Holes shaped like planes?

Discussion in '9/11' started by Vlad Ivx, Dec 29, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    [​IMG]





    Click to enlarge:
    View attachment 24545





    Mythbusters experiment involving steel and vehicles at 33:21:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQBlv7sZGVE&t=33m21s
    Experiment 1 shows how a 1 inch think steel plate stays intact after what it does to that car at 650 mph.
    It bends only when hitting the other steel plate supported by the concrete wall.
    Expermient 2 shows a column-like steel plough vertically pushed through a car at 560 mph.
    The steel didn't change shape as you can see in slow motion, even though it cut the whole car in two including the engine. So far from being the one cut by the car...​




    Why the people in the Bush administration had no brain:
    [video=youtube;2nV4vloxvDo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nV4vloxvDo[/video]​
     
  2. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No,try again,this time tell us how much mass 150 or so tons of aircraft has traveling at around 600 MPH,then tell us why you're silly enough to post a picture of a beer can with wings.

    As if that was an example of anything.
     
  3. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    What 600 mph? Do you know the speed limit of a 767? It wasn't 600 mph. Anyway, Flight 175 was flying far beyond its speed limit already. That's one problem with 9/11. Then speaking of mass... The gaps between the columns should have taken most of that mass because as the airplane turned to shreds, the shreds that entered the windows should have dragged the rest with them. The outside should have been a little bent inwards at most. Looking at the pictures, the lack of inwards 'bendness' is very suspect. Even if we accept what you propose that the mass which indeed increases with speed was enough to make these holes, why isn't the facade around that area bent inwards?? That's very curious.

    That was a joke. It says that planes are comparable to beer cans and indeed they are. They are largely made of the same material.
     
  4. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
  5. EggKiller

    EggKiller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    6,643
    Likes Received:
    476
    Trophy Points:
    83


    Here, try to grasp what your witnessing.
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQw...tch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg&feature=channel_video_title
     
  6. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,682
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So are you claiming the original designers of the building did not know what they were doing?
     
  7. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Are no planers all that is left on this desperate joke of a movement for "truth"? Pathetic.
     
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,839
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The best way to hurt a movement is to support its theories with wrong arguments. Start watching this video at the 7:20 time mark.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYedTmaHt1A
    "provocateurs,shills and disinfo agents"

    Real truthers don't believe the no-plane theory. The no-plane theory was thought up by some public relations firm to discredit the truth movement and the "Truthers" put it forwad are infiltrator shills.
     
  9. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No,I am NOT going to watch ONE more silly assed youtube video that engages in speculation and calls it 'proof'
     
  10. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Answer this question: What is the speed limit of a 767? It's simple.

    - - - Updated - - -

    What has this got to do with anything?
     
  11. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
  12. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Answer this question: what is the speed of a crashing 767-200?
     
  13. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    That's steel bullets not aluminium bullets. Good morning America :roflol: Can you grasp the difference between steel vs. steel and aluminium & fiberglass vs. steel? Who said bullets can't go through steel? Everyone knows they can and that was not even the point of this thread. :D
     
  14. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The point is that it can't crash at 560 mph because it can't reach 560 mph... There is a great problem with the official story regarding the impact speed.
     
  15. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really?....why not. Tell us why?

    psssst:
    make:Boeing
    Model:767
    Engine:two Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D or two CF6-80A
    Top Speed:558 mph
     
  16. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure.
    The speed of sound at approximate sea level is 761 mph on a standard day. Therefore the theoretical maximum speed the 767-200 can reach intact is, conservatively, .86 x 761mph = 654mph

    - - - Updated - - -

    A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure.
    The speed of sound at approximate sea level is 761 mph on a standard day. Therefore the theoretical maximum speed the 767-200 can reach intact is, conservatively, .86 x 761mph = 654mph
     
  17. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ...and now it's not "great problem" at all....hell, it's not even a problem.
     
  18. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Source?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Show me your source please.
     
  19. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
  20. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Uh, sorry, what's this? What exactly represents this .86 to you??

    What was that? :lol:

    Anyway you seem to be suggesting that a 767 airliner is built to hold together at the speed of sound... Bullshyt. It would fall apart long before ever nearing 1 mach.
     
  21. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Specifications[edit]

    Specifications by model
    767-200 767-200ER 767-300 767-300ER 767-300F 767-400ER
    Cockpit crew Two
    Seating capacity,
    typical 181 (3-class)
    224 (2-class)
    255; optional 290 (1-class) 218 (3-class)
    269 (2-class)
    290; optional 350 (1-class) N/A 245 (3-class)
    304 (2-class)
    409 (1-class)
    Cargo capacity 2,875 ft³ (81.4 m³)
    22 LD2s 3,770 ft³ (106.8 m³)
    30 LD2s 15,469 ft³ (438 m³)
    30 LD2s + 24 pallets 4,580 ft³ (129.6 m³)
    38 LD2s
    Length 159 ft 2 in
    (48.5 m) 180 ft 3 in
    (54.9 m) 201 ft 4 in
    (61.4 m)
    Wingspan 156 ft 1 in
    (47.6 m) 170 ft 4 in
    (51.9 m)
    Wing area 3,050 ft² (283.3 m²) 3,130 ft² (290.7 m²)
    Fuselage height 17 ft 9 in (5.41 m)
    Fuselage width 16 ft 6 in (5.03 m)
    Cabin width
    (interior) 15 ft 6 in (4.72 m)
    Maximum fuel
    capacity 16,700 US gal (63,000 L) 24,140 US gal (91,400 L) 16,700 US gal (63,000 L) 24,140 US gal (91,400 L)
    Operating
    empty weight 176,650 lb
    (80,130 kg) 181,610 lb
    (82,380 kg) 189,750 lb
    (86,070 kg) 198,440 lb
    (90,010 kg) 190,000 lb
    (86,180 kg) 229,000 lb
    (103,870 kg)
    Maximum
    takeoff weight 315,000 lb
    (142,880 kg) 395,000 lb
    (179,170 kg) 350,000 lb
    (158,760 kg) 412,000 lb
    (186,880 kg) 412,000 lb
    (186,880 kg) 450,000 lb
    (204,120 kg)
    Maximum range
    at MTOW 3,850 nmi (4,430 mi; 7,130 km) 6,385 nmi (7,348 mi; 11,825 km) 4,260 nmi (4,900 mi; 7,890 km) 5,990 nmi (6,890 mi; 11,090 km)
    WL: 6,310 nmi (7,260 mi; 11,690 km) 3,255 nmi (3,746 mi; 6,028 km)
    WL: 3,575 nmi (4,114 mi; 6,621 km) 5,625 nmi (6,473 mi; 10,418 km)
    Cruise speed Mach 0.80 (470 knots, 530 mph, 851 km/h at 35,000 ft (11,000 m) cruise altitude)
    Maximum cruise
    speed Mach 0.86 (493 knots, 567 mph, 913 km/h at 35,000 ft (11,000 m) cruise altitude)
    Takeoff distance
    at MTOW (sea level, ISA) 5,800 ft (1,768 m) 8,300 ft (2,530 m) 7,900 ft (2,410 m) 8,300 ft (2,530 m) 8,600 ft (2,621 m) 10,200 ft (3,109 m)
    Engines (x2) P&W JT9D-7R4
    P&W PW4052
    GE CF6-80A, A2, or C2 P&W PW4052, or 4056
    GE CF6-80C2
    RR RB211-524G or H P&W JT9D-7R4
    P&W PW4052
    GE CF6-80A, or C2
    RR RB211-524H P&W PW4056, 4060, or 4062
    GE CF6-80C2
    RR RB211-524G, or H P&W PW4062
    GE CF6-80C2
    Thrust (x2) GE: 50,000 lbf (222 kN) PW: 63,300 lb (282 kN)
    GE: 62,100 lbf (276 kN) PW: 50,000 lbf (220 kN) PW: 63,300 lbf (282 kN)
    GE: 62,100 lbf (276 kN)
    RR: 59,500 lbf (265 kN) PW: 63,300 lbf (282 kN)
    GE: 63,500 lbf (282 kN)
    Sources: Boeing 767 general specifications,[24][188] Boeing 767 variant specifications[42][47][128][135] and other sources[21]
     
  22. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
  23. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    1,276
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Truther math....Gotta love it.
     
  24. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It might be able to somehow near that speed... ...as it disintegrates. That is the raw speed of the engines alone provided that you do not take into account any surrounding structure. But that 767 like all jetliners has something like a speed governor which does not allow the pilot to exceed a certain speed unless he turns it off. That's because a 767 is at high risk of falling apart after 360 mph and at a very high risk after 400.
     
  25. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The structure is safety rated at .86 Mach. That's a percentage; 86%.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Cite a source for this claim, please. The manuals say differently.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page