west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 34,075
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
- 34,075
Hate to be pedantic but Mass x Velocity = Momentum, not Force;-)
Dubai Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 15,426
It was early in the morning!
purplenose
Well-Known Member
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.
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 34,075
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.
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 34,075
I think this article answers most questions about Flight 93.
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.
Dubai Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 15,426
It's for a 777, not a 767, but this video neatly highlights what you're talking about and shows just how strong aeroplane wings are.
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
i predict that by page 3000 of this thread West Didsbury Blue will simply post - "i think it was an inside job too"
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 34,075
You're right.
I reckon that there's nothing I could post to convince some people that it wasn't and I do wonder why I actually bother.
It makes me laugh when I get told that I'm told what to think by the mainstream media, when all the conspiracy nuts do is parrot what they read on the conspiracy nut websites and take on board without question badly made videos produced by a small number of fanatical "truthers".
Wow!! That magazine popular mechanics knows EVERYTHING!!
I'm pretty sure that they'll print an example of how telephone exchanges work to a tolerance of absolute zero to 1000 degrees and a percentage of people who speak to their closest relatives using their full name. (sting, bono and Madonna especially)
I'm pretty sure that they'll print an example of how telephone exchanges work to a tolerance of absolute zero to 1000 degrees and a percentage of people who speak to their closest relatives using their full name. (sting, bono and Madonna especially)
Dubai Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 15,426
FWIW, I think the doubts about Flight 93 are the only ones worth paying any attention to. Mainly because the alternate theory does at least have a modicum of plausibility about it, unlike any of the other conspiracy theories dreamed up about that day. Could the Air Force could have shot down a plane on 9/11? Sure. They certainly had good reason to. And they'd have had good reason to cover it up too, especially after it became clear that the passengers had intended to fight back.
But then the crash site doesn't tally with a missile strike either. Look at Malaysian Airlines Flight 17; bodies and debris were strewn over 20 square miles and large chunks of the plane were still clearly identifiable.
Aeroplanes don't normally crash nosedown at their maximum speed; so maybe they do completely disintegrate under those circumstances. I honestly don't know.
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 34,075
When telephone exchanges catch fire, do all the phone lines immediately stop working or do they progressively fail as the fire takes hold? Or are there back up exchanges in some areas that kick in automatically where loss of communications could be particularly costly?
Not that it makes any difference, clearly, but it was reported that at the time the phone call was made, it had been destroyed.
All I'm saying West didsbury is that when people make too much effort, it arouses suspicion. You think to yourself "why lie? What else is untrue?"
If the Internet was around during JFK, it would be the same. On one side you'd have people saying, "they've found the rifle in the book store, arrested a known communist and seen photos of him holding guns, it's got to be him". People on the other side of the argument were ridiculed and labelled as nutters at best.
All I'm saying West didsbury is that when people make too much effort, it arouses suspicion. You think to yourself "why lie? What else is untrue?"
If the Internet was around during JFK, it would be the same. On one side you'd have people saying, "they've found the rifle in the book store, arrested a known communist and seen photos of him holding guns, it's got to be him". People on the other side of the argument were ridiculed and labelled as nutters at best.
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 34,075
On that day there was an unbelievable amount of confusion and apparently conflicting stories. Taking one particular witness account as absolute fact doesn't help explain the overall picture. In high stress situations people get details wrong. I'm not saying that was the case with the passport story but I don't expect the policeman stopped to write a contemporaneous account when handed the passport as he normally would. He probably wrote it all down later and maybe didn't get every detail spot on.
purplenose
Well-Known Member
An aircraft diving to destruction nose first may if it dives into soft ground may bury itself leaving little visable wreckage, in this instance sizable and very recognisable wreckage can usually be dug up, infact whilst a slightly different aircraft and circumstances engines of ww2 aircraft that dived into soft ground have been recovered renovated and gone on too power a Spitfire around the sky at airshows. An aircraft hitting normal or hard ground even if carrying a full fuel load will leave a bloody big crater and some recognisable wreckage, in my opinion the little we have seen of the crash site of flight 93, it certainly leaves some questions, as does the hole in the Pentagon wall.
As you say an aircraft hit by a missile will normally be severely damaged by the missile bits will fall off and therefore wreckage will be fairly widespread. On that basis were it too have been shot down the crash site would have looked alot different. However that crash site didnt look at all right, so the question I would ask.....was it the crash site? The scorched patch of ground we saw was more typical to a point of impact akin to what would be made by a f16 sized jet coming to grief....
Of course the fact that two airliners met their demise on the same day and both left very untypical damage with little resemblance to other impacts, or indeed that one invioved making a hole in a reinforced concrete wall that was strikingly similar to those holes made by various missiles almost on a daily basis on military structures in Iraq during the gulf war should be no reason to think the Yanks may have been involved in some serious jiggey pokery should it?
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 34,075
