Personally I would not expend too much energy in that direction
the fact is ( and proven beyond any doubt ) that the airliners could not possibly have actually been airliners, and no I’m not going to speculate as to what it was, but the fact is that no airliner ever flown could have done as was claimed for the alleged FLT11, FLT175 & FLT77 …
If you’re claiming the whole thing never happened, then there’s nothing more to say to you.
It happened, 1000s saw it live, almost 3000 died and you’re shitting on their memories.
standard denial mode,
First of all in memory of all those who lost their lives that day
the most respectful thing I can think of is to get to the bottom of why they died.
additionally if “thousands” saw it live, please be so kind as to support your statement with any witness statements that you can find to support your assertion.
Please note that I’m not saying “the whole thing didn’t happen”
I am saying that the media report on what allegedly happened is totally fraudulent.
“won’t last long, because the engines will not produce enough thrust to maintain that speed”
Thank you for that bit, and really
Hollow Point ammo works by deforming upon resistance, doesn’t matter if that resistance is Buffalo hide or what, its just a matter or reacting to the resistance.
There are all sorts of problems with the airliner penetrating a skyscraper wall “like a hot knife through butter” and that is an accurate characterization given what can be seen on the video.
This is not a threadshit, by me, at least, because knowledge is good, and the thread is worthwhile. I count three here off the bat, and the first one is new to me but presents novel modes of CT.
So you believe that FLT175 penetrated the south wall of the south tower
“like a hot knife through butter”
… or?
Fact is that no airliner ever flown could have done what the airliners on 9/11/2001
were alleged to have done.
A B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building on 28 July 1945. Parts of the plane traveled completely through the building and were found in the next block.
question about this: did the aircraft penetrate completely disappearing inside?
and also the engines of that B-25 were piston type and had massive solid blocks of metal for the physical structure. ( note the term “engine block” )
the fact remains that for the alleged FLT11, FLT175 & FLT77
to have punched a hole in a wall and then disappeared completely inside the building, The airliner would have had to behave as if it were a hardened steel punch.
great trick for an aluminum airliner.
The bomber gored through the thick steel and stone of the building as if they were papier-mâché.
B-25 engines weighed approximately 2045 pounds each; engines on the planes that hit the Towers each weighed at least four times that.
Bad model. Its more like a small car colliding with the side of a bus. The small car car be found pertty much inside the bus. Its two similar structures… just some metal skin over a minimal metal skeleton.
Some parts of the steel structure (the bus or building) cuts the airplane , but that doesn’t mean that every steel part cuts the airplane… the airplane pressures on the steel and blows it away… the air pressure at the impact is kept high and the building is pushed apart or back , peeled and folded.
The engines of the 757 were said to have weighed no more than 5 tons, so yes as a complete engine your figure is correct, however the bit that was found on Murray st
could not have weighed in at more than a few hundred pounds if that ( what happened to the rest of it? )
Also note that in the case of the twin towers, the airliner would have had to displace not less than 3 tons of mass in making that hole in addition to bending/ breaking sections of box column and compressing a 5 meter dia airliner body into a space defined by 3.6 meter between decks and further impeded by the fact that there was floor truss structure in that space. all of this adds up to resistance and a reasonable educated guess of deceleration is decrease of 1 mph/millisecond and at that the deceleration g force would be >45, that is the jet engines would exert >180 tons against their mounts. and this is simply an example of what would be happening to the entire aircraft under the stress of rapid deceleration. in short the airliner would break apart and strike the wall as a shot-gun blast of bits rather than having any possibility of making that wing shaped gash.
" just some metal skin over a minimal metal skeleton." This does NOT describe the wall of the WTC towers, the towers were built of steel box columns and these box columns were backed up by decks spaced at 3.6 meters and additionally space was taken up by the floor truss structure, and into this, was supposed to have been compressed a 5 meter dia airliner body. and with “negligible” resistance, really guyz?
What specifically would it take to convince you that your assumptions are wrong, and that this disaster happened just the way it was reported? What sources could we used that you would find acceptable?
Proven by who? And how? Since this is General Questions, people are going to expect you to provide cites for anything you comment on as being factual.
What’s two plus two…and Don’t say four.
Do you deny that jet aircraft actually do fly at that speed? Have you, yourself, ever taken a cross-continental flight? I have: leaving Los Angeles and arriving in Atlanta, inside five hours. Do the math.
The energy comes from combustion of jet fuel in turbine engines. Impressive!
When I was young, I assembled a Saturn V that stood about five feet tall on a shelf next to my bed. The bodies of each major stage consisted of a sheet of plastic about as thick as three pages of standard notebook paper, but when rolled into a cylinder glued shut, the structure as incredibly strong, holding up several pounds of stage end pieces and the solid CM.
A cylinder is a very stiff and sturdy structure. Opposed to the fairly light steel bars flat on (their weakest orientation) at very high speeds, it is entirely believable that the body could have penetrated well into the building, because a skyscraper is built for tremendous vertical load, not so much for lateral strength.
From images I can quickly search, it is evident that there was more penetration toward the center of the impact than at the wingtips, which seems entirely consistent with what one would expect.
Why not complete (pass-through) penetration? Probably because the planes were descending rapidly upon impact. If they had been flying level, the heavy engines might have gone completely through the buildings. While they might have seemed to be flying flat, they had quite a lot of downward momentum from their approach. Going down through several floors explains why the engines did not come flying out the other side. Add to that that the second plane hit near the corner, driving it along the greatest distance across the building.
He seems to think that airliners can’t fly much above takeoff speed unless they climb to high altitude.
Much the same way he thinks airplanes act like hollowpoint bullets. That’s one I haven’t heard before.
Ever been inside an airplane? Ever notice that the inside of an airplane is mostly empty space with some chairs and people, rather than solid metal?
Ever been inside an office building? Ever notice that it’s mostly empty space inside, with a few dividers and desks and filing cabinets and chairs, rather than solid steel and concrete?
What happens when a hollow metal cylinder smashes into a hollow metal box? They mostly just crush each other into shreds.
Also, have you ever noticed that there’s no way to project a three dimensional image into the sky?
Obviously, the test that needs doing is to anchor a plane in the air and accelerate a skyscraper to 500 mph and see what happens.
Or buy some washers.
Man, the new street drugs are wicked!