Plane shredded to pieces

originally posted by: ShadowChatter
why you do not believe the pilots when they say the maneuvers preformed were next too impossible

Why don't you believe pilots that say it was possible?

originally posted by: ShadowChatter

I see and this why you do not believe the pilots when they say the maneuvers preformed were next too impossible ....

I have seen only two individuals who ever claimed that the movements made by the planes on 9/11 was "impossible". But aside from this, what is the alternative explanation? Millions of people all around the world saw those planes hit the WTC, we saw it on the day, live all around the world as the second plane impacted the tower.

We later saw a video of the first plane hitting the first tower.

Hundreds of thousands of people in New York all saw those planes hitting those towers, and yet we're supposed to just ignore all of that actual eye witness evidence and the videos of it actually happening, and believe a couple of complete fools who claim that something we have all seen is supposedly "impossible"?

If it's impossible, how the hell did it happen, and how the hell did millions of people ACTUALLY SEE IT HAPPEN?

This is like believing someone when they say the Moon doesn't exist.

originally posted by: ShadowChatter
or maybe you were reffering to crash investigators who worked on the TWA flight 800 crash who claim it was compromised & are calling for a new investigation

Three people, out of a team of hundreds, and which even the article itself states never raised their concerns at the time of the investigation.

Money and greed does strange things to people. I think it's far more likely these three people saw an opportunity to write some books, get some media attention and make some money. Given that all the physical evidence indicated a fuel tank fault, while everything else was either disproved or could be nothing more than hearsay, I think it's pretty clear that this is a nonsense story.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: ShadowChatter
why you do not believe the pilots when they say the maneuvers preformed were next too impossible

Why don't you believe pilots that say it was possible?

Because millions of people saw it happen, so clearly it's not impossible given that it ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

What's the alternative? Do you seriously believe that these were not passenger planes? If so, what happened to the hundreds of people who died on those planes?
Do you believe they were "holograms"? If so, what happened to the hundreds of people who died on those planes?
Do you believe that no planes hit the buildings and it was all "special effects on TV"? If so, what happened to the hundreds of passengers? And how do you explain away the hundreds of thousands of people actually in NY on the day, who actually saw planes hitting those buildings?

None of this is in any way rational. We saw what happened. The denial of reality in favor of a fantasy is delusion.

originally posted by: kenzohattori69
a reply to: AgentSmith Of course, ground effect! That explains it all.Them terrorists just floated that big ol' jumbo into the pentagram on a cushion air, somewhat like a magic carpet-ride. hellol

... while they were all trained and licensed to fly Cessna's.

a reply to: moniker

They were all certified commercial pilots who were licensed by the FAA.

Because the wings are hollow shells filled with fuel. They aren't strong enough to go through that wall.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The main reason people wonder about the pentagon I think is because mostly OP's just laugh at someone who thinks there should be a cartoon punch out of a plane in the wall. Yet this is exactly what happened at the world trade centres twice. Obviously this is different material but still, of the wings are so weak in the pentagon argument then how are they strong enough to keep their form when entering the high rises? I guess they aren't as flimsy as you say, but still not solid enough to go through concrete, and that's fair enough. I believe that. But then where did the wings of flight 77 go then?

I'm not saying I believe there were no planes but I can't say your argument is foolproof. Asking over and over "what happened to the passengers?" isn't a solid reason. Someone questioning the planes doesn't have to be able to answer those kinds of questions. Your other questions about tv footage and eyewitness accounts aren't smoking guns either. If you were going to make a plan to shoot cruise missiles or send a different type of aircraft into a building it's pretty easy and well documented as possible to dress up the craft in question as a 767 with logos and everything. Once he event happens and the story is immediately planted people who weren't 100% sure what they saw would naturally believe it was an American Airlines flight. The majority of witnesses would be right about what they thought they saw. This wouldn't explain the one or two people who swear they saw people in the windows, but it might explain the people who saw no windows at all and the people (including NYPD marine unit 6) within seconds of the second impact reported a blue grey bomber style plane, and others who reported a smaller craft or military style craft. Now personally I do believe that they were passenger liners but to get there I needed a lot more than what you're basing it on. a reply to: Rocker2013

a reply to: TheBolt

They shattered. The wings in any non landing accident crash tend to end up in very small unrecognizable pieces. They're designed to be very strong in a very specific way. Stress them in a different way, and they're relatively weak.

In 1991, a KC-135 over Saudi Arabia got caught in wake turbulence while flying behind another tanker. After they recovered two engines had fire warning lights, so they told the boom operator to check if they were on fire. He reported back that they were gone. After landing they inspected the other two and both struts were cracked.

Those struts are strong enough to hold those engines in place even through turbulence. But thru weren't stressed for side to side rolls, so when that happened they failed.

Wings are stressed for vertical movement, a lot of it. To pass certification they bend the wingtip up, and it can't fail at less than 150% of the maximum expected load. But a hard forward and back shock is going to destroy it.

Thank you. Calmly and logically stated.

In 1991, a KC-135 over Saudi Arabia got caught in wake turbulence while flying behind another tanker. After they recovered two engines had fire warning lights, so they told the boom operator to check if they were on fire. He reported back that they were gone. After landing they inspected the other two and both struts were cracked. Those struts are strong enough to hold those engines in place even through turbulence. But thru weren't stressed for side to side rolls, so when that happened they failed. Wings are stressed for vertical movement, a lot of it. To pass certification they bend the wingtip up, and it can't fail at less than 150% of the maximum expected load. But a hard forward and back shock is going to destroy it.

Lots of technical data. I'm pretty sure that a plane did hit the pentagon but the few questions I do have are pretty critical. anyone have any reason why this explanation about what happened to the wings shouldn't be believed?



a reply to: Zaphod58

If that's true, then the plane wings on the jet that hit the 2nd WTC tower should've shredded on the outside of the building. If that jet's fuselage would've missed the tower, do you think the wing would slice thru that building the same way? And regarding the 5 light poles at the Pentagon. There's no way a jet's wings could survive one strike like that and continue a straight flight path that low. It would turn into a rock at that point and drop. That is also where you would find at least some of the wing debris. But there is none. I have a problem with that.

a reply to: mrscary3721

You're comparing apples and oranges. The wall of the Pentagon was redesigned to withstand a truck bomb almost touching it. The WTC was welded and bolted steel. They're going to react totally differently to an impact.

And regarding the 5 light poles at the Pentagon. There's no way a jet's wings could survive one strike like that and continue a straight flight path that low.

Why not?
No one has said that the wing wasn't damaged.
But that doesn't mean the plane couldn't fly straight and level.
There was an F15 that landed safely with one wing missing.

It would turn into a rock at that point and drop.

What was the distance between the poles and the wall?
At 500mph you cover 733 feet per second.
I can throw a rock pretty far.

That is also where you would find at least some of the wing debris. But there is none.

Ever crush a beer can? No debris.
Plus you are forgetting that light poles are designed to snap at the base (the bolts) when impacted by autos.

I really dislike that the entire argument has broken down into "you either believe there were planes or not".

I don't honestly understand how ANYONE with a brain can make claims that jets didn't strike the Twin Towers on 9/11. The whole "no planes" theory strikes me as moronic and a complete distraction from the issue.

That being said... I personally am still not convinced that a plane DID crash in Shanksville. I don't doubt the towers were hit with jets. I'm not entirely against saying the Pentagon was hit with a jet. So does that make me one of these "no plane" people? I sure hope not.

My reasoning is simply because I have not seen enough evidence to PROVE a plane hit the ground in PA. I've seen previous evidence that the "scar" was already there for many years before 9/11. I think someone looked back on Google Earth's history and discovered it. So to me it looked like a nicely placed 500lb bomb crater in the center. No nose, no tail. Nothing but tiny little scraps, scattered over MILES. I don't know what happened in PA. But what I do know is that it can't simply be written off as a "Let's Roll" heroic moment, where the plane was nosed down into the ground and basically buried itself. I've studied many cases of airline crashes. Not a single one.. not ONE did I ever see just "scraps". (Not to mention, I've never come across one.. much less 4, where the black boxes simply vaporized.)

I'm only saying this because I certainly don't want to be considered a "no plane" person. I don't believe 9/11 can simply be grouped as "yes or no". The whole event is much more complicated.

a reply to: samkent

Ever crush a beer can? No debris. Plus you are forgetting that light poles are designed to snap at the base (the bolts) when impacted by autos.

Yes, when impacted by autos at ground level going significantly slower than flight 77 allegedly was. Being struck at mid height or higher by something going in excess of 500mph is also comparing apples and oranges.

a reply to: DerekJR321

The recorders were recovered from Flight 77 and Flight 93. It was only the two in NY that weren't recovered.

originally posted by: samkent

And regarding the 5 light poles at the Pentagon. There's no way a jet's wings could survive one strike like that and continue a straight flight path that low.

Why not?
No one has said that the wing wasn't damaged.
But that doesn't mean the plane couldn't fly straight and level.
There was an F15 that landed safely with one wing missing.

It would turn into a rock at that point and drop.

What was the distance between the poles and the wall?
At 500mph you cover 733 feet per second.
I can throw a rock pretty far.

That is also where you would find at least some of the wing debris. But there is none.

Ever crush a beer can? No debris.
Plus you are forgetting that light poles are designed to snap at the base (the bolts) when impacted by autos.

It is amazing how many people understand so little about aviation or physics. The Israeli F-15 that you site has a better than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio. This means it can climb straight up without wings unlike the B-767. Let me compare this to a Corvette to a Greyhound bus. What this means, is as long as the F-15 moves through the air fast enough it will continue to fly even with half it's wing removed. A B-767 hasn't the benefit of having this excess power. It's like driving up a hill in the corvette being able to accelerate where the bus can not.

Damage to a wing causes drag. The greater the damage the greater the power required to overcome the drag. The F-15 has more thrust(power) than it weighs were the B-767 has 4 or 5 pounds of airplane to each pound of thrust. If the damage is greater than the power available the plane will fly in circles. The plane has a rudder which can provide additional force to keep it going straight. If the damaged wing has too much drag ever the rudder can't stop the plane from auguring in.

Each commercial airplane is stressed for 4 Gs positive. This means the wings can withstand 4 times the plane's weight. In the case of the B-767 which weighs about 600,000 pounds can withstand 2,400,000 pounds of force before structural damage (not failure). The F-15 is a fighter and it's stressed for 7-9 Gs. At 60,000 pounds it can withstand 420-540,000 pounds of force pressing down on it's wings.

How let's look at the leading edge of the wings. A B-767 flies at let's say 600 MPH...I will not give you a math lesson here but I'll try to explain it simply. The leading edges of the wings have to be stressed to withstand the weight of 1.5 times 600 MPH of air every square inch of the wing's frontal area multiplied by the planes weight.

My intent of this post is to show that any guesses as to what a wing of an airplane can or can not do to the Pentagon or WTC is just a wild guess by people who are clueless to the physics involved.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DerekJR321

The recorders were recovered from Flight 77 and Flight 93. It was only the two in NY that weren't recovered.

I know.. sorry.. I should have been more clear. My fault. By 4 I meant the cockpit recorders and flight data recorders from the Towers. Totaling 4. My fault. Sorry.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: ShadowChatter
why you do not believe the pilots when they say the maneuvers preformed were next too impossible

Why don't you believe pilots that say it was possible?

because they're liars

As far as the Pentagon is concerned... I'm curious how a 757, traveling at 500+mph can "clip" an aluminum light pole and only manage to dislodge it from its anchor? One of two things "should" have happened. Either that light pole should have sliced through that wing like butter, or the wing should have chopped the pole clean in half. Yet we don't see that on the posts. They simply look as if something knocked them over.

Traveling at that speed, there should have been catastrophic damage done to the wings by the poles. Traveling that low to the ground, you would have expected nothing less than the plane to pitch down immediately, crashing into the lawn. Yet from what I am led to believe, 77 clipped a few poles, traveling at 500+mph and managed to fly at NOE downhill and hit clean level into the bottom 2 floors of the Pentagon? No fuel or debris on the lawn? No burns? (I know someone is gonna come post those few aluminum sheets they "found").

It's just a mighty big pill to swallow.

a reply to: DerekJR321

The poles were clipped near the top, and no one knows if the wing or engine hit them, so you can't say that it should have instantly pitched down. Although a light pole wouldn't have done enough damage to cause it to instantly pitch down.

As has been pointed out, they have a breakaway base. The force of the aircraft hitting them would be more than enough to snap them off at the base.