Whatever was behind the gate-lifting mechanism in this picture (if there was indeed something there) was too short to be a 757. http://www.911-strike.com/ldsxox1.gif More info here... September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M (1:55:25 time mark)
So in other words you refuse to present any of your questions, because you know they would be shot down. The major question about the Pentagon hit, is as follows: WHY did the worlds greatest military power fail to defend even its own HQ? and additionally where is the physical evidence that supports the notion that a big Boeing airliner struck the Pentagon?
Some people it seems insist on simply not getting it, Let me put it this way, if you are in an automobile collision and not only the car itself is crashed, but everything inside the car is also affected in that things fly forward due to their own inertia, now think about the affect of having a moving aircraft at 540 mph and having to give up so much as 11 mph within the span of say 5 milliseconds, what do you imagine would happen to all the stuff inside the airliner?
It too gets shredded like the airplane. Every been to a jetliner crash? Often there is not much left of many of the people other than bits of flesh. What do you suppose happens to what it hits. Remember, the building it hit was basically a grid and only the steel parts of the grid could give any resistance or in this case, would break away under so much force.
Lets do one of those science class hypothetical cases: an airliner at 30,000 ft is cruising at 540 mph and an experimental balloon caring a 5,000 lb experimental package and as the balloon ascends through the 30,000 ft level, the airliner strikes the payload package and so then the question gets to be, what happens next, the airliner simply pushes the 5,000 lb package out of the way with no other consequence, or? there is solid science and math behind my conclusions on this subject, are you willing to actually have a dialog on the subject or just play at being a nay-sayer?
Can we now discuss the characteristics of said damage? the fact is that upon encountering a stationary mass, the object traveling at 540 mph would have to overcome the inertial of the stationary mass and in so doing loose a bit of speed, the impulse imparted on the airliner would be >100 g and as such, for every ton of stuff inside the airliner there would be >100 tons of stress created against bulkheads and within the wings, the fuel would exert that 100 X pressure against the inside of the tanks .... etc ... so you see, with there being a total of 70 milliseconds to actually break up the aircraft, why should there be video of what most certainly appears to be a whole aircraft penetrating the WTC wall as if it had a lubricated condom.?
At that speed and even if the building were a solid unyielding block, it would not look much different but there was plenty of give in the building wall.
"plenty of give in the building wall" Wow, how scientific, I have brought the math and the science to this discussion and people throw out opinion.... the fact is that for the wall to have offered up so little resistance that we could see what was alleged by the video, the skyscraper wall would have to have been made of paper. with the steel structure as was know to have been, the hole just for the nose of the aircraft would have involved displacing 3 tons of mass, therefore there would be resistance to penetration if only in overcoming the inertia of that 3 tons, therefore the airliner would have to loose speed, and remember a loss of 11 mph in 0.005 sec = >100 g deceleration and the figures don't lie, this is what can be expected in this sort of collision. so having the entire airliner stressed by >100 g, and given another 65 milliseconds to act on the structure, what magical forces kept the airliner intact to make that wing shaped gash?
Find the quote, where did I ever say "not affect the structure" I said that the collision would have a profound effect upon the airliner and that is what my focus is, the fact that the airliner could have made that nose puch-out hole, is accepted, however the wing shaped gash is out-of-the-question!
Much weight is in the wings so no, it is not out of the question. Wing tanks are filled first and used last. The aircraft had nearly full tanks. Each wing holds 7 tons of fuel. At that speed, liquid acts almost like a solid. The basic rough guess of weight then with the wing and gear would produce approximately >26,000 tons of force per wing.
exactly .... this >26,000 tons would be acting upon whatever the fuel came in contact with at the time the jolt was applied, so for fist 5 milliseconds of the crash, the jolt is applied, and then 65 milliseconds later the wings have an opportunity to contact the wall. however given the time involved and the force applied, why should the wings remain whole? the stress upon the fuel tanks would be catastrophic to say the least.
It was, both to the wings and the wall. You are still assuming no deformation of the fuselage at point of impact. At that speed it makes little difference to the wings. BTW., 65ms is about 1/5th the blink of an eye.
There would have been time enough for physical objects to react to the forces applied, and NO, I'm not assuming no deformation of the fuselage, there would have to be structural failure of the entire aircraft.
The appalling ignorance of conspiracy theorists is always readily apparent. The wings of the plane, where they join the fuselage, are one of the strongest points of the entire aircraft because almost the entire weight of the plane is carried in the center and it is the wings that provide the lift that enable it to fly. The OP erroneously believes that the stresses of the nose impact alone would be sufficient to shear off the wings without any comprehension of the actual engineering involved. And it goes downhill from there, quite literally. Which part of the plane was making it go at 540 mph? Somehow the OP imagines that the engines are just going to fall off as soon as the nose touches the building. But they were still at full thrust and have enormous momentum which means they are heading towards the building at 540 mph with barely milliseconds to impact. Those engines were attached to the wings which provide the LIFT to keep the aircraft airborne. What happens when the weight at the nose of the plane decreases? The wings will be carrying less weight and therefore be lifting the plane rather than allowing it to "tumble away". And before the OP demands to see "proof" on any lift he needs to understand that a 757 weighs about 100 tons so no, that fractional lift prior to the wings hitting the wall (intact) would not be visible on the available footage. The OP is the usual farcical nonsensical drivel that one has come to expect from those with absolutely zero knowledge of any engineering discipline.
"Which part of the plane was making it go at 540 mph?" most certainly NOT the engines, are you aware at all of the problems involved in attempting to fly anything at 540 mph that near sea level?
So the planes were powered by your magic "death ray" instead? You are the one who alleged that it was doing that speed at impact so the onus is on you to prove that it can.
I have ALWAYS said the ALLEGED FLT175 can you get your head around the fact that the whole scene was a hoax? total fraud! There was NO FLT11, FLT175, FLT77, or FLT93 !
None downhill. Just because the FAA limits speed below 18,000 feet to 250 knots does not mean aircraft cannot exceed their rated VNE below 18,000 ft. BTW, if you had been there and blinked your eyes when it hit, you would have missed it hitting.
However, the fact is that an airliner is more like a bus than a formula race car, therefore when the bus has a practical top speed of 90 mph, no matter how heavy your foot is, the bus is not going any faster and so it is with airliners, the power to weight ratio is calculated for efficiency, not brute power. The engines will NOT propel the aircraft at 540 mph so near sea level. the ONLY way this could have been would be if the airliner was sent into a power dive to gain speed, however this is very problematic in that the maneuver is highly dependent on pilot skill to get it right and not destroy the aircraft in the process. on examination, the whole hijacked airliners fiasco falls apart.
These engines are very powerful, they have to be to get them to altitude. From an airline pilot: In answer to your question...............a 757, or a 767, or an MD-11 can easily do 450 KIAS (517 mph) at low altitude at least once and maybe many times before it would show signs of damage and could do well beyond that if it were meant to be total destruction.
Please think about this, you are driving your little economy car, and at 30 mph cruse its taking all of 3 horse power to maintain speed on level ground, now if you accelerate to 60 mph, and again go steady state, the power required to maintain your speed on level ground is now 27 horse power. can you get your head around that?
