My name is Bill Yenne, I'm a military and aviation author. Ask me anything.

reply to post by weavty1


Sorry I was just clearing something up and clarifying some facts, but i am looking forward to getting back on track when bill is back on.

Cheers.

reply to post by GERRY041284


NASA presence at Area 51? Shadowhawk is right. NACA was used as a cover story in the early days, but NASA has had no overt presence since. The thing to remember is that NASA's mandate is that of a wholly public agency with no secrets. The opposite is true with the CIA, where everything is secret, or the military, where there are selective secrets. NASA could not be there without having to make public everything it does.

reply to post by UKGuy1805


Secret bases in Scotland? There are numerous secret bases around the world. Many are not really bases, but very long runways with minimal facilities. These probably include sites that were built for SAC during the Cold War and "decommissioned." Diego Garcia is still essentially a secret base even if some of what happens there has been made public.

UKGuy1805
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

I was being sarcastic, an intact plane can not fly through concrete and steel, mite do some damage yes, but not phsicaly fly through it, remember that test with a F4 Phantom being slammed into a slab of concrete, remember how the plane was totally destroyed turned into mush and a zillion pieces.

Sorry but apples with apples the concrete block you go on about (which was a few feet thick!) was NOT what the twin towers were made of, the test was done iirc to see what would happen if an aircraft struck a nuclear powers station now since concrete mix in such situations can include ball bearing, cut up engine blocks etc it's not the same as structural concrete used in buildings !

The towers had VERY LITTLE structural concrete apart from the foundation pads, the floor slabs had 4" of a lighter weight floor mix and if you bother to look at the images of the impact areas on the towers you can see how the steelwork failed at column tree joints, oh by the way I worked in the design and drawing office for a STRUCTURAL steelwork company for a few years when I left school and have worked in construction for 30+ years.

Aircraft are stronger than you think they have to survive the stresses of flying at speed with quite a mass on board between fuel, passengers & luggage.

reply to post by BillYenne


Level 1-15 were built by us, level 16-27 were already present.

reply to post by BillYenne


What I was trying to say is how Tags used on Sharks and / or Whales etc. - plenty of special fish are also tagged - can be traced 24/7 365 per year regardless of which part of the worldwode ocean they may swim to. A new company have now decided and shown pre-plans, to fit Aeroplane black boc, with a 90 day battery....... Surely and supposing a plane does hit the water and sink, then a similar water proofed chip - as the said Aquatic monitoring tag, would have made even the MH 370 more easier to find and quicker. ???

Have a given interest in Avionic devices, once stood close to Blackbird type plane shown in your avatar, spoke with the crew and was shocked when i saw how large the engines are. Also met a team of B 52 supporters come flight crew etc. and at present use one old morse code key that was used - during WW2 - on a uk Lancaster.

Have fun catch you further doen the line. 10:1 it was a faulty AIRDU plus that helped create the loss of MH 370, did you read how a similar incident had happened a year back to another 777 Malayasian plan, registered as MH MRG, as it tried to fly back to KL from Perth Australia............ Suppose all will one day be revealed, eh ???????

Are you talking about the blue lights over the ranges ?

Merlyn2014
reply to post by BillYenne

 

Level 1-15 were built by us, level 16-27 were already present.

Lol, wtf are you quoting man??

Have no clue what you're referring to.

reply to post by weavty1

I was sorry, maybe off topic, but the levels at Area 51.

wmd_2008

UKGuy1805
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

I was being sarcastic, an intact plane can not fly through concrete and steel, mite do some damage yes, but not phsicaly fly through it, remember that test with a F4 Phantom being slammed into a slab of concrete, remember how the plane was totally destroyed turned into mush and a zillion pieces.

Sorry but apples with apples the concrete block you go on about (which was a few feet thick!) was NOT what the twin towers were made of, the test was done iirc to see what would happen if an aircraft struck a nuclear powers station now since concrete mix in such situations can include ball bearing, cut up engine blocks etc it's not the same as structural concrete used in buildings !

The towers had VERY LITTLE structural concrete apart from the foundation pads, the floor slabs had 4" of a lighter weight floor mix and if you bother to look at the images of the impact areas on the towers you can see how the steelwork failed at column tree joints, oh by the way I worked in the design and drawing office for a STRUCTURAL steelwork company for a few years when I left school and have worked in construction for 30+ years.

Aircraft are stronger than you think they have to survive the stresses of flying at speed with quite a mass on board between fuel, passengers & luggage.

edit on 9-4-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

Aircraft strength depends on stress being distributed over a structure (skin). Visualize a pipe. You push on it, and the stress is distributed around the pipe. If there is a cut in the pipe, the stress becomes localized. So an aircraft is strong when the frame is intact, but comes apart easily when the frame is broken. I've been to many crash sites and it looks like the plane went through a shredder. Now components survive (brakes, engine castings), and often pieces of the wing, but the rest of the plane becomes shrapnel. You literally see pieces of the plane hanging in the trees.