Merged No Planer calls for scientific study / Missiles of 9/11

[Justin39640]

Yankee451
If the aircraft didn't crash what happened to them? Where are they now?
Where are the passengers and crew?

Holograms

 

[LSSBB]

Holograms

Shhhhh!!! You'll summon Jammonius!

 

[332nd]

Shhhhh!!! You'll summon Jammonius!

Holograms has to be said 3 times for that.

 

[TheRedWorm]

********* has to be said 3 times for that.

That's 2

 

[fess]

Ailerons, bell cranks, lighting, de-icing boots, various instruments to monitor conditions, the engine pylon mount, elevators, air brakes, et cetera.

But don't take my word on that, I'm just an aircraft mechanic student.

Not to mention the main spar.

 

[Axxman300]

It's funny, I reads this thread from the beginning thinking there was no way for it to get dumber, and then Yankee shows up.

In irony news, yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the Colombia crash...where it lost a wing due to impact damage from insulation foam. Sure, NASA's people didn't believe it either, but they tested the theory and found that the foam could indeed penetrate the wing at the right speed.

Physics, they don't teach it in the school of hard-knocks.

The problem with the no-planes fable is the fact that just blowing up the towers would have been enough. Bombs are easy, easy to produce, fairly easy to get into buildings for clever people, and easy enough for the public to understand and be terrorized by. Hijacking a plane, even on 9/11, was a lot more tricky. Faking a hijacking with drone jetliners doubles the number of conspirators because the jets would have had to have been pulled from service, and listed as salvage by the FAA, airlines paid, aircraft then modified to take off and fly via remote control. Someone still had to fly them from their respective ports of departure. Every step of the way you add conspirators, knowing and unknowing to the list of folks who need to remain silent.

Okay, fine, but why then go to these lengths but not directly implicate Iraq, or Iran, or the devil of the week with the attack? How do you wire three busy skyscrapers with an explosive so exotic it makes no sound, and leaves no evidence. Wire the Pentagon with the same explosives. Then get hands on a number of cruise missiles, with warheads packed with the same mystery explosive, and nobody notices they're gone. None of the team of chemists who developed this new secret explosive recognizes their product's obvious non-signature in the years after 9/11? This explosive has never been used since, even though we've been at war for 12 years?

But I'm the guy who has to provide evidence?

 

[Kid Eager]

That's 2

and if you say it a 1000 times, that's a holokilogram. Weighs more than a duck, but not much...

 

[Kid Eager]

Not to mention the main spar.

the other bit of physics he seems quite oblivious to is the fact that the wing isn't flying along all on its lonesome - it's attached quite solidly to a rather weighty tube.

 

[Animal]

My prime objective is to expose the truth, whatever it is. What's yours?

Funny, the only thing you are exposing is you ignorance of several subjects.

 

[Animal]

The materials in the wing were thinner, less dense and less massive than those used in the building. This is why MIT gave up on crunching the numbers - because math can't prove a lie.

And the water was thinner, less dense and less massive than the steel plate it cut through. You self education as not gone well for you.

 

[Kid Eager]

And the water was thinner, less dense and less massive than the steel plate it cut through. You self education as not gone well for you.

I would have thought that shaped charges would also have demonstrated quite adequately the ability of "soft" to cut through "hard".

Or, there's the old Victorian parlour trick of shooting a candle through a wooden board

 

[Mudcat]

Not to mention the main spar.

Indeed. Somehow I suspect that Yankee has severely underestimated just how complicated an aerofoil actually is.

 

[yankee451]

Indeed. Somehow I suspect that Yankee has severely underestimated just how complicated an aerofoil actually is.

Because an airfoil is equal to a battering ram in your world?

 

[yankee451]

I would have thought that shaped charges would also have demonstrated quite adequately the ability of "soft" to cut through "hard".

Is that what you would have thought? Huh.

 

[yankee451]

And the water was thinner, less dense and less massive than the steel plate it cut through. You self education as not gone well for you.

I have already explained how the water can cut steel - by using a tiny aperature placed very close to the steel and very high PRESSURE, the integrity of the column of water is kept intact long enough to overcome the steel, but often a water jet needs aprasives added to the water to cut thicker plate.

However a jet is not a water jet, is it?

 

[yankee451]

the other bit of physics he seems quite oblivious to is the fact that the wing isn't flying along all on its lonesome - it's attached quite solidly to a rather weighty tube.

The contents do not add density to said tube. Back to the drawing board for you.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Because an airfoil is equal to a battering ram in your world?

Either one would penetrate the tower at ~500 mph. As would (as I posted once before elsewhere) a plane-shaped blast of air.

 

[yankee451]

Not to mention the main spar.

Nor 100,000 tons of structural steel. Don't mention that. Ever.

 

[yankee451]

Holograms has to be said 3 times for that.

Here we go - "holograms". I'm still waiting for the straw through the tree comparison.

 

[yankee451]

Yankee451
If the aircraft didn't crash what happened to them? Where are they now?
Where are the passengers and crew?

Well lookee here - a real question to which I answer; because an aluminum jet can't slice through a steel skyscraper like a hot knife through butter, there were no planes. No planes means no passengers, no pilots and no hijackers.