Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-06-2018, 03:49 PM   #1881
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,328
Likes: 4,606 (2,581 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
And what about the countless camcorders videos, taken from all different locations with a clear line of sight?

As for the planes, they were travelling at 400mph with the combined weight of payload (which no-one knows for sure) 400mph is pretty f**king fast. The last thing to remember is they were military modified jets. So they would have undoubtably been strengthened.

Metals can also be weakened using electromagnetism or by simply applying a very strong current through them. Example videos can be found all over you tube. Therefore either the entire building or isolated areas (such as the levels the planes hit) could have been linked to mains and exposed to an exceptionally high charge in order to pre-weaken the structure.

Skip to 1.16 in the video below. Notice the width of the pillars and separation. Hardly a contest for a jet travelling at 400mph.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRuNgZo5evo
Top of the head speculation here..
Would it be possible for missiles to carry holographic technology to make them appear to be much bigger commercial passenger planes?

This would answer so many anomalies with the news videos and local
Video footage of the wings going through buildings etc.. the lack of windows, the plane flying straight into the towers with nothing falling off..
What do you reckon?
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2018, 09:24 PM   #1882
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 148 (109 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
Top of the head speculation here..
Would it be possible for missiles to carry holographic technology to make them appear to be much bigger commercial passenger planes?

This would answer so many anomalies with the news videos and local
Video footage of the wings going through buildings etc.. the lack of windows, the plane flying straight into the towers with nothing falling off..
What do you reckon?
Why bother? If this was the case, then why wasn't it used at the Pentagon? No obvious evidence of wing lines there.

It is assumed the planes were jetliners built from standard aluminium construction, the factor some speculate why they couldn't penetrate the buildings in the way they did. It is also clear the planes were not normal in appearance and travelling at around 400mph.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 01:56 AM   #1883
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,328
Likes: 4,606 (2,581 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
Why bother? If this was the case, then why wasn't it used at the Pentagon? No obvious evidence of wing lines there.
This would fit the evidence much better, a missile that looks like a plane?
The technology might not even exist lol


Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
It is assumed the planes were jetliners built from standard aluminium construction, the factor some speculate why they couldn't penetrate the buildings in the way they did. It is also clear the planes were not normal in appearance and travelling at around 400mph.
Agreed.
Perhaps only the engines and the landing gear would be capable of penetrating those external steel columns along with concrete floor sections..
What they are asking us to believe is, metaphorically, if you throw a paper plane hard enough it can penetrate a steel panel..

That wing tips and tail tips are solid enough to tear through the external framing and glazing, along with the structure..like a cartoon!
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 08:04 AM   #1884
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 148 (109 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
This would fit the evidence much better, a missile that looks like a plane?
The technology might not even exist lol
Even if it did, it would be pointless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
Agreed.
Perhaps only the engines and the landing gear would be capable of penetrating those external steel columns along with concrete floor sections..
This should explain why all of each plane had suitable potential energy to pass through the outer walls of the building. https://futurism.com/why-do-objects-...-get-faster-2/

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
What they are asking us to believe is, metaphorically, if you throw a paper plane hard enough it can penetrate a steel panel..
I find this a poor contrast I'm sorry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
That wing tips and tail tips are solid enough to tear through the external framing and glazing, along with the structure..like a cartoon!
Again yes.

https://futurism.com/why-do-objects-...-get-faster-2/

What they want you to believe is that when some pilot or aircraft designer comes out and says "its not possible", a majority of people listen to them and not what was in their physics books.

Then some person like Richard D Hall comes along, drops in his qualifications and mentions holograms. Most truthers are hook line and sinkered into thinking the alternatives.

There are a lot of shills out there. Personally I think Dr Judy Wood and Richard D Hall are two of them. Not to say I dont think they bring in some interesting facts in their talks. They need some credibility. But it does limit AIA Truthers somewhat compared to Dr Judy Wood. They are architects and not experts in Hurricanes for example. Its why Richard D Hall and Dr Judy Wood can rant on about any subject they want. Are RDH and DJW intending to take their cases to court? No.

The cartoon interpretation is an interesting point. How would you know the difference between something that could happen in reality and something that could not in a cartoon? Because both can be objectively represented in a creative medium.

Last edited by MKUltrad; 10-06-2018 at 08:40 AM.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 08:39 AM   #1885
da2255
Senior Member
 
da2255's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 265
Likes: 149 (96 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
Top of the head speculation here..
Would it be possible for missiles to carry holographic technology to make them appear to be much bigger commercial passenger planes?

This would answer so many anomalies with the news videos and local
Video footage of the wings going through buildings etc.. the lack of windows, the plane flying straight into the towers with nothing falling off..
What do you reckon?
No it was just a video composite.
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 09:03 AM   #1886
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 148 (109 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
No it was just a video composite.
I haven't seen any evidence to support that. It would also mean that the physical evidence of the plane that was blasted out into the street would also have to been inside the building. Or is that a tv composite too?

Last edited by MKUltrad; 10-06-2018 at 09:05 AM.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 10:18 AM   #1887
da2255
Senior Member
 
da2255's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 265
Likes: 149 (96 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
I haven't seen any evidence to support that. It would also mean that the physical evidence of the plane that was blasted out into the street would also have to been inside the building. Or is that a tv composite too?
You haven't seen the nose in/nose out fuck up that they did?

What bits of plain? If you mean the engine fragment its proven to be planted and or the wrong type.

Thats the only supposed bit of plane I ever saw.

Watch September clues if you have an open mind.

Last edited by da2255; 10-06-2018 at 10:19 AM.
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 10:20 AM   #1888
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,328
Likes: 4,606 (2,581 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
I haven't seen any evidence to support that. It would also mean that the physical evidence of the plane that was blasted out into the street would also have to been inside the building. Or is that a tv composite too?
What explanation do you have for this short 20 sec video?
Where does the wing go?


and this wing too?
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine

Last edited by the nine; 10-06-2018 at 10:31 AM.
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 11:14 AM   #1889
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 148 (109 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
What explanation do you have for this short 20 sec video?
Where does the wing go?


and this wing too?
The first one is absolutely awful video editing. Anyone could edit that out with modern video software. The second can be explained by digital distortion as the wing tip passes behind a trail of smoke. It's quite common in older larger pixel cameras and video editing. The explaination can be determined by colour bit definition. In the day, average PC computers only used 8 or 16 bit colour representation, including the cameras. Today they use much more. The distortion is merely the colour bits being limited in range to represent a true deplication of the frames at that time, giving a less defined image.

As for the planes high up in the atmosphere. Easy. Other than the pixalation at distance, camera shake can cause visual distortions. The end of the wingtips are less defined and are passing in front of miles worth of vapour not obvious to the naked eye and will pass over them very breifly. This gives the distortion present in those videos because each pixel takes a average colour of each area in real-time. If colours conflict, then they can cancel out briefly. This applies the same with the 9/11 footage. With higher definition, obstructing details would be more observable such as the cloud of smoke obstructing the wing tip. There are also other factors such as exposure, lighting etc that a camera cannot replicate as well as your own eyes.


The two videos are also inconsistent in approximation of the actual event you are stating.

Last edited by MKUltrad; 10-06-2018 at 11:31 AM.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 03:50 PM   #1890
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 148 (109 Posts)
Default

The nail in the coffin for the aluminium theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 07:36 PM   #1891
da2255
Senior Member
 
da2255's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 265
Likes: 149 (96 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
The first one is absolutely awful video editing. Anyone could edit that out with modern video software. The second can be explained by digital distortion as the wing tip passes behind a trail of smoke. It's quite common in older larger pixel cameras and video editing. The explaination can be determined by colour bit definition. In the day, average PC computers only used 8 or 16 bit colour representation, including the cameras. Today they use much more. The distortion is merely the colour bits being limited in range to represent a true deplication of the frames at that time, giving a less defined image.

As for the planes high up in the atmosphere. Easy. Other than the pixalation at distance, camera shake can cause visual distortions. The end of the wingtips are less defined and are passing in front of miles worth of vapour not obvious to the naked eye and will pass over them very breifly. This gives the distortion present in those videos because each pixel takes a average colour of each area in real-time. If colours conflict, then they can cancel out briefly. This applies the same with the 9/11 footage. With higher definition, obstructing details would be more observable such as the cloud of smoke obstructing the wing tip. There are also other factors such as exposure, lighting etc that a camera cannot replicate as well as your own eyes.


The two videos are also inconsistent in approximation of the actual event you are stating.
You can explain a passenger jet hitting a steel walled skyscraper and the building and the plane not bothering to show ANY reaction until the plane has supposedly slid all of the way in? Just like if the plane was a knife going through soft butter?

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt4nVuXXtLs

Includes "Ghost Plane" as well as the DEW evidence.

Only short but very powerful.
Likes: (2)
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 08:04 AM   #1892
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 148 (109 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
You can explain a passenger jet hitting a steel walled skyscraper and the building and the plane not bothering to show ANY reaction until the plane has supposedly slid all of the way in? Just like if the plane was a knife going through soft butter?

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt4nVuXXtLs

Includes "Ghost Plane" as well as the DEW evidence.

Only short but very powerful.
Got to love that "Truck vs Concrete Wall" snippet. Because you know, trucks can travel at 400mph. It's put against the plane simulation as if to prove Newtons 3rd law.

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

This sentence is the shortened definition of the phase used in the video. It is however, mis-interpreted often.

For example, do you see cars bouncing off windows if they are used to ram raid a shop? No. A car, if driven fast enough can ram through galvansied steel shutters. How? Galvansied steel shutters run on a roll thread that is drilled into the surrounding wall. Those connections, with enough force can be broken without pre-weakening.

So again, the plane crashes can be explained by the "connections", because they are not going through solid walls. That is, the bolts and welds connecting the frames could easily snap when huge forces are applied. This isn't like going through a solid lump of concrete. The building had windows, points of entry that will let that force in without question.

That equal and opposite reaction is the way the building distributes that energy as a whole.

If a car is travelling at 30 mph into a single pane sheet of glass, is the car going to bounce off? No. What is it going to do? The car will shatter the glass into smaller pieces and distribute that force equally. It doesn't mean it has the "strength" to repell the car. Thats what tensile strength is all about. The physical properties of the materials used. But people also forget, that the way a material is set out also has a huge effect on its resistant strength.

A classic example. An egg. It is possible enough to stand on a box of eggs without breaking them as long as the eggs are stood upright and force is distributed equally across the top of each egg. Order right? I should imagine if you jumped onto that platform the eggs underneath would break very easily because extra force is being applied. An eggs shape believe it or not has enormous tensile strength at its upper and bottom points when compressed equally in those areas but not on it's sides.

This leads onto material tensile strength. Accepted, an aluminium construction plane might not be strong enough to penetrate the steel columns. But then aluminium sheeting comes in different thickness. And also planes can be made from Titanium.

The SR-71 Blackbird was the first plane to be constructed from titanium. It was used to help the aircraft travel at speeds of around Mach 3. At those speeds, generated "heat" caused by friction impacts the outer walls of the aircraft, so much so the Titanium was designed to expand and contract at specific points. So those speeds are fast enough to create friction that can heat the plane someway towards Titaniums weakening point but not hot enough of it's actual melting point of around 1,600 degrees celsius.

The A-10 warthog is built with re-enforced Titanium armour sheeting, capable of withstanding some armour piercing bullets. Bullets travel at speeds of around 1,600mph. This alone shows how strong Titanium is. The planes seen on 9/11 had a colour tone consistent with the SR-71 Blackbird.

Another reason that the planes might have been made of Titanium construction. The SR-71 was a spy plane. Titanium does have some properties that work alongside anti-radar paint to absorb non-ionised radiation. This would make it effective to go undetected by radar to some degree. During and not long after 9/11, no-one could understand why the air force weren't deployed quick enough to take out the aircraft. It's because they weren't being picked up. But then, if people on the ground were looking for a commerical jetliner, they probably would have discounted these planes. Why? Because they are military planes and ones without markings. Radar jamming housed inside the planes would have been the main aspect to keep the planes off radar from interceptors.

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

To summarize. The statement "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" does not mean that the equality is a property shared by two or more of the opposing forces in terms of resistance. The one with more energy potential will overpower the other and distribute that energy equally into its surroundings.

It also explains why the buildings could not have collapsed the way they did. The upper quarters simply did not have enough potential energy to crush the lower floors and turn the energy contained in the steel to dust.

Last edited by MKUltrad; 12-06-2018 at 07:23 AM.
Likes: (1)
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2018, 07:23 AM   #1893
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 148 (109 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
You can explain a passenger jet hitting a steel walled skyscraper and the building and the plane not bothering to show ANY reaction until the plane has supposedly slid all of the way in? Just like if the plane was a knife going through soft butter?

If a plane can't penetrate a building then how can a missile do so and especially ones made from much harder materials? Remember, missiles are much lighter (some around a ton in weight), carrying far less potential weight energy closer to interia but considering some can travel at speeds of around 15,000 mph, this potential weight will be greatly increased. A 767 doesn't need to travel that fast to increase its weight potential.

A lot of missiles believe it or not are made from aluminium but some are made from Titanium alloys. So again, what your seeing on the many videos taken on that day is possible. Why bother putting CGI over a missile when a plane made from similiar materials would be far easier to achieve.

Last edited by MKUltrad; 18-06-2018 at 07:35 AM.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2018, 08:43 AM   #1894
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,328
Likes: 4,606 (2,581 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
If a plane can't penetrate a building then how can a missile do so and especially ones made from much harder materials? Remember, missiles are much lighter (some around a ton in weight), carrying far less potential weight energy closer to interia but considering some can travel at speeds of around 15,000 mph, this potential weight will be greatly increased. A 767 doesn't need to travel that fast to increase its weight potential.

A lot of missiles believe it or not are made from aluminium but some are made from Titanium alloys. So again, what your seeing on the many videos taken on that day is possible. Why bother putting CGI over a missile when a plane made from similiar materials would be far easier to achieve.
Quote:
IMI presents concrete-penetrating missile
Israel Military Industries' MPR-500 'bunker buster' shells capable of penetrating double-reinforced concrete walls, floors

The Israel Military Industries has been able to greatly improve the efficiency of its MPR-500 guided missiles, Ynet learned Monday.



According to the IMI, the projectile is now a "bunker buster" capable of penetrating double-reinforced concrete walls and floors 200mm thick.

hope this helps!
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine

Last edited by the nine; 18-06-2018 at 08:43 AM.
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2018, 09:01 AM   #1895
oneriver
Senior Member
 
oneriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Ireland
Posts: 4,042
Likes: 2,941 (1,651 Posts)
Default

I the first video we see GW being informed of the second "attack" while reading to some kids at a school...

In the second video GW claims he watched the first plane hit on TV at the school. This video was not released until the next day and certainly was not 'live' on TV..

Skull and Bones Liars.



__________________
“Have you also learned that secret from the river; that there is no such thing as time?" That the river is everywhere at the same time, at the source and at the mouth, at the waterfall, at the ferry, at the current, in the ocean and in the mountains, everywhere and that the present only exists for it, not the shadow of the past nor the shadow of the future.” ? Hermann Hesse, Siddhartha

Y Gwir Erbyn Y Byd ("Truth Against the World") - Druidic Motto
Likes: (2)
oneriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2018, 09:10 PM   #1896
da2255
Senior Member
 
da2255's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 265
Likes: 149 (96 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
If a plane can't penetrate a building then how can a missile do so and especially ones made from much harder materials? Remember, missiles are much lighter (some around a ton in weight), carrying far less potential weight energy closer to interia but considering some can travel at speeds of around 15,000 mph, this potential weight will be greatly increased. A 767 doesn't need to travel that fast to increase its weight potential.

A lot of missiles believe it or not are made from aluminium but some are made from Titanium alloys. So again, what your seeing on the many videos taken on that day is possible. Why bother putting CGI over a missile when a plane made from similiar materials would be far easier to achieve.
because missiles are specifically engineered to go through them, its not part of the engineering plan when they are designing planes.

Have u seen what a bird can do to a place nose cone? Even a bird can put a dent in it.

Do you even think a delicate and flimsy plane wing can effortlessly slice through the exterior of a modern skyscraper like that? Thats what these idiotic videos claim to be showing.

Just think about it please, its just so so stupid to think something like that could happen.

Last edited by da2255; 20-06-2018 at 10:22 PM.
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-2018, 08:31 AM   #1897
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 148 (109 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
because missiles are specifically engineered to go through them, its not part of the engineering plan when they are designing planes.

Have u seen what a bird can do to a place nose cone? Even a bird can put a dent in it.

Do you even think a delicate and flimsy plane wing can effortlessly slice through the exterior of a modern skyscraper like that? Thats what these idiotic videos claim to be showing.

Just think about it please, its just so so stupid to think something like that could happen.
The B-25 bomber which went into the Empire state building in 1945 had a front end that was mostly made of re-enforced glass and a thin web frame. It's top speed was around 265 mph. It crashed because of foggy conditions so I doubt it was travelling anywhere near its top speed yet managed to cause significant damage, including the warping of an iron girder which had its concrete encasing smashed off by the impact. So it proves that iron girders can be destroyed in slower impacts.

What was noted about the planes impact was that the wings split off during the impact. However, we are talking about a completely different construction and of course, a plane that was going much slower.

So what I find interesting about these debates on the plane impacts is that the plane deniers first rule out any sort of aircraft based on the presumption no part of the plane would be strong enough to get through the buildings. When they learn that it is possible, they blame the wing tips.

The only part of the wing that is aluminium on Jetliners is the front of the wing, that being the curve which acts as the aerodynamic to help air flow over the wing. The rest is made from a mixture of composites and other materials. A lot of modern engines are known to be made from a combination of titanium and aluminium parts. These are strong materials, much stronger than those of the B-25. Modern aircraft are also pressurised, meaning, they need to be very strong to control the pressure in the aircraft. Pressurisation would also increase an equally distributed strength within the plane.

At altitude, the temperatures are very cold. Alongside this, planes have to withstand high strength winds and extreme changes in temperature. So these planes are very resilent including the wingtips.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-2018, 11:17 AM   #1898
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,328
Likes: 4,606 (2,581 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
The B-25 bomber which went into the Empire state building in 1945 had a front end that was mostly made of re-enforced glass and a thin web frame. It's top speed was around 265 mph. It crashed because of foggy conditions so I doubt it was travelling anywhere near its top speed yet managed to cause significant damage, including the warping of an iron girder which had its concrete encasing smashed off by the impact. So it proves that iron girders can be destroyed in slower impacts.

What was noted about the planes impact was that the wings split off during the impact. However, we are talking about a completely different construction and of course, a plane that was going much slower.

So what I find interesting about these debates on the plane impacts is that the plane deniers first rule out any sort of aircraft based on the presumption no part of the plane would be strong enough to get through the buildings. When they learn that it is possible, they blame the wing tips.

The only part of the wing that is aluminium on Jetliners is the front of the wing, that being the curve which acts as the aerodynamic to help air flow over the wing. The rest is made from a mixture of composites and other materials. A lot of modern engines are known to be made from a combination of titanium and aluminium parts. These are strong materials, much stronger than those of the B-25. Modern aircraft are also pressurised, meaning, they need to be very strong to control the pressure in the aircraft. Pressurisation would also increase an equally distributed strength within the plane.

At altitude, the temperatures are very cold. Alongside this, planes have to withstand high strength winds and extreme changes in temperature. So these planes are very resilent including the wingtips.
I would expect structural steel damage from the engines and under carriages/wheels from a b52 traveling at around 250 mph..
The wings falling off is entirely consistent with a plane crashing into a high rise building made from steel concrete and glazing
Imho

Edit
Why do planes break into many pieces when they impact the sea?
If they are so strong to resist such forces that they can smash through structural steel columns and concrete floors...
Why are planes not natural bunker busters if they can create so much force?
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine

Last edited by the nine; 21-06-2018 at 11:22 AM.
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-2018, 10:40 PM   #1899
da2255
Senior Member
 
da2255's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 265
Likes: 149 (96 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
I would expect structural steel damage from the engines and under carriages/wheels from a b52 traveling at around 250 mph..
The wings falling off is entirely consistent with a plane crashing into a high rise building made from steel concrete and glazing
Imho

Edit
Why do planes break into many pieces when they impact the sea?
If they are so strong to resist such forces that they can smash through structural steel columns and concrete floors...
Why are planes not natural bunker busters if they can create so much force?
Its not just the total force its the concentration and transmission of the force onto a single point, just say that planes are not designed by engineers to penetrate bunkers, probably all you need to know.

Imagine a dart flying into your finger at 30mph, then imagine a football of the same mass and speed of the dart hitting your finger, one of them goes right through and the other one just slaps it, its the same thing. They both have the same overall force, because force = mass X acceleration, but the force from the dart is going to be channeled into a much smaller point on your finger which is why it goes right through.

Last edited by da2255; 21-06-2018 at 10:43 PM.
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-06-2018, 09:36 AM   #1900
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 148 (109 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
I would expect structural steel damage from the engines and under carriages/wheels from a b52 traveling at around 250 mph..
The wings falling off is entirely consistent with a plane crashing into a high rise building made from steel concrete and glazing
Imho

Edit
Why do planes break into many pieces when they impact the sea?
If they are so strong to resist such forces that they can smash through structural steel columns and concrete floors...
Why are planes not natural bunker busters if they can create so much force?
Yeah it was a B-25 not B-52, a very different aircraft, and one far less armoured than a B-52 (The B-52 didn't exist until the 1950s). It would not have been travelling that fast in foggy conditions.

Jetliners with engines that hang from the wings are known to not fair well when emergency landing into water because they generate enormous amounts of drag, usually causing the plane to split in half. If one engine goes in before the other, the G forces that would act on the planes direction would be very great indeed, yet if the go in at the same time, there is the risk the front end will slam into the ocean as the drag pulls the back end over itself.
Therefore, planes with engines housed near the rear wingtip, such a learjets, stand better chances of landing in water without break up.

Again, this is a different situation to the impacts on 9/11. The forces aren't acting underneath the plane, they are acting on the front.

Last edited by MKUltrad; 23-06-2018 at 10:03 AM.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:10 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.