you explain the fact that an aluminium (aluminum, you call it in the US), constructed plane was able to penetrate a steel-framed building which was built to withstand collisions by Boeings airliners?
The key thing to realize is that the building wasn’t built to /survive/ being hit by an airliner. It was built to /not collapse/ when hit by a 707. What the building designers did was use the Boeing 707 — which was the biggest, heaviest thing in the sky at the time — to establish the worst-case requirements for structural integrity.
They never sat down and analyzed what would happen if an actual, real-life airliner hit the towers. They simply calculated the structural integrity required to withstand an impact of such-and-such a mass at such-and-such a velocity, based on the 707 which was the most extreme possible impact they could think of.
To analyze what “should” have happened, we really need to get our hands on detailed schematics for the towers. The government’s explanations are entirely too glib, but I’d be surprised if there wasn’t /some/ truth in them. Half-truths are always the best lies.
Quote: You’ve not yet dealt with the “impossibility” of an aluminum-constructed plane being able to penetrate unaided the steel-framed Twin Towers…
…and the flash.
Getting to those, especially since they’re issues regardless of whether the planes were 767s or 737s. Need more time and information — especially time, I’m a college kid and it’s FINALS WEEK, AAAAAAAAAH!!!!
Can an aluminum-constructed airliner penetrate a steel-frame building, Jaclyn?
According to one of the videos I’ve posted, this is not possible.
And the flashes?
Quote: I’m a college kid and it’s FINALS WEEK, AAAAAAAAAH!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You’d better get down to some revision, then, kid!
I’m sure you’ll do well. Best of luck!
Okay, I found something from one of the WTC designers.
“The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767- 200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact. ”
They considered the “worst case” for the WTC buildings to be a 707 impacting at low velocity due to fog on approach to the airport. The designer also explicitly says that they did not consider fire at all:
“It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. “
Pilots For 911 Truth
These guys have been studying the planes for a while. Here are a couple of pictures of flight 175…. And then a video of the flight 175 dive bomber…LOL Do these photos indicate a plane that has just done a descent from 18000 feet in 3 minutes? Which is correct the photographs or the video?
9/11 United 175 Nose Dive
Quote: “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”
Well, what are the effects of the load of aircraft fuel the planes would have had on asbestos-coated steel?
What colour is burning aircraft fuel?
What colour were the flames that emerged from the twin towers?
Why the flash before impact of both planes?
Can a “Boeing 767- 200ER aircraft that…[with]… an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact” actually penetrate a steel-constructed building even at that higher velocity?
Are we still dealing with a resistible force meeting a well-nigh irresistible object?
Quote: Well, what are the effects of the load of aircraft fuel the planes would have had on asbestos-coated steel?
Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500 degrees, well below steel’s melting point of 2750 degrees but /below/ structural steel’s critical temperature of 540 degrees. This means that the fire would have severely weakened the steel frame — at a temperature of 1100 degrees, steel is at barely /half/ its room-temperature strength.
Quote: This means that the fire would have severely weakened the steel frame
How long did the jet fuel burn? A minute? Two minutes? Long enough to weaken the steel? I very much doubt it.
@ Wordgeezer,sorry for the delay. I don’t believe given the gravity of the subject any investigation would be 1.truly independent and 2. accepted by those that only want to hearwhat they want to hear. @ anthony,jet fuel burns crazy, so much so that on carriers jettison is used since standard extinguishing falls short too often.
in2thefray…The gravity of the subject is of concern, but what is needed here is the truth, and no one should be above that. One thing for sure is that this administration investigating itself has been done on every issue where the truth presents
itself. If we have a government that is using lies to promote their ideologies then we have something that doesn’t even resemble Democracy.
About jet fuel…It is about the same volatility as is used in a kerosene lamp, oily to the touch, and much safer than gasoline.
Commercial jet fuel, known as Jet-A, is pure kerosene and has a flashpoint of 120 degrees Fahrenheit (49 degrees Celsius). It is a high-quality fuel, however, and if it fails the purity and other quality tests for use on jet aircraft, it is sold to other ground-based users with less demanding requirements, like railroad engines. Commercial jet fuel as well as military jet fuel often includes anti-freeze to prevent ice buildup inside the fuel tanks.
A major problem with gasoline is that it has what is known as a low “flashpoint.” This is the temperature at which it produces fumes that can be ignited by an open flame. Gasoline has a flashpoint of around 30 degrees Fahrenheit (-1 degree Celsius). This makes fires much more likely in the event of an accident. So engine designers sought to develop engines that used fuels with higher flashpoints.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/fuel/Tech21.htm
[…] Research more about this from here […]
Good stuff.
🙂
FYI…CFM56 not CMF56
Otherwise, good report
Use your eyes, the 737 has too short a wingspan, what hit WTC2 was a 767 no other plane fits the profile.
Yes…the wingspan of a 737 before winglets pre 2000 was 117 ft….the width of one side of the towers was 200 ft…the image shown in news reports show the collison damage to be nearer that of a 767 which is 156 ft wing tip to tip leaving 22 ft either side.