You mean me and John Doe

Let’s now get to the question of Lear’s statement regarding the “impossible speed” at which both AA11 and UA175 were flying, according to official reports. Here are the simple facts relating to the Boeing 767-200’s AA11 & UA175 on 9/11;
1.   The speed of the aircraft that hit the WTC was officially reported as between 500mph and 560mph ground speed, calculated by the observed point to point distance covered over time.
 2.   A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure. It as the aircraft approaches the speed of sound when the properties extreme high and low pressure areas can have destructive effects on the airframe. This figure is as with all limits set conservatively.
 3.   The speed of sound at approximate sea level is 761 mph on a standard day. Therefore the theoretical maximum speed the 767-200 can reach intact is, conservatively, .86 x 761mph = 654mph or approximately 100mph above the officially reported speed of AA11 or UA175.
 4.   The 767-200 is an aircraft that’s considered highly powered due to its requirement to function with only one engine for ETOPS - Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards. It is capable of taking off fully loaded with only one engine.
 5.   Lear’s argument: The normal maximum operating speed at sea level is 360Knots/h (Nautical miles) which equates to 415mph (a lot less than seen on 9/11). It is not, as Lear stated in his interview 360mph, which is considerably less. This maximum operating speed (Indicated) used is something that is decided by Boeing in conjunction with the operator and is not a structural or performance limit; rather it has been determined to be a safe speed at which to operate with commercial passengers on board and to prevent the need for increased maintenance.
 6.   The 767-200 is considered by pilots and aviation professionals to be a “slick” or “low drag” aircraft, being without bulbous construction and with highly swept 31.5 degree wings. It is well known that it is difficult to keep the 767 aircraft from over-speeding during decent; due to its low drag/high power configuration.
Considering all of these facts we are still left with the question: Can a 767-200 make 560mph ground speed at sea level or the equivalent of .74 of Mach speed? We know that it is definitely within its design parameters and that it can do so at high altitude (not in question), but can it do this at sea level (higher air density)? Considering that 560mph is 145mph faster than its recommended maximum operating speed (Lear’s argument), it is simply not possible to test this speed in a commercial 767-200 aircraft; it would be against the aircraft manufacturer’s recommendations, outside of standard company operating procedures and against the authorities’ rules (FAA in US).  For these reasons we will not see a 767-200 attain 560mph in operation unless it is in the middle of an aircraft incident or accident. The only way to test this is in an accredited Full Flight Simulator.
Boeing 767-300 Simulator Experiment on the 29th of April 2009
The idea of using a Full Flight Simulator accredited by the FAA or relevant authority to test the maximum attainable speed for a Boeing 767-200 is only possible if you have the thousands of dollars it costs to hire such or access to one through your vocation.  Well it just so happens that during my training in Sydney I worked in our Simulator Centre as a technician where Australian 767 pilots are trained and certified. The simulators are extremely busy and it is difficult to get access during the day or evening. On the 29th of April, after I had completed my work for the night shift, I drove to the Simulator Facilities at our Flight Training Centre at the Jet Base. I rang the nightshift maintenance staff and gained access to the building at just after 3am on the 29th of April 2009. Being licensed on the 767 and familiar with the facilities, I asked if I might access the simulator under the supervision of the technician on duty, Daniel Gazdoc. He agreed to help and I explained what I wanted to do and why.
We boarded the simulator (#2) which was configured as a GE powered 767-300 (marginally different from the 767-200, being a little longer and a bit heavier) and booted up the computers, placing the aircraft at 2000ft above Sydney (This altitude was set to prevent us hitting any obstacles if I lost control, resulting in an insignificant 6mph difference compared to AA11 and UA175; that is compared to Mach speed). We set the aircraft weight to 130,000kgs (286,000 pounds), approximately what it would have been on Flight 11 and 175; that is, lightly loaded. We pulled the aural warning circuit breakers on the overhead panel so that we would not be annoyed by configuration and over-speed warnings during our test.  I sat in the pilot’s seat and pushed the throttles to the stops, maintaining wings level and a flat trajectory. To my surprise, within a few seconds we had exceeded the maximum operating Indicated Air Speed of 360Knots/h (415mph); then the needle continued to rise until it hit the stop on the indicator at over 400Knots/h (460mph). At this very fast speed you only have the Mach indication to go off, as IAS (Indicated Air Speed) is off the scale. The aircraft continued to increase speed until it reached .86 Mach (654mph), which is its rated airframe Mach speed limit. This makes complete sense, as the manufacturer does not want you to exceed this but wants you to have the maximum thrust available in case of emergency. At this air speed I was surprised at how easy it was to maintain my attitude once the aircraft was trimmed.
Originally thinking I was going to have to do a dive to attain the speeds of AA11 and UA175 due to the engines possibly struggling to make enough thrust, I thought it would be good to see what speed we could achieve in a shallow dive. We took the aircraft to 10,000ft and I commenced a 5 degree dive to 2,000ft and found that the aircraft attained and maintained a speed of .89 Mach (approaching 700mph) and was reasonably easy to control for a non-pilot. We did these tests a couple more times to be sure and then at about 3:45am I left the simulator. Daniel was happy for me to record his name.

The WTC was not built according to its design, notably in the use and distribution of the fireproofing on the columns.

But never mind all that.  Read the following:
The writer is John Bursill – Licensed Avionics Aircraft Engineer, Boeing 767/737/747 Series
http://911blogger.com/node/20232

Where is your 500MPH Mark. Maybe a job at boeing as an engineer is the way to go for you. You can show the engineers there what they dont know.

You insist that we all go do some reserch,when it is clear that you do none of your own. Blind faith is your reserch,and you own misguided conceptions. NIST report is not only wrong about the plane's speed,but also just impossible. Im afraid you have fell in your own hole,and data/reserch that i have done,that is obtained from the people that designed and built the bloody planes clearly shows you are FOS. So now you have to go do some reserch your self,and find two things.
1-Another highrise building that has completely collapsed(as the WTC did) from fire weakening the steel structure to a point of failure.
2- A document from boeing that states that it is possible for a 767 to fly at 500MPH at sea level-which it is not,the engines simply cannot provide the thrust required to do so,and the plane also has built in safty parameters that dont allow these speeds at sea level even if they were possible.

What has happened here is,-you have asked that we all do our reserch,while all you do is quote NIST,NIST,NIST-which is full of so many holes it's not funny.

So,1&2 Mark,lets see how you go with your reserch

Oh,and a little something extra.

WTC engineers have confirmed that the WTC was designed to withstand the inpact of a 707,which was one of the largest passenger planes at the time-->fuel load was also accounted for. The 707 also had a higher cruising speed than that of the 767,and even though slightly smaller than the 767,it would have hit with a higher energy impact.

The problem is that you have taken up with nutters.

You have your eyes wide shut Mark,there is no doubt about that.
Oh,and i got some bad news for you in regards to bouyancy/gravity devices not being able to do work. How about a 10Kw unit thats been running since 2010,and was the show piece at the united Nations  COP15 conference in Copenhagen . Bet you would love to know all about that one.

Oh,could you direct me to the building 7 part in the NIST report-->i cant seem to find it?

What planes can really do. But i doubt you will even give it the time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs5RQ_5nu4k

What all this adds up to is that in the very best of overly optimistic cases you get zero sum gain and the machine simply transmits input power to the output without loss.  In real life it is much worse than that.