Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

Slowvehicle said:
How fast was the leading edge of the wing of the 767 travelling when it was observed to impact the tower?
Click to expand...
I think it's more important that he thinks it would act like a wedge. :eek:

ETA: Do you think he'd understand when we told him the wing would need to be significantly stronger(order of magnitude) than the building to do this?
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
You tell me, I don't think you know.
Click to expand...

Your evasion is noted.

How fast was the leading edge of the wing of the 767 that was observed to impact the tower moving when it was observed to impact the tower?

How fast does all available evidence indicate that the leading edge of the wing of the 767 that was observed to impact the tower moving when it was observed to impact the tower?
 
Slowvehicle said:
Your evasion is noted.

How fast was the leading edge of the wing of the 767 that was observed to impact the tower moving when it was observed to impact the tower?

How fast does all available evidence indicate that the leading edge of the wing of the 767 that was observed to impact the tower moving when it was observed to impact the tower?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you don't know as you can't even specify which tower, can you be more specific?
 
DGM said:
I think it's more important that he thinks it would act like a wedge. :eek:

ETA: Do you think he'd understand when we told him the wing would need to be significantly stronger(order of magnitude) than the building to do this?
Click to expand...

Again, had you watched the video or even read the transcript you wouldn't make such silly statements.

I WAS describing a heavily reinforced jet.
 
yankee451 said:
I'm assuming you don't know as you can't even specify which tower, can you be more specific?
Click to expand...

It isn't a difficult question, but it does probe your hope that everyone is as physics-averse as you are.

How fast was the leading edge of the wing of the 767 in your video moving when it was observed to impact the tower it was observed to impact?
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
Again, had you watched the video or even read the transcript you wouldn't make such silly statements.

I WAS describing a heavily reinforced jet.
Click to expand...

A "heavily-reinforced jet" for which there is not the first scintilla of evidence of the merest hint of a suggestion of its existence...

How fast was the "heavily-reinforced jet" that you claim was the 767 that was observed to impact the tower, in your diagrams, moving when it was observed to impact the tower?
 
yankee451 said:
Sigh.

The images are all over this thread. Here are some more.

Remember the velocity of the charges and the damage they cause? They cut, they don't bend.

This should ring a bell for anyone who's ever run alongside a picket fence hitting it with a stick:
Click to expand...

Good example of what happens when someone looks at a photo of something they don't understand, trying to imagine things in order to support their POV.

The reason the top edge of aluminum cladding was removed in such a straight line is because that was the top edge of the aluminum cladding. That's were you would expect it to separate.

The box columns bent more to the right, etc is (obviously) because that's were the mass of the aircraft was centered. The wings taper outward, doing progressively less damage and eventually folding back along the fuselage and being dragged into the building.
 
Hans said:
Trivia question beechnut what are/were the fuel tanks of a 767 made of and how much did the biggest of them weigh when full of fuel?
Click to expand...

The tanks are built right in, and sealed.

plane Left Right Center Total
757s 14,600 14,600 46,400 75,600
757s 14,600 14,600 46,200 75,400
757s 15,000 15,000 47,000 77,000
767-300 40,669 40,669 30,552 111,890
767ER 40,669 40,669 80,400 161,738

The WTC impact had about 66,000 pounds of fuel, 10,000 gallons. Most likely in the wings, 33,000 pounds in each wing, which would enter the WTC at 490 mph and 590 mph.

These truthers don't do physics, we should make it a beer if we quote them.
 
Robrob said:
Good example of what happens when someone looks at a photo of something they don't understand, trying to imagine things in order to support their POV.

The reason the top edge of aluminum cladding was removed in such a straight line is because that was the top edge of the aluminum cladding. That's were you would expect it to separate.

The box columns bent more to the right, etc is (obviously) because that's were the mass of the aircraft was centered. The wings taper outward, doing progressively less damage and eventually folding back along the fuselage and being dragged into the building.
Click to expand...

Watch the video and comment, but don't not watch the video and comment.
 
yankee451 said:
From the top of my dome:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScszbMeAl6s

Now what was the speed of the leading edge?
Click to expand...

It is...interesting...that you claim that a bottom-surface impact with a non-compressible fluid, (which BTW, separatres the entire wing from the fuselage, as a unit), is "several videos" of the wings "snapping off".

Is it your claim that the belly of the 767 that was observed to impact the tower, nose first, was the contact surface for its observed nose-first impact?
 
Slowvehicle said:
It is...interesting...that you claim that a bottom-surface impact with a non-compressible fluid, (which BTW, separatres the entire wing from the fuselage, as a unit), is "several videos" of the wings "snapping off".

Is it your claim that the belly of the 767 that was observed to impact the tower, nose first, was the contact surface for its observed nose-first impact?
Click to expand...

My claim is that the damage evidence is inconsistent with a jet crash, you are simply clutching at any straw to avoid having to discuss how it is.

And the word I used was "all", it was you who used "several". Get your accusations straight. You said you'd appreciate my posting one, if not several examples. I did, but you didn't. Sue me.
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
My claim is that the damage evidence is inconsistent with a jet crash, you are simply clutching at any straw to avoid having to discuss how it is.
Click to expand...

No. I am trying to discuss it. You are avoiding a simple question.

How fast was the leading edge of the wing of the 767 that was observed to impact the tower moving when it was observed to impact the tower?

I am interested in probing your claim. Your claim, your onus.
 
beachnut said:
The tanks are built right in, and sealed.

plane Left Right Center Total
757s 14,600 14,600 46,400 75,600
757s 14,600 14,600 46,200 75,400
757s 15,000 15,000 47,000 77,000
767-300 40,669 40,669 30,552 111,890
767ER 40,669 40,669 80,400 161,738

The WTC impact had about 66,000 pounds of fuel, 10,000 gallons. Most likely in the wings, 33,000 pounds in each wing, which would enter the WTC at 490 mph and 590 mph.

These truthers don't do physics, we should make it a beer if we quote them.
Click to expand...

revised calculation

- 67,000 pounds of fuel (10k gal @ 6.7 lbs per gallon) which is approx 30,000 kg.

- 0.5 * mv^2 with m=33,000 kg of fuel and speed = 200m/s :=

600000000 joules in the wings alone. Excluding the chemical energy stored in the fuel.

So the wings moving at 200m/s loaded with fluid is hardly a empty aluminium box.

Also, wings travveling at that speed with that much energy are not going to break off and fall to the floor. They are going to go right through the towers, probably mostly through the windows. They are not going to fold back and break off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom