You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 32,325
Always wondered how flimsy wing tips can cut massive steel girders in half!
What makes you think the wings of a Boeing 767 are flimsy or fragile?
It's not possible to see from the footage how far the wings actually embedded themselves into the WTC anyway so I'm not sure what the point of the comment is or what you'd expect to see. At that sort of speed it's more likely that the huge momentum contained within the wings made them effectively flow past any structure that was too heavy for them to cut through.
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 32,325
Hate to be pedantic but Mass x Velocity = Momentum, not Force;-)Mass x Velocity = Force. It's the same reason why a ping pong ball can go all the way through a table tennis bat if fired hard enough. And why water can cut through steel. Also, the wings weren't fragile, they were full of fuel.
All that video proves is why so little of the plane was found at the Pentagon.
Dubai Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 15,241
It was early in the morning!Hate to be pedantic but Mass x Velocity = Momentum, not Force;-)
purplenose
Well-Known Member
What makes you think the wings of a Boeing 767 are flimsy or fragile?
It's not possible to see from the footage how far the wings actually embedded themselves into the WTC anyway so I'm not sure what the point of the comment is or what you'd expect to see. At that sort of speed it's more likely that the huge momentum contained within the wings made them effectively flow past any structure that was too heavy for them to cut through.
Like all aircraft the wings on a 767 are in a sense flimsy, they have to be pretty flexible even bendy, if they were not they would snap off! The 767 as far as airliners go is a sturdy beast compared for example to the new dreamliners at least in the traditional sense of the word. That doesnt mean that the new Dreamliners are fragile and cobbled together, far from it. They are just made of lots of new light weight material and have wings that are so bendy they are close to flapping like a bird!
Even if you wanted to take on board the official reports of the 3 towers collapsing, it still leaves a lot of questions about the events as a whole.
The mysterious passer by that handed a passport to the police officer. The telephone call that was made through an exchange that was destroyed by fire. The phone call from one of the passengers who introduced himself to his mum by saying "hi mum, it's your son Joe Bloggs speaking, we're being hijacked". The crash site of flight 93 that completely disintegrated leaving no trace of tail section or engines, only a crater, similar to that of munitions crater. Although it apparently hit the ground nose first in one piece, debris was found 8 miles away. The initial denial of a C-130 and A-10 warthog being present just before impact (until that many witnesses came forward, they eventually admitted their presence)
Just as a bit of background, I have worked for over 10 years in the manufacture and testing of materials and components for the internal structure of commercial aircraft.
Planes that hit solid objects don't just disintegrate.
The mysterious passer by that handed a passport to the police officer. The telephone call that was made through an exchange that was destroyed by fire. The phone call from one of the passengers who introduced himself to his mum by saying "hi mum, it's your son Joe Bloggs speaking, we're being hijacked". The crash site of flight 93 that completely disintegrated leaving no trace of tail section or engines, only a crater, similar to that of munitions crater. Although it apparently hit the ground nose first in one piece, debris was found 8 miles away. The initial denial of a C-130 and A-10 warthog being present just before impact (until that many witnesses came forward, they eventually admitted their presence)
Just as a bit of background, I have worked for over 10 years in the manufacture and testing of materials and components for the internal structure of commercial aircraft.
Planes that hit solid objects don't just disintegrate.
jay_mcfc
Well-Known Member
Nice to have you back, Mr Bill Murray.Even if you wanted to take on board the official reports of the 3 towers collapsing, it still leaves a lot of questions about the events as a whole.
The mysterious passer by that handed a passport to the police officer. The telephone call that was made through an exchange that was destroyed by fire. The phone call from one of the passengers who introduced himself to his mum by saying "hi mum, it's your son Joe Bloggs speaking, we're being hijacked". The crash site of flight 93 that completely disintegrated leaving no trace of tail section or engines, only a crater, similar to that of munitions crater. Although it apparently hit the ground nose first in one piece, debris was found 8 miles away. The initial denial of a C-130 and A-10 warthog being present just before impact (until that many witnesses came forward, they eventually admitted their presence)
Just as a bit of background, I have worked for over 10 years in the manufacture and testing of materials and components for the internal structure of commercial aircraft.
Planes that hit solid objects don't just disintegrate.
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 32,325
My point is that saying they're flimsy or fragile misrepresents how strong they actually are for the reasons you've said. They may look flimsy but it's difficult to over-estimate the inherent strength in any large aircraft wing. During design, wings are tested to breaking point and the rule of thumb for the breaking point of a wing is roughly applying the weight of the aircraft on to a single wing so for a 767, you could park 3 or 4 38 ton lorries on each wing (if you could fit them there) before they would be close to breaking. So they're not going to snap off before doing quite a lot of damage to whatever they hit.Like all aircraft the wings on a 767 are in a sense flimsy, they have to be pretty flexible even bendy, if they were not they would snap off! The 767 as far as airliners go is a sturdy beast compared for example to the new dreamliners at least in the traditional sense of the word. That doesnt mean that the new Dreamliners are fragile and cobbled together, far from it. They are just made of lots of new light weight material and have wings that are so bendy they are close to flapping like a bird!
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 32,325
I think this article answers most questions about Flight 93.Even if you wanted to take on board the official reports of the 3 towers collapsing, it still leaves a lot of questions about the events as a whole.
The mysterious passer by that handed a passport to the police officer. The telephone call that was made through an exchange that was destroyed by fire. The phone call from one of the passengers who introduced himself to his mum by saying "hi mum, it's your son Joe Bloggs speaking, we're being hijacked". The crash site of flight 93 that completely disintegrated leaving no trace of tail section or engines, only a crater, similar to that of munitions crater. Although it apparently hit the ground nose first in one piece, debris was found 8 miles away. The initial denial of a C-130 and A-10 warthog being present just before impact (until that many witnesses came forward, they eventually admitted their presence)
Just as a bit of background, I have worked for over 10 years in the manufacture and testing of materials and components for the internal structure of commercial aircraft.
Planes that hit solid objects don't just disintegrate.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5688/debunking-911-myths-flight-93/
Is that an attempt to stifle any kind of discussion Jay? It seems that those who want to accept everything that the official report says just throw insults or make accusations of repeating themselves. (which is what you're doing)
I hadn't mentioned flight 93 before or my work background.
It doesn't bother me if you want to repeat yourself. It doesn't bother me what official report you want to believe. It's your choice. As far as I'm concerned, you can believe that oswald killed jfk with nobody else involved at all for example.
I'm just pointing out that when people in authority make clumsy claims that get immediately disproved to support an official stance, you have to question
why.
I hadn't mentioned flight 93 before or my work background.
It doesn't bother me if you want to repeat yourself. It doesn't bother me what official report you want to believe. It's your choice. As far as I'm concerned, you can believe that oswald killed jfk with nobody else involved at all for example.
I'm just pointing out that when people in authority make clumsy claims that get immediately disproved to support an official stance, you have to question
why.