skyeagle409 Posted February 1, 2012 #2401 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) What I have is 40 years of experience in aviation. I have seen first hand many examples of aluminum airframes and components being involved in minor and major collisions with trucks, steel hangars, concrete walls and assorted other items. In each and every case, the aluminum fuselage is badly damaged, deformed, sacrificed, or destroyed, while the truck, hangar, or concrete wall is unscathed. Aircraft fuselages are designed to fly through the fluid air, NOT to penetrate other structures. Then, explain these photos because aircraft penetrated both buildings. Edited February 1, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted February 1, 2012 #2402 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Here is the same video that Oly presented, but this one has an English-speaking commentator: This video is relevant to showing the effects of an aircraft traveling at 500mph crashing into a reinforced wall, just as demonstrations involving shooting a bullet into various materials are relevant to showing the effects of shooting a human being, or just as automobile crash tests are relevant in showing how those automobiles will stand up to various impacts. Cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pihkal Posted February 1, 2012 #2403 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) The video F-4 crashing into the reinforced wall is very relevant to this discussion. There are those here who believe that very large pieces of AA77 such as the wings and vertical stabilizer should have remained virtually intact after the 757 hit the Pentagon. While it is clearly understood that there is a big difference between an F-4 and a 757, and that the F-4 crash was a controlled experiment, the video still has evidentiary value in showing the results of an impact of an aircraft into a reinforced concrete wall at 500mph. Cz Ah I'm seeing your point now I have watched the video in full screen. The wings are intact as they pass through the wall from what I can see. Thank you for pointing that out. [edit] So Carol (thanks for the English version by the way, my knowledge of German extends to being able to say "faster faster potatohead"....thanks Blackadder!) says that only the tips of the wings survived, given the quality of the footage it's actually somewhat hard to tell. Beyond that however, I can see nothing further than can be gained from it as evidence. Is there no footage of the same controlled testing being done with a 757? I assume not. Edited February 1, 2012 by Pihkal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oly Posted February 1, 2012 #2404 Share Posted February 1, 2012 It is a different type of aircraft hitting a rather large block of concrete (which we do not know the properties of...is it reinforced etc....) at an undetermined speed. I would say that is pretty irrelevant, wouldn't you? I haven't at any point actually expressed an opinion, extreme of not, other than the one that if you wish to make a cohesive argument you should provide proof which directly relevant to it. I don't think that is too much to ask if you wish to be taken seriously. My opinion relevant, your opinion not relevant. I don't expect you to take me seriously, any more than I'm taking you seriously! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oly Posted February 1, 2012 #2405 Share Posted February 1, 2012 The wings are intact as they pass through the wall from what I can see. Eh?! A wing staying intact through a concrete wall??? Don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pihkal Posted February 1, 2012 #2406 Share Posted February 1, 2012 My opinion relevant, your opinion not relevant. I don't expect you to take me seriously, any more than I'm taking you seriously! Again, I haven't expressed an opinion regarding the events at the Pentagon. I read the thread out of interest and had some questions regarding evidence of lack thereof put forth. You seem to be getting very defensive just because someone asks for you to provide proof for review which backs up your stance. I would have thought, as you are discussing it on a public forum, you would both want people to ask for proof and be willing to provide it and possibly even background to it. Otherwise your opinion is relevant to nobody but yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted February 1, 2012 #2407 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Ah I'm seeing your point now I have watched the video in full screen. The wings are intact as they pass through the wall from what I can see. Thank you for pointing that out. No, the tips of the wings survived because they did NOT impact the wall since the F-4's wingspan is greater than the width of the wall being tested. [edit] So Carol (thanks for the English version by the way, my knowledge of German extends to being able to say "faster faster potatohead"....thanks Blackadder!) says that only the tips of the wings survived, given the quality of the footage it's actually somewhat hard to tell. You can clearly see the wingtip continue past the wall between 0:34 and 0:36 of the video. Beyond that however, I can see nothing further than can be gained from it as evidence. Is there no footage of the same controlled testing being done with a 757? I assume not. Using your logic here, nothing can be proven by research, experimentation or simulation unless you are using the exact objects being studied. Science disagrees with you. Regardless, this video is not meant as a 100% direct comparison, as has been said. It is intended to demonstrate why larger parts of AA77 did not and would not survive the impact with the Pentagon. Cz Edited February 1, 2012 by Czero 101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pihkal Posted February 1, 2012 #2408 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) You can clearly see the wingtip continue past the wall between 0:34 and 0:36 of the video. This I concede. Having watched the video a number of times now, you're correct. My issue was it was hard to see if only the tips had survived and not the entire wing due in part to the camera angle and also the editing of the video. Using your logic here, nothing can be proven by research, experimentation or simulation unless you are using the exact objects being studied. Science disagrees with you. I work in the field of Micro Biology, I'm aware of what can and cannot be proven by research. I'm also aware of how great a difference in results variables can make. It's playing a little fast and loose with the boundaries of controlled testing to say that a larger plane, with a different structure, hitting a different medium at a different angle would behave in the exact same manner as that shown in the video. [edit] I should point out that I have the same issue with some of the evidence used to suggest that one did by the way. Regardless, this video is not meant as a 100% direct comparison, as has been said. It is intended to demonstrate why larger parts of AA77 did not and would not survive the impact with the Pentagon. Has there been any testing done to see the effect on the type of engines from a 757 when impacted into reinforced concrete at the same speed? I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm merely asking. Links would of course be fine. Edited February 1, 2012 by Pihkal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oly Posted February 1, 2012 #2409 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) You seem to be getting very defensive What makes you think that? Edited February 1, 2012 by oly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 1, 2012 #2410 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Notice the difference in thickness between the two walls. Edited February 1, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oly Posted February 1, 2012 #2411 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Notice the difference in thickness between the two walls. if the plane went through the walls, we would expect it to be somewhat intact, at least recognisable as a plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oly Posted February 1, 2012 #2412 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (the video) is intended to demonstrate why larger parts of AA77 did not and would not survive the impact with the Pentagon. Cz Your intention maybe. My intention to show how weak planes are compared to reinforced concrete. If it went through the wall, it would be on the other side. I dont think it would completely disintegrate on impact AND go through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted February 1, 2012 #2413 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) if the plane went through the walls, we would expect it to be somewhat intact, at least recognisable as a plane. Please... speak ONLY for yourself. Why would YOU expect that? Cz Edited February 1, 2012 by Czero 101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted February 1, 2012 #2414 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Your intention maybe. My intention to show how weak planes are compared to reinforced concrete. Which is still within the realm, albeit just, of my intentions. If it went through the wall, it would be on the other side. Why? I dont think it would completely disintegrate on impact AND go through. Is it not possible that it completely disintegrated WHILE going through the wall and everything behind it? If not, why not? Cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oly Posted February 1, 2012 #2415 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Please... speak ONLY for yourself. Why would YOU expect that? Cz Try it with an egg & a window. I bet the egg either breaks the glass or the glass breaks the egg. Film it as proof please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oly Posted February 1, 2012 #2416 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Is it not possible that it completely disintegrated WHILE going through the wall and everything behind it? If not, why not? Cz No not poss. Once the hole is made there's not much resistance. Disintegrate on interior walls? If it made an exit hole, it came out the other side surely, at least part of it. See blast of debris on fighter crash test? Where's that debris blast on pentagon CCTV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaptorBites Posted February 1, 2012 #2417 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Try it with an egg & a window. I bet the egg either breaks the glass or the glass breaks the egg. Film it as proof please. how is an egg like an aluminum frame airplane and a window like a reinforced concreate wall? /facepalm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oly Posted February 1, 2012 #2418 Share Posted February 1, 2012 how is an egg like an aluminum frame airplane and a window like a reinforced concreate wall? /facepalm It's more about one being weaker & giving way to the stronger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted February 1, 2012 #2419 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Thank you for taking the time to reply and I appreciate that you are drawing from personal experience, which of course gives you a better leg to stand on that someone who simply plucks wild theories out of the air or clings onto dubious speculation provided by a third party. What I, as an observer, would like to see however; and having experience in the field of aviation would probably ease your ability to do this, is examples and evidence that what you say is the case. It seems that others are able to provide such evidence in counter to some of your claims and their evidence is compelling and checkable. Forgive me if it appears I am being unduly critical, and of course it is obvious that aircraft are designed to fly through air and not walls, but a quick,sloppy and rather rusty bit of equating in my head tells me there is a point of velocity where that aircraft can easily penetrate the structure in question. I'm sure someone here more mathematically minded could illustrate it exactly. Whether the results of that calculation equates to the actual story of the aircraft is another matter. But it's a jumping off point on which further arguments can be based. Again, forgive me if you feel I'm picking on you, but I'm just not really seeing hard facts to back up the majority of the statements you are making. No, I do not feel you are picking on me. On the contrary, I appreciate the input. Other posters have put up the video of the F-4 on a sled crashing into a concrete structure, and that is appropriate to this discussion. We know that the structure it crashed into was an imitation of a retaining wall for a nuclear reactor, and that was the purpose of the demonstration. And we know that the walls of the Pentagon were not built to the same standards, not by a long shot. And we know that the F-4 was a supersonic airplane, built much more strongly than a 757. Nonetheless, the comparison is interesting. While the video does not allow us to examine the concrete structure after the F-4 crash for what sort of damage it sustained, it is clear that the structure was not penetrated sufficiently to make an exit hole, as is the case with the story at the Pentagon. So several questions are raised about the Pentagon that nobody on the govenment side has answered: If the fuselage was able to penetrate through a number of rings there, why did not the much stronger engines, main landing gear assemblies and wings (with steel leading edges) ALSO penetrate making comparable exit holes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted February 1, 2012 #2420 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Your intention maybe. My intention to show how weak planes are compared to reinforced concrete. If it went through the wall, it would be on the other side. I dont think it would completely disintegrate on impact AND go through. Thank you! That is rather my point in the discussion. If the 77 disintegrated upon impact, then how is it possible that the fuselage penetrated through several concrete rings to make a perfect "exit" circle, while the engines and landing gear, mostly steel and harder metals, did not? Even if the aluminum were to penetrate the first ring, it would have been destroyed. To suggest that it would have continued though another ring or 2 leaving a perfect circle is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 1, 2012 #2421 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Thank you! That is rather my point in the discussion. If the 77 disintegrated upon impact, then how is it possible that the fuselage penetrated through several concrete rings to make a perfect "exit" circle, while the engines and landing gear, mostly steel and harder metals, did not? Even if the aluminum were to penetrate the first ring, it would have been destroyed. To suggest that it would have continued though another ring or 2 leaving a perfect circle is ridiculous. At the punch-out hole, there are debris from the fuselage, and engine and landing gear components were also found inside the Pentagon that are consistent with the B-757.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oly Posted February 1, 2012 #2422 Share Posted February 1, 2012 At the punch-out hole, there are debris from the fuselage, and engine and landing gear components were also found inside the Pentagon that are consistent with the B-757.. What came through the hole? Pic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 1, 2012 #2423 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) What came through the hole? Pic? Parts of the fuselage, which is evident from the primer Note the thickness of the Pentagon wall vs this wall. Edited February 1, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted February 1, 2012 #2424 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Sky If the fuselage made that hole, why didn't the MLG and engines make similar holes? What do you suppose caused that soot at the top of the hole? It's easy to get pictures out of you, but difficult to get a straight answer out of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted February 1, 2012 #2425 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Try it with an egg & a window. I bet the egg either breaks the glass or the glass breaks the egg. Film it as proof please. Your experiment.... Your burden of proof... Your egg and window. I didn't ask you how to prove it, I asked you to explain why you would expect it "would expect it to be somewhat intact". Are you able to do that? Or are you only capable of dodging questions and waving your hands? Cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now