Flight 175 Turning And Burning, ...i`ve never seen this before! Options

[CocaineImportAge...]

south tower impact

...anybody!?!

[rob balsamo]

Well said amazed! Couldnt have said it better myself... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


Has any NPTer tried to take their theories to ae911truth and ask the sheer/tensile strengths used in the outer perimeter? It appears to be rather thin steel, boxed.

(IMG:http://images.quickblogcast.com/81199-71081/fig_B_1.jpg)

I personally know how hard and durable a leading edge of an aircraft is just by feeling it with my own hand... and bumping my own head into it more times than i wish to admit..

Consider that same "arc" (wing) is filled with a fluid (read: uncompressable), and combined with the fact that there are so many witnesses which most NPTers fail to address and/or interview (read: Seeking Witnesses by posting on a forum instead of making calls and walking the NYC streets), the leap of logic from VF to NPT which most NPTers use to 'prove' their theory, is weak and short.

[Omega892R09]

I personally know how hard and durable a leading edge of an aircraft is just by feeling it with my own hand... and bumping my own head into it more times than i wish to admit..

As am I, after all I had to work with the blighters on a dark flight deck often in a howling gale and horizontal driven rain, sleet or snow.

Worse than wing leading edges were the various aerials sticking out below especially those very nasty Sparrow missile aerials, long and thin and projecting at about 30 degrees down and aft'. Walk into one of those, and it was at just the right height as one ducked down and walked, and it would go straight through an eye socket and out of the skull at the back.

We didn't have hard hats to wear in my day.

Consider that same "arc" (wing) is filled with a fluid (read: uncompressable),...

I am not familiar with that abreviation 'arc', but be that as it may the structure behind that filled section would not be indestructable - aircraft have to get off the ground and carry a payload, unlike WTC 1 and WTC 2.

Now don't get me for a no planer. My pitch is that the video clip concerned does not show an aircraft entering the tower, as I said there are no visible pieces falling to the ground as there would be if it were a real aircraft being filmed entering.

The official line is that a plane hit the Pentagon and you have demonstrated the fallacy of that. Why should WTC be any less of a smoke and mirror show?

There may have been some planes but I doubt that they were as alleged by the OCT, why could there not have been fly-bys just as at the Pentagon with something else going on in and internally placed explosives enlarging the hole.

BTW that image, is that from inside a tower before collapse or at GZ afterwards?

[rob balsamo]

Worse than wing leading edges were the various aerials sticking out ....

Working my way up the ranks, fueling and towing aircraft... i've had my fair share of bumping into a pitot now and then... ouch.

I am not familiar with that abreviation 'arc',

An arc is one of the most strongest structures engineered by man going back to the Romans. The leading edge of a wing is essentially an arc. I really should have said "arch". My apologies for the confusion.

but be that as it may the structure behind that filled section would not be indestructable

Agreed

as I said there are no visible pieces falling to the ground as there would be if it were a real aircraft being filmed entering.

Personally, im puzzled by the wing tips. As they are much more 'fragile' when compared to steel and the wing root. But again, i would like to get Richard Gage's take on the outer perimeter materials, thickness, strength, etc... i may contact him myself soon as i'll need to consult for our upcoming presentation Pandora's Black Box - Chapter IV - Flight of American 11 and United 175. We will be using 3D scale modeling as used in 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon....

The official line is that a plane hit the Pentagon and you have demonstrated the fallacy of that. Why should WTC be any less of a smoke and mirror show?

If there is "Video Fakery" at the WTC showing clear impacts from numerous views, why not at least one at the pentagon? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

There may have been some planes but I doubt that they were as alleged by the OCT, why could there not have been fly-bys just as at the Pentagon with something else going on in and internally placed explosives enlarging the hole.

You know P4T policy on speculation Omega.. so i cant really give you a reply without speculating...

BTW that image, is that from inside a tower before collapse or at GZ afterwards?

Just a quick seach i did.. i think it may be at GZ. Could be at Freshkills^TM...

[dMz]

Personally, im puzzled by the wing tips. As they are much more 'fragile' when compared to steel and the wing root. But again, i would like to get Richard Gage's take on the outer perimeter materials, thickness, strength, etc... i may contact him myself soon as i'll need to consult for our upcoming presentation Pandora's Black Box - Chapter IV - Flight of American 11 and United 175. We will be using 3D scale modeling as used in 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon....

For those interested parties, here are some more values pulled out of the Boeing-supplied B767-200 CAD drawing:

NOTE: All values are approximate as the CAD drawing was rather coarse, not well-dimensioned, and there may be some very slight "scaling" issues inherent in the original Boeing file.

approx. turbofan intake area [inside nacelle fairing, and the axial turbine shaft(s) would likely become a much smaller "penetrator" projectile in an impact IMHO] : Area = 6996.9781" sq. (48.5901' sq.) [4.514170391 m^2], Circumference = 24'-8 1/2"
turbofan intake radius: 3'-11 3/16"

approx. fuselage tube area (circular approximation of slightly "elliptical" fuselage tube): "Area = 32830.9587" sq. (227.9928' sq.), [21.1812213149 m^2], Circumference = 53'-6 5/16" "

approx. wing "stub box" for 1 wing stub [should be x2 for BOTH wing stubs, out to turbofan pylon] = "Area = 11520.3553" sq. (80.0025' sq.), [7.4324724253 m^2], Perimeter = 58'-7 1/2" "
approx wing "tip" area for 1 wing [should be x2 for BOTH]: 10731.7474" sq. (74.5260' sq.), [6.9236941526 m^2], Perimeter = 105'-10 1/8"
approx. horizontal stabilizer area for 1 horizontal stabilizer [should be x2 for BOTH]: " = 3404.5113" sq. (23.6424' sq.), [2.1964545103 m^2], Perimeter = 47'-8 3/4" "

approx. vertical stabilizer area [1 only]: "Area = 5899.1968" sq. (40.9666' sq.), [3.8059258075 m^2], Perimeter = 58'-9 5/8" "

NOTE: These were all approximate values taken fairly quickly from the frontal "cross sectional" view of the B767-200 CAD drawing obtained from Boeing's public website. "Cross sectional" area is but one value needed for rather complex "penetration" and/or "shear" calculations that should probably be done on Finite Element Analysis software if reasonable values were known. The specific material properties of the alleged AA11 and UA175 are not known, as no conclusive aircraft identification has ever been made, and these are likely Boeing-proprietary information. "Standard" values for various aluminum alloys are publicly available though.
----------------
Some information on WTC perimeter columns has been posted at #42 (with addendum at #45):
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10750078

Related thread is at:
Wtc 1,2, & 7 Building Descriptions
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13091