Holes shaped like planes?

Discussion in '9/11' started by Vlad Ivx, Dec 29, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "...with that option gone..."

    Really? how is it gone?...how did you prove it didn't happen, other than hand-waving and claiming it to be so?

    Fact IS, it IS what happened BECAUSE it's what is shown in the video and supported by the evidence of plane debris and damaged columns. You don't get to deny reality because you can't support your position with facts.
     
  2. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    produce the "plane debris" where is the inventory of aircraft bits?
    also your effort to play dumb, isn't very effective because the pix
    of the construction of both towers are readily available and everybody
    can see the steel welded between the box columns, not only that, but
    the steel in this case is backed up by the steel reinforced concrete deck behind it.
     
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This is incorrect. There was no "steel" welded between the box columns of the perimeter facade. The steel plates were located at each floor and had connections for the floor trusses and dampers welded to them. The area between the perimeter columns had windows in them. Also, the perimeter columns at that height consisted of 1/4 thick steel plate.
    [​IMG]

    The "steel reinforcement" that you refer to is actually a steel mesh that was in the 4" thick concrete floors.

    Stop making it seem like the floors were something more than they actually were just for the sole purpose of trying to make it seem that they were some massive structure designed to resist lateral loads.
     
  4. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Guilty as charged .... my bad, & yes there was room for the "cheese grater" theory to at least be entertained, However, if the airliner passed through the spaces between the box columns being shredded as it penetrated, what then accounts for the hole in the wall?

    My additional point about the impossibility of the "FLT175" hit
    is the fact that the nose of the aircraft would have to break 5 or 6 box columns in order to penetrate, and then we get to the wings and they would have to break at least a dozen more box columns in the process of penetrating and still where is the deceleration of the aircraft?

    One bit that I will take the time to repeat .... on the subject of hollow point ammo, I brought up the instance of a bullet that was intended for hunting small game, and said bullet ends up striking a tree, so what happens to the hollow point in that case, the best guess on the subject is that the bullet would mushroom out without making significant penetration of the wood. So then, the aluminum hollow point that was the airliner, striking the steel box column wall, would meet resistance sufficient to damage/deform the body of the aircraft before it had a chance to actually penetrate. or maybe it could manage initial penetration, but broke up before all of the aircraft made it inside. There are a multitude of possibilities here, why embrace ONLY the one that has the aircraft penetrating the wall in such a manner that the entire aircraft disappears inside the tower?
    and indeed does so 2X ..... ( FLT11 & FLT175 ) + the PENTAGON .... whats up with that?

    also, to address your last bit:
    please do think about this, imagine you are attacking a wall with a baseball bat and you strike exactly between two studs and you bash a hole in the wall, .... OK, now strike with the same force directly on a stud location, ... what happens?
    the decks in the WTC towers did add to the strength of the wall. One could well debate exactly how much strength, but they added to the stiffness of the wall. The wings of the airliner would have had to encounter two ea of these decks in crashing into the WTC at the angle indicated by the gash in the wall.


    also, have a look at this .....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M

    do you see the point here?
     
  5. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One exception...the mechanical floors had extra re-enforcement
     
  6. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I do not know if this has been addressed before, ( probably has .... )
    anyhow, in the popular scenario of "FLT175" the aircraft would have
    had to be flown in a power-dive, and then leveled off for the final approach
    to the tower. This is a complex maneuver, the "pilot" in this case would have to pitch the nose of the aircraft down, losing sight of the target, and accelerate and then at some point ( yet another variable here .... ) pull up and hope that the drag on the aircraft in level flight doesn't cost too much in speed as he lines up on the target. and all of this happening VERY fast the aircraft would be covering 850 feet/sec ground speed. could any human react fast enough to manage this trick?
     
  7. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    According to the reports and FAA records, it was a 3 degree angle dive. None of your incredulous speculation fits the facts.
     
  8. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There you go again with your silly "facts". What's a conspiratist to do!
     
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I personally am not saying the perimeter columns were a cheese grater. The plane struck the perimeter columns. At the point of impact, the plane was damaged as it penetrated to some degree. The rest of the plane that entered the building was obliterated by the core columns and the explosion.

    A cone-shaped object made of aircraft aluminum traveling at high speed impacting box columns made from 1/4 thick plate designed to handle lateral wind loads and you think the plane should not have penetrated?

    Wings with a reinforced internal structure vs. perimeter columns made of 1/4" thick steel plate?

    You have yet to explain why your claim of visible deceleration didn't happen to the jet smashing into the concrete wall video.

    There are a number of mistakes in your analogy above that make it ridiculous.

    1. A tree is a solid object, not a series 14" x 14" hollow box columns made of 1/4" steel plate.
    2. A tree trunk is NOT designed to redistribute wind loads across it's face
    3. A plane's nose is NOT designed to mushroom upon impact

    Try another analogy that better fits what actually happened.

    Scale genericBob, scale.

    1. 14" x 14", 1/4" steel plate, box column vs. a wooden 2 x 4
    2. Force of a bat being swung vs. the force of a plane traveling at high speed

    4" thick concrete floors with a steel mesh every (approx) 12' feet vs. a jet.

    Another ridiculous comparison.
     
  10. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You still do not get the fact that even in a 3 degree descent, the pilot would have to know how much control surface movement would produce the desired result in control of the aircraft, the hijackers had only the flight time after they took control of the aircraft to familiarize themselves with the controls. and this is assuming ( big assumption here) that the aircraft would even properly respond to control at speed that is definitely far outside its normal flight speed for that altitude.

    What people are accepting as what happened that day, was a total LUCKY SHOT by two hijackers "FLT11" & "FLT175" to be able to score a hit on the WTC tower(s) in the way that the allegedly did.
     
  11. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ever try it on a simulator? I have.

    Even at a 5% incline dive (steeper than what happened in reality), you are aiming at the tallest and widest targets in the vicinity.
     
  12. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    88,469
    Likes Received:
    20,885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What truthers are accepting is to totally avoid any facts, like ATC, Betty Ong's call from flt 11, eye witnesses, physics, etc..
     
  13. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What type of aircraft was the simulator supposed to be?
    and what did it do in the super over-speed condition?
    can you document what you did? there are airline pilots
    who have tried this in simulators and reported that the
    stunt is next to impossible to pull off on the first attempt.

    Simulators are NOT real physical aircraft and as such
    only have their computer programs to manage what is
    supposed to happen in given conditions. The fact is,
    until somebody actually attempts the stunt in a real aircraft,
    the point really hasn't been put to rest, my money is on the
    aircraft NOT being controllable at the gross over-speed condition,
    and therefore the stunt could not be done, AT ALL, period!

    Hate to burst your bubble, but its FAKE!
    there were no hijackings, no angry Arabs,
    WTC1,2 & 7 were blown up. The PENTAGON scene is total fraud!
     
  14. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    88,469
    Likes Received:
    20,885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There you go again showing your lack of knowledge. Of course they are controllable. The only thing that could make them uncontrollable would be flutter which is the only danger during an over speed condition.
     
  15. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You say "of course they are controllable" and then go on to cite a condition that would impede control. Question 4 U, have you personally ever flown an airliner at 100 mph over its max operating speed? ..... then how do you KNOW "of course they are controllable"?
     
  16. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Talk about contradictions!

    You first try and make your point that pilots have tried this in simulators and reported that the stunt is next to impossible to discredit the flight maneuver , but then go on to say that simulators are not good enough to reproduce the actual flight maneuver.

    So which is it?

    If flight simulators are no good, then it totally squashed your "pilots have reported that the stunt is next to impossible" because the results cannot be trusted.
     
  17. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    88,469
    Likes Received:
    20,885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have already given you the V speeds before and flutter is only dangerous if, and only if it develops, which is not something that is definite and even at max design V speed is not certain to develop flutter. You continue to ignore all science, physics, flight characteristics, etc. for your uneducated guessing.
     
  18. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bottom line here, if then the whole simulators are totally out of the picture because they are only computer programs, then the question remains, is an airliner at >150 mph over max normal operating speed actually controllable,
    and its an open question, flip a coin, its one way or the other, controllable or no? and as I look at the odds of things happening, my money is on NOT CONTROLLABLE.
     
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you going to link to your experts that say that it wasn't possible, or do we just take your word?

    Also, see post #742. You seem to have missed it.
     
  20. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You ask a question and then answer it with you probability garbage again? The bottom line is you don't actually know if it is or not. Making a judgement call on the controllable or not based on flipping a coin is absolutely ridiculous. You need information to make a claim like this, not odds.
     
  21. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In low speed maneuvering the controls behave a specific way,
    and at high speed cruse, the controls can rightly be expected
    to perform in a different manner than in other conditions, therefore,
    in a condition that is >150 mph over normal max speed, how should
    the controls respond? how much movement of the yoke will produce
    how much change in attitude of the aircraft? I submit to you that this
    isn't known and can NOT be known until somebody actually tries it in
    a real aircraft. We are talking about totally uncharted territory here.
     
  22. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wrong. Math and physics will provide extremely accurate answers.

    Post #742 ... Can you address it?
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So now you have stated that:

    1. Information gleaned from aircraft simulators cannot be used because we need to test real planes to get accurate information
    2. We don't know how a pilot or the controls would react to the conditions stated because we need to have REAL results to tell us

    This means that neither you nor anyone else can use that line of evidence to support their claims that it was a conspiracy or not. This includes your "expert pilot" testimony because they have never been through this type of scenario.

    Am I correct genericBob?
     
  24. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    May I restate the facts

    A: the aircraft controls will respond differently at different speeds/altitudes
    &
    B: the characteristics of the aircraft at >150 mph over max speed are totally
    uncharted territory

    and with that said, an inexperienced "pilot" hijacker is expected
    to not only fly the plane, but to hit a target with only + - 25 ft
    margin for error.
     
  25. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    88,469
    Likes Received:
    20,885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A according to you
    B according to you

    Still left with incredulity from an uneducated position eh?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page