9/11: The Smoking Gun

Fonebone said:
Your line drawing of a B767 is incorrect! Your line drawing shows a pronounced dihedral wing structure
that the Boeing 767-200 series does not have.
Your line drawing only fits in the WTC1 scar because of the dihedral.
Click to expand...
Here's Boeing's own schematics for the plane:

https://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/767.pdf

Starting on page 19 are a series of drawings clearly showing the same dihedral shape.

Please try to be less wrong in the future!
 
As beachnut and smartcooky have pointed out the wins tend to bend upward while flying. This is correct as the wings are supported by the fuselage and not at the tips. Flying faster makes more bend as lift becomes more pronounced. Fonebone, learn facts instead of parroting CTs thoughts.

ETA: I'm not picking on you Fonebone, but yankee451 needs to do the same thing. Get out of CT information and learn some physics for starters, then image analysis would be helpful to you.
 
Last edited:
bknight said:
As beachnut and smartcooky have pointed out the wins tend to bend upward while flying. This is correct as the wings are supported by the fuselage and not at the tips. Flying faster makes more bend as lift becomes more pronounced.
Click to expand...

Oystein said:
No.
Click to expand...

I agree with Oystein. Strictly speaking this is not what happens. Its more complicated than that.

At any given barometric altitude, increasing the power setting causes the aircraft to fly faster, which creates more lift, but that extra lift does not bend the wings further to any significant degree. Yes, they will bend a little, but the extra lift causes the aircraft to climb, requiring the pilot to lower the nose in order to reduce the angle of attack.

The bend on the wings is only really influenced by what is supporting the fuselage. On the ground, the fuselage is supported by the undercarriage, so the wings droop under their own weight from outboard of the undercarriage. In flight, the fuselage is support by the wings, so the wings bend upwards with the stress of carrying that mass.

Beachnut has a perfect example of this in post#50, A KC-135 of the USAF 9th SRW on the ground (at Beale AFB?) and the same or similar aircraft in flight.
 
Last edited:
Not that I'm happy bumping De'ak's thread, but I'd like to add my 2c.

1. During a turn, the wings will bend more (due to g's). UA175 was turning at the time of impact.

2. Beachnut's image of the plane in flight is not really a solid proof of the angle of the wings in flight, because the plane is not levelled with the camera as it is in the ground pic, so it's not clear how much of the angle comes from the front view, and how much from top view; remember that the wings have an arrow shape in the top view. There's a bit of both due to the viewpoint, and it's hard to tell just from the picture how much each view contributes to the seen angle.
 
Spyke said:
I watched that link.

Seems to me they spend a lot of time trying to figure out what could have made the "plane sized hole"...

"Faking the plane for the media is the easy part" according to the link.

The hard part is using the correct "missile" to make a convincing "plane sized hole".

They did rule out artillery though.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I'm no expert, but there is one thing that I'm fairly certain would produce a plane-sized hole, but.... aw, that's just too silly.
 
TheGoldcountry said:
Hmm. I'm no expert, but there is one thing that I'm fairly certain would produce a plane-sized hole, but.... aw, that's just too silly.
Click to expand...

A Global Hawk cruise missile? :D /s

I came to the JREF/ISF trying to understand what happened on 9/11. My head was full of foolish ideas and theories.

I read and read countless threads, pushed myself to try and see all sides. It took me a while but I gathered books, watched videos, tried to understand kinetic energy, building architecture, fail loads...

I learned about flight radar and some controlled demolition demonstrations.

All that stuff got filtered through my brain and it was decided.


Two planes filled with innocents hit the towers, one crashed in Pennsylvania and another struck the Pentagon.

And **** videos like this just piss me off now.
 
Spyke said:
A Global Hawk cruise missile? :D /s

I came to the JREF/ISF trying to understand what happened on 9/11. My head was full of foolish ideas and theories.

I read and read countless threads, pushed myself to try and see all sides. It took me a while but I gathered books, watched videos, tried to understand kinetic energy, building architecture, fail loads...

I learned about flight radar and some controlled demolition demonstrations.

All that stuff got filtered through my brain and it was decided.


Two planes filled with innocents hit the towers, one crashed in Pennsylvania and another struck the Pentagon.

And **** videos like this just piss me off now.
Click to expand...

A reformed citizen.
 
pgimeno said:
Not that I'm happy bumping De'ak's thread, but I'd like to add my 2c.

1. During a turn, the wings will bend more (due to g's). UA175 was turning at the time of impact.

2. Beachnut's image of the plane in flight is not really a solid proof of the angle of the wings in flight, because the plane is not levelled with the camera as it is in the ground pic, so it's not clear how much of the angle comes from the front view, and how much from top view; remember that the wings have an arrow shape in the top view. There's a bit of both due to the viewpoint, and it's hard to tell just from the picture how much each view contributes to the seen angle.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is rubbish.

The leading edges of a KC-135 are gun-barrel straight from wing-roots to wingtips as seen when looking downward.

kc-135r.GIF


None, repeat none of the wing flex apparent in Beachnut's photo comes from the elevation of the front on view. In fact the higher the view angle from the front end, the LESS apparent any wing flex will appear, because then the straightness of the wing leading edge comes into play (imagine looking directly down on that KS-135, you would not see any wing flex at all).

If anything, the effect is the other way, if the viewing angle was lower, the apparent wing flex would appear even greater
 
Last edited:
Yikes.. never thought I'd see JREF put so much effort into debunking no-planer insanity...

But yes, as pointed out;

1. B767's have Dihedral wings.
2. Dihedral becomes much more pronounced in flight as lift causes the wings to flex upwards.
3. Dihedral becomes even more pronounced if the aircraft is turning, because in a turn the aircraft produces even more lift.
4. Your argument is invalid Steve, just like all your past ones. Drop it.
 
Spyke said:
A Global Hawk cruise missile? :D /s

I came to the JREF/ISF trying to understand what happened on 9/11. My head was full of foolish ideas and theories.

I read and read countless threads, pushed myself to try and see all sides. It took me a while but I gathered books, watched videos, tried to understand kinetic energy, building architecture, fail loads...

I learned about flight radar and some controlled demolition demonstrations.

All that stuff got filtered through my brain and it was decided.


Two planes filled with innocents hit the towers, one crashed in Pennsylvania and another struck the Pentagon.

And **** videos like this just piss me off now.
Click to expand...


Well said, and well done!
 
smartcooky said:
Sorry, but this is rubbish.

The leading edges of a KC-135 are gun-barrel straight from wing-roots to wingtips as seen when looking downward.

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/ml1b9e80frcrpx6/kc-135r.GIF?raw=1[/qimg]

None, repeat none of the wing flex apparent in Beachnut's photo comes from the elevation of the front on view. In fact the higher the view angle from the front end, the LESS apparent any wing flex will appear, because then the straightness of the wing leading edge comes into play (imagine looking directly down on that KS-135, you would not see any wing flex at all).

If anything, the effect is the other way, if the viewing angle was lower, the apparent wing flex would appear even greater
Click to expand...
OK, you're talking about the bending, while I'm talking about the apparent angle.
2. Beachnut's image of the plane in flight is not really a solid proof of the angle of the wings in flight, because the plane is not levelled with the camera as it is in the ground pic, so it's not clear how much of the angle comes from the front view [...]
Click to expand...
I think we're both right. Yes, the upwards bending is visible (and it's downwards bending in the ground photo). But it's not obvious that the apparent angle e.g. from the base of the wing to the wingtip does all come from the flexure and it's hard to determine how much of it comes from each view.

Please read more carefully before saying that something is "rubbish".

Edit: By the way, there's no wing flex in your image that matches the impact damage with the plane.
WTC1%20overlay.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If only there was a video of a real missile striking a tall building...

... Oh wait, there is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ekA9skT7QQ

Thanks, Putin.

Seems like a big difference between a missile strike and a jumbo jet. You know, speed, contrail, and that warhead is nifty, but the impact zone doesn't erupt into flames...because the missile doesn't carry thousands of gallons of fuel.

Smoking gun, my petootie.
 
Heard a radio talking head claim the collapse was caused by crappy insulation associated with a Gotti family contractor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom