Plane hits Wall
One of the reasons moonbats give for their 9/11 conspiracy theories is the lack of plane parts found at some of the scenes.
Well take a look at this video of a jet hitting a concrete wall (thickness same as a nuclear plant) at 800 km/hr. The jet literally disintergrates.
The wall holds up fine, which is useful in terms of nuclear safety!
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: United States
September 12th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Or the small hole in the ground that a plane causes when it hits at high speed in a dive. And yes they do find all the bits in a hole since a plane is like ice cream mostly thin air (and fuel) with engines and wheels the main heavy objects. The fuselage thickness is only mm.
Like the kennedy assasination, we actually have witnesses who saw the rifle firing from the 4th floor and the airliner hitting the pentagon. not a cruise missile
September 12th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Aircraft are generally built to be as light as circumstances allow, the only ones that aren’t are military close air support models such as attack helicopters and the A10 Warthog.
There are quite a few buildings in New Zealand designed to survive direct strikes by civilian airliners. Unfortunately they only design for the biggest example in present-day use, ie buildings from the early 70′s (but designed in the late 60′s, before the 747) were only designed to withstand ~707 strikes.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
These aircraft were flying at speeds of 500 mph. Readers might want to consider the damage done to the Turkish Airlines DC-10 which crashed at 430 mph in the Ermonville forest in 1973. That aircraft was literally shredded. The fact that it hit bendable trees rather than a solid concrete wall probably made for larger pieces of wreckage.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
moonbats…I love it
…they should read this article from Popular Mechanics on 9/11: Debunking The Myths. There’s a section that deals specifically with the lack of plane parts/missile conspiracy theories.
September 18th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Also remember the Erebus disaster. I’m sure we all know the famous photo of the black “smudge” on Erebus where the plane hit. Everything was smashed to tiny fragments except the tail and a few chunks of fuselage.
And that was an impact at 476 km/h; The pentagon impact was much faster, in excess of 650 km/h.
(Of course, Erebus was a CIA conspiracy too)
September 18th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Off topic, but the co pilot on ANZ Erebus sent me on my first solo when I was learning to fly. Our check flight was around the circuit. Take off,left turn, turn down wind then turn back to approach to land. Going downwind I was at 1300 feet when I should have been at 1000, so I apologised.Greg said ” dont worry. being too high never killed any body”…………
October 16th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
If you look at the thitd to last shot, the aeroplane appears to go right thru the concrete and some of it (eg the wings) appear to survive. where is the video of what the aftermath looked like. I guarantee you there will be parts, bits of wing etc that survice and can be identified.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Whenever the Erebus disaster gets mentioned I just want to scream with frustration. The truth of that disaster was well known among the airline employees, down to which of their navigation office people plotted the wrong coordinates, and which navigator then input those coordinates into the computer without checking them properly.
On an earlier flight, the pilots had noticed that the coordinates they were flying to didn’t match the exact position of the aircraft. this flight was on a clear day.
They went into the navigation office to ask for the flight plan to be checked.
The chief nav officer recalculated the coordinates, which were then entered into the computer buy another navigator. Both of whom names are well known int he community. Take your pick; either the chief nav didn’t do the calc correctly or the other nav inputted them wrong. A transposition of numbers. Such a simple and careless mistake for such a huge cost.
The pilots werethen given the revised, incorrect flight plan, which lo and behold put them off course. Straight into the side of the mountain.
And just for the record, the pilots on that flight did ask for permission to descend before they went down and the controller down in the Antartica, whose name escapes me for the moment, gave them permission to descend, believing them to be on the right flight track.
Why the cover up? Because Air New Zealand, had it been proven that the error was their nav office’s, as it was, rather than “pilot error”, would have had to make huge claims on their insurers, whereas “pilot error” meant any claims would have to be against the pilots’ estates.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Whenever the Erebus disaster gets mentioned I just want to scream with frustration. The truth of that disaster was well known among the airline employees, down to which of their navigation office people plotted the wrong coordinates, and which navigator then input those coordinates into the computer without checking them properly.
On an earlier flight, the pilots had noticed that the coordinates they were flying to didn’t match the exact position of the aircraft. this flight was on a clear day.
They went into the navigation office to ask for the flight plan to be checked.
The chief nav officer recalculated the coordinates, which were then entered into the computer buy another navigator. Both of whom names are well known int he community. Take your pick; either the chief nav didn’t do the calc correctly or the other nav inputted them wrong. A transposition of numbers. Such a simple and careless mistake for such a huge cost.
The pilots werethen given the revised, incorrect flight plan, which lo and behold put them off course. Straight into the side of the mountain.
And just for the record, the pilots on that flight did ask for permission to descend before they went down and the controller down in the Antartica, whose name escapes me for the moment, gave them permission to descend, believing them to be on the right flight track.
Why the cover up? Because Air New Zealand, had it been proven that the error was their nav office’s, as it was, rather than “pilot error”, would have had to make huge claims on their insurers, whereas “pilot error” meant any claims would have to be against the pilots’ estates.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:56 am
So can we stop blaming this disaster on pilot error, which to me is equivalent of blaming the driver of a car who is driving through fog and ends up crashing into a mountain because the people who built the road made it a dead end into the side of the mountain rather than tracking it around the mountain.