It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Well, not so flimsy. They wings are able to house two huge Pratt-Whitney or Rolls Royce engines weighing 37,4000 lbs.
RB211-535C
Static Thrust (lbf) -- 37400
Basic Weight (lb) -- 7294
If the plane's fuselage was so flimsy, wouldn't the Titanium and steel engines be left behind.
It has also been purported the plane liquified; as well as, the wings folded back on themselves on impact.
Curiously, and not even break any of the windows where the tail section should have reached.
What about the amazing PentaLawn, no slide marks at all.
And the perfect cut of the partial building collapse.
But the coop de gras: the opened book on the stool left unscorched. I would love to know what book it was and what pages it was turned to.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by youngdrodeau
Show me another case of a plane completely atomizing besides on 9/11.And not a test video from a defense contractor,who needs the 9/11 OS to be true.
If all the planes on 9/11 atomized then how do you explain all the plane wreckage? Photos of plane wreckage of all the planes involved on 9/11 are on record. So what atomized besides the fuel?
Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Here is what happens when an 40,000 lb aircraft hits a concrete wall at 400+ knots.
F4 Phantom crash test
A 100,000 lb 757 would give a similar result only quite a bit more energetic.
There is nothing left that remotely resembles an aircraft so the poster with the theory that part of the tail assembly always survives needs to scratch that one of the list of what he/she "thinks" should happen.
Weedwacker is correct in everything he has posted regarding the aircraft, some of the "facts" a few of you have bought into would be laughable if it wasn't such a waste of grey matter.
A quick reminder that its hard to fib about qualifications in aeronautics, the only people your going to impress are others who are equally as unknowledgeable. It shows in your first couple of sentences whether you have any formal education in the field beyond the wings at war discovery marathon.
I get the impression a few of the more creative posters are younger folks who need to be reminded that stick time on the PS3 doesn't count towards your rating in the real world and in no way puts you on an equal footing with a commercial pilot.
The irony is some of you trying to argue nonsense seem capable of learning enough to see the flaws with most of the bad science you've bought into. At the same time there are a handful of people that post here who have enough education and experience in various engineering disciplines more than willing to help anyone interested to learn for themselves.
Unfortunately a couple of you wont listen and will continue propagating paranoid lies and belligerently arguing nonsensical junk science while honestly believing your doing something remotely good for society.
I'll post a bit more later if anyone is interested in why any two aircraft at the same bank angle and g-load turn at an identical rate (even if ones a B757 and the other is a F-18) and other things that a few are trying to argue with Weedwacker as being correct.
It doesn't get much simpler than that. You can always trust physics and Newtonian Mechanics over any eye-witnesses' recounting of what they think they saw.
Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
reply to post by dubiousone
It doesn't get much simpler than that. You can always trust physics and Newtonian Mechanics over any eye-witnesses' recounting of what they think they saw.
Well - it's a pity you seem to have no concept of basic mechanical principles!
The wings of a small jet are a quite different proposition that those of an airliner - as are the targets they are striking.
edit on 19-1-2011 by JohhnyBGood because: quote box
Originally posted by dubiousone
Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Here is what happens when an 40,000 lb aircraft hits a concrete wall at 400+ knots.
F4 Phantom crash test
Watch the video several times and notice that the wings of the aircraft slice right through the concrete wall. The wings don't fold in or stop dead when they impact the wall. The wings slice right through it as though the concrete wall poses no more resistance than a slab of butter.
Originally posted by GodIsPissed
Your "thinking" is quite incorrect. It WAS a Boeing 757, and it WAS the same one that was being operated as American Airlines flight 77"-Weedwacker
It WAS WAS it?How could YOU possibly know this?Because your trusty government told you?
I never met someone so full of it.Were you there?
How could YOU possibly know this?
Because your trusty government told you?
Were you there?
So why waste your time arguing with a bunch of "crazy conspiracy theorists"?
You on the other hand say things as tough they are fact when you have NO idea because you weren't there.
The agenda of trying to make people believe the bs the government puts forth.
.... when in fact nobody but the people involved knows what happened.
Dude,are you really trying to paint the picture that planes & all their massive parts are too fragile to withstand a crash without being atomized?Even though we can easily observe that that isn't the case by looking at every other plane crash.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by youngdrodeau
Dude,are you really trying to paint the picture that planes & all their massive parts are too fragile to withstand a crash without being atomized?Even though we can easily observe that that isn't the case by looking at every other plane crash.
Do you even KNOW what "atomized" means??? Doesn't seem so.......