Go look at the videos, then check out a Roadrunner cartoon, then look at the plane videos again. You will see the planes melt into the buildings, no resistance, no parts fall off, even the wings slice through the building, completely impossible given the massive steel walls of those towers.
Once you can realize there were no planes, you can see how slick an inside job this was.
thats actually a good point I never thought of- plane wings are lightweight by design, you can see the shake if you ride next to one in the air sometimes.
The wings are actually very securely fashioned to the fuselage and the wings are some of the strongest members on the aircraft. Go look up wing load test videos, they can take a tremendous amount of loading before fracture. They're not going to "fall off" like in a cartoon.
No, and they’re reinforced to carry all the fuel. They’d cut into the building better than the fuselage would. Hell, they’re the whole reason we can cut thru the air in the first place.
And where do you expect them to go? They're travelling at 500 MPH parallel to the ground into the side of a building. The building isn't strong enough to stop steel moving at that speed instantaneosly so that the wings would shear off and fall to the ground below, they'd be in the building.
The huge skyscraper beams are engineered to hold up a building, all the force of which is directed primarily vertically. A plane impacting those same beams at a 90° angle to their intended loading direction is going to have a much easier time to cause deformation than if you tried the same operation with the same beam oriented horizontally.
Likewise the wings contain steel spars and ribs. The wings are the strongest part of an aircraft, as they are what undergo all of the loading a plane experiences, and hold up the plane. The fuselage is, for all intents and purposes, tacked onto the wings, and not the wings tacked onto the fuselage.
But you need to remember that the walls of the twin towers aren't a solid barrier, it's more like a filter or a grate, and at 500+ MPH, the dynamics of the collision are such that the plane is going to be, for lack of a better term, filtered by what it doesn't destroy. Disintegration of the aircraft on impact is not exactly a surprising outcome of that collision.
The wings aren’t lightweight and paper thin, they hold the fuel for crying out loud! If there was no resistance the plane would have come out the other side.. have you not taken fundamentals in physics yet?
The wings are hollow, they are also extremely flexible, they would have snapped off at a minimum, not slid effortlessly into and through into the core of a steel framed building. Yet in the faked video they do.
In the video of the second hit the nose of the plane was shown coming out he other side of the building because they didn't line up the edits correctly. You need to take time to really research this instead of holding on to a belief that may be comforting but is false.
Flexible doesn’t mean weak. There’s no reason why that much kenetic energy would have stopped, bounced off and broke... they were heavy and full of fuel.
And, I mean, I’m 100% ok with being wrong. I’m not even saying it isn’t a false flag, in fact I think it is, but I think it slammed into the tower and took it out.
You're an idiot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0 Here's an example of a wing loaded to 154% of its supposed design load limit. According to your logic all over the thread, this is impossible, it should have failed at the designed load limit, and this video is faked and can't exist.
Except it's pure fact.
These wings are designed to take a tremendous amount of loading, and even the design limits are not true limits, just predicted limits based on current understanding of the physics and the materials.
Just because an engineer says something can't perform at a given level does not mean that it can't.
I have been involved in materials research on carbon composites for the last few years and everything in aviation with carbon composites is overbuilt precisely because the exact limits of the materials are not well understood and it's all expensive guesswork validated through extensive materials testing.
Your arguments all over this thread stem from a glaring ignorance of aerospace structural mechanics and a general ignorance that if an engineering design document says that a limit exists, that limit is a hard limit. That is not true.
Design load limit?? I never said anything about design load limit, I said the speed of the plane exceeded by three hundred miles its maximum velocity beyond which it breaks up.
That you cannot distinguish between a plane's load and a plane's speed leads me to doubt that have any idea what you are commenting on. Go away.
Go look at the videos, then check out a Roadrunner cartoon, then look at the plane videos again. You will see the planes melt into the buildings, no resistance, no parts fall off, even the wings slice through the building, completely impossible given the massive steel walls of those towers.
Once you can realize there were no planes, you can see how slick an inside job this was.
thats actually a good point I never thought of- plane wings are lightweight by design, you can see the shake if you ride next to one in the air sometimes.
they should have been sheared off..
Exactly, and remember all the photos of nose cones that are totally crushed by sea gulls? Planes are fragile, no way they can shear through steel.
The wings are actually very securely fashioned to the fuselage and the wings are some of the strongest members on the aircraft. Go look up wing load test videos, they can take a tremendous amount of loading before fracture. They're not going to "fall off" like in a cartoon.
well I dont know shit about wings, its true. but they wouldnt be sheared off by huge steel skyscraper beams?
No, and they’re reinforced to carry all the fuel. They’d cut into the building better than the fuselage would. Hell, they’re the whole reason we can cut thru the air in the first place.
And where do you expect them to go? They're travelling at 500 MPH parallel to the ground into the side of a building. The building isn't strong enough to stop steel moving at that speed instantaneosly so that the wings would shear off and fall to the ground below, they'd be in the building.
The huge skyscraper beams are engineered to hold up a building, all the force of which is directed primarily vertically. A plane impacting those same beams at a 90° angle to their intended loading direction is going to have a much easier time to cause deformation than if you tried the same operation with the same beam oriented horizontally.
Likewise the wings contain steel spars and ribs. The wings are the strongest part of an aircraft, as they are what undergo all of the loading a plane experiences, and hold up the plane. The fuselage is, for all intents and purposes, tacked onto the wings, and not the wings tacked onto the fuselage.
But you need to remember that the walls of the twin towers aren't a solid barrier, it's more like a filter or a grate, and at 500+ MPH, the dynamics of the collision are such that the plane is going to be, for lack of a better term, filtered by what it doesn't destroy. Disintegration of the aircraft on impact is not exactly a surprising outcome of that collision.
The wings aren’t lightweight and paper thin, they hold the fuel for crying out loud! If there was no resistance the plane would have come out the other side.. have you not taken fundamentals in physics yet?
The wings are hollow, they are also extremely flexible, they would have snapped off at a minimum, not slid effortlessly into and through into the core of a steel framed building. Yet in the faked video they do.
In the video of the second hit the nose of the plane was shown coming out he other side of the building because they didn't line up the edits correctly. You need to take time to really research this instead of holding on to a belief that may be comforting but is false.
Flexible doesn’t mean weak. There’s no reason why that much kenetic energy would have stopped, bounced off and broke... they were heavy and full of fuel.
And, I mean, I’m 100% ok with being wrong. I’m not even saying it isn’t a false flag, in fact I think it is, but I think it slammed into the tower and took it out.
What sources are you getting these from?
You're an idiot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0 Here's an example of a wing loaded to 154% of its supposed design load limit. According to your logic all over the thread, this is impossible, it should have failed at the designed load limit, and this video is faked and can't exist.
Except it's pure fact.
These wings are designed to take a tremendous amount of loading, and even the design limits are not true limits, just predicted limits based on current understanding of the physics and the materials.
Just because an engineer says something can't perform at a given level does not mean that it can't.
I have been involved in materials research on carbon composites for the last few years and everything in aviation with carbon composites is overbuilt precisely because the exact limits of the materials are not well understood and it's all expensive guesswork validated through extensive materials testing.
Your arguments all over this thread stem from a glaring ignorance of aerospace structural mechanics and a general ignorance that if an engineering design document says that a limit exists, that limit is a hard limit. That is not true.
Design load limit?? I never said anything about design load limit, I said the speed of the plane exceeded by three hundred miles its maximum velocity beyond which it breaks up.
That you cannot distinguish between a plane's load and a plane's speed leads me to doubt that have any idea what you are commenting on. Go away.