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.
I said the speed of the plane exceeded by three hundred miles its maximum velocity beyond which it breaks up.
Except that is not what that number means. It is the number beyond which the structural integrity of the plane cannot be guaranteed. Whether that means it breaks up immediately, begins to suffer structural failure, begins to have uncontrolled vibrations, is less certain, because the planes aren't flown beyond those values to find out.
I also don't think you're even using the right number for the given situation.
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.
This is literally my field. I have literally calculated these same numbers in designing my own UAVs. I know how they are obtained and what they mean and you very obviously do not.
Particularly since the VMO of a 767 is 360 knots, which is 414 mph, and this is the airspeed number, so the relative velocity of the plane to the air through which it is moving, and not the groundspeed number, which was recorded to be ~586 mph on the day. But for the sake of argument, 586 mph is 141% of the VMO of 414 mph, and airplanes are designed with factors of safety of 1.5, so by all accounts this is within the capacity of the plane when you disregard factors of safety. Additionally, as my video shows, the wing only failed at 154% of its design load limit. So the limits as defined by engineers are not absolute hard limits anyways, just that normal usage should be constrained by them.
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.
Except that is not what that number means. It is the number beyond which the structural integrity of the plane cannot be guaranteed. Whether that means it breaks up immediately, begins to suffer structural failure, begins to have uncontrolled vibrations, is less certain, because the planes aren't flown beyond those values to find out.
I also don't think you're even using the right number for the given situation.
This is literally my field. I have literally calculated these same numbers in designing my own UAVs. I know how they are obtained and what they mean and you very obviously do not.
Particularly since the VMO of a 767 is 360 knots, which is 414 mph, and this is the airspeed number, so the relative velocity of the plane to the air through which it is moving, and not the groundspeed number, which was recorded to be ~586 mph on the day. But for the sake of argument, 586 mph is 141% of the VMO of 414 mph, and airplanes are designed with factors of safety of 1.5, so by all accounts this is within the capacity of the plane when you disregard factors of safety. Additionally, as my video shows, the wing only failed at 154% of its design load limit. So the limits as defined by engineers are not absolute hard limits anyways, just that normal usage should be constrained by them.