» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society
Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Custom Search
This is a topic from the Current Politics and Religious Topics forum on inthe00s.
Subject: Boeing machinist: Planes should NOT have penetrated Twin Towers' facades
Written By: IanWinn on 12/21/05 at 4:40 pm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc2.htm
Aerospace guy
Re: Attacks on 911review.org and letsroll911.org
Wed Jul 14, 2004 14:23
200.75.94.138
I have been in manufacturing for 30 years. I have machined the various wing spars (7075T6) in the large Boeing airliners, I have programmed the cutting on 5 axis CNC machines and watched huge hydrotels cutting them in the old days.
Having seen the slow motion "melting" of the plane into the building, I have concluded its simply an impossibility. In my mind, I imagine a true hit would proceed as follows....
Thin shelled nose crushed accordian style, inertia moves plane foward into concrete and steelbeam building facade, building caves inward (no cutting), wings shear backwards as they contact building, then break off - fall down side of building to street, body slams at angle into facade, also breaks up and explodes from force, tail section as a whole separates and falls as a unit.
The huge spectacular fireball also had a wrong look to it - too much "irridescence", until someone on the web mentioned napalm (or perhaps phosphorus/magnesium), which made more sense then kerosene fireball.
SNIP
Subject: Re: Boeing machinist: Planes should NOT have penetrated Twin Towers' facades
Written By: LyricBoy on 12/26/05 at 4:39 pm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc2.htm
Aerospace guy
Re: Attacks on 911review.org and letsroll911.org
Wed Jul 14, 2004 14:23
200.75.94.138
I have been in manufacturing for 30 years. I have machined the various wing spars (7075T6) in the large Boeing airliners, I have programmed the cutting on 5 axis CNC machines and watched huge hydrotels cutting them in the old days.
Having seen the slow motion "melting" of the plane into the building, I have concluded its simply an impossibility. In my mind, I imagine a true hit would proceed as follows....
Thin shelled nose crushed accordian style, inertia moves plane foward into concrete and steelbeam building facade, building caves inward (no cutting), wings shear backwards as they contact building, then break off - fall down side of building to street, body slams at angle into facade, also breaks up and explodes from force, tail section as a whole separates and falls as a unit.
The huge spectacular fireball also had a wrong look to it - too much "irridescence", until someone on the web mentioned napalm (or perhaps phosphorus/magnesium), which made more sense then kerosene fireball.
SNIP
The Boeing machinist who made that post is a machinist and not a physicist or structural engineer.
The wings did in fact penetrate the building.
Subject: Re: Boeing machinist: Planes should NOT have penetrated Twin Towers' facades
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/26/05 at 5:12 pm
[quote author=Ły
Subject: Re: Boeing machinist: Planes should NOT have penetrated Twin Towers' facades
Written By: GWBush2004 on 12/27/05 at 1:13 pm
I'm a machinist at Lockheed, do I get a say? ???
Subject: Re: Boeing machinist: Planes should NOT have penetrated Twin Towers' facades
Written By: ChuckyG on 12/27/05 at 1:21 pm
I'm a machinist at Lockheed, do I get a say? ???
If you want, but I don't know why anyone is bother to debate this silly nonsense.
There's always some "expert" who disagrees with commonsense in these little conspiracy theories. You'll never see their name mentioned, and if it is, you'll never find them.
If a tornado can drive a two by four through a concrete wall, there is no reason why aluminum at the proper speed can't as well. f = ma, it's not just a good idea, it's the law.
Subject: Re: Boeing machinist: Planes should NOT have penetrated Twin Towers' facades
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/27/05 at 4:31 pm
I'm a machinist at Lockheed, do I get a say?
Subject: Re: Boeing machinist: Planes should NOT have penetrated Twin Towers' facades
Written By: ChuckyG on 12/27/05 at 9:53 pm
Of course...
:)
Not this "expert." You'll see his name and know exactly where to find him.
http://www.johnkaminski.com/
"On what subjects is he an expert?," you may ask. Dunno really. I just rediscovered John Kaminski. My aunt dated him about fourteen or fifteen years ago. I remember getting into a few hair-raising debates with him. I thought he was a bit of a paranoid wingnut back then. Maybe he was right all along. I haven't read the book yet, "The Day America Died."
oh wow... he looks totally credible. >grin< Just as bad as the people who cooked up all the conspiracy theories about the Oklahoma bomb, Koresh, etc.
Subject: Re: Boeing machinist: Planes should NOT have penetrated Twin Towers' facades
Written By: saver on 12/29/05 at 1:13 am
Anyone can go online and see the proof of the crash...many claim the plane position was inaccurate but the explanation was made by Popular Science/or Popular Mechanics in a detailed article on each point.
When something is in a major fire it BURNS to ashes..you see it on house fire reports all the time...The planes wings were FULL of gas so they reacted as you see it.
It HAPPENED..there was a news reporting camera crew on the ground nearby who heard it then the place was swamped with reporters shortly thereafter.
IT WAS NOT A DREAM OR RECONSTRUCTION. :P
Subject: Re: Boeing machinist: Planes should NOT have penetrated Twin Towers' facades
Written By: jackas on 12/29/05 at 1:31 am
This is total BS. ::)
And that is all.
Subject: Re: Boeing machinist: Planes should NOT have penetrated Twin Towers' facades
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/29/05 at 11:41 am
oh wow... he looks totally credible. >grin<
Subject: Re: Boeing machinist: Planes should NOT have penetrated Twin Towers' facades
Written By: jaytee on 01/04/06 at 12:33 am
I'm all for the conspiracy theory. I still believe that the Yanks bombed Bali.
Subject: Re: Boeing machinist: Planes should NOT have penetrated Twin Towers' facades
Written By: ChuckyG on 01/04/06 at 3:04 pm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
Popular Mechanic gathered experts in their respective fields to examine the 9/11 myths and debunk them.
I'm much more willing to believe a guy who is a real expert, than one who claims to be an expert on a website with no way of verifying it.
Subject: Re: Boeing machinist: Planes should NOT have penetrated Twin Towers' facades
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 01/04/06 at 3:13 pm
What about post-9/11 exploitation of the attacks to promote the politics of fear, war, and bigotry? Remember the 2004 Republican convention in NYC? The way the Bush Administration has manipulated public discourse based on 9/11 has caused the deaths and grievous injuries of far,far more people than the 9/11 attacks themselves.
Subject: Re: Boeing machinist: Planes should NOT have penetrated Twin Towers' facades
Written By: deadrockstar on 01/04/06 at 4:22 pm
^We have the grand prize winner.
As for this gobblygook, faulty towers indeed. ::)
Subject: Re: Boeing machinist: Planes should NOT have penetrated Twin Towers' facades
Written By: Mushroom on 01/04/06 at 9:06 pm
Heck, look at what another plane did the same day to the Pentagon! It plowed fully into a reinforced hardened concrete building. If it can do that, how could an airplane do anything but go right through what is essentially an aluminum and glass skin around a big empty room? If anything, I am surprised that as much was absorbed into the building as it was, and did not simply pass right through and exit the other side.
In another example of a large plane hitting a skyscraper, look at the Empire State Building. It was struck by a B-25 bomber in 1945. This was a 10 ton prop plane, and it left a crater 18' high, 20' wide, and entered half way into the building itself. And this also was reinforced concrete, with a rigid steel skeleton. ANd it was flying at roughly half the velocity of the 9/11 planes, and had almost empty fuel tanks (New York was is destination, not his point of origin).
I simply write this up as yet another 9/11 kook, to be placed in the same bin as the Kennedy kooks, the Area 51 kooks, and the Anti-Holocost kooks.
Subject: Re: Boeing machinist: Planes should NOT have penetrated Twin Towers' facades
Written By: deadrockstar on 01/04/06 at 10:51 pm
Heck, look at what another plane did the same day to the Pentagon! It plowed fully into a reinforced hardened concrete building. If it can do that, how could an airplane do anything but go right through what is essentially an aluminum and glass skin around a big empty room? If anything, I am surprised that as much was absorbed into the building as it was, and did not simply pass right through and exit the other side.
In another example of a large plane hitting a skyscraper, look at the Empire State Building. It was struck by a B-25 bomber in 1945. This was a 10 ton prop plane, and it left a crater 18' high, 20' wide, and entered half way into the building itself. And this also was reinforced concrete, with a rigid steel skeleton. ANd it was flying at roughly half the velocity of the 9/11 planes, and had almost empty fuel tanks (New York was is destination, not his point of origin).
I simply write this up as yet another 9/11 kook, to be placed in the same bin as the Kennedy kooks, the Area 51 kooks, and the Anti-Holocost kooks.
I agree with you on the anti-Holocaust part, but as for Kennedy, I like many Americans believe someone on the inside was involved. Whether or not it was like Oliver Stone's film is of course up for debate, and we'll probably never know the exact truth about President Kennedy's assasination. And Area 51, I just don't see where there is solid proof to support either side of that debate. There is no way that anyone except the persons authorized to have that information knows what goes on there, or how its related to the events of Roswell(or not related).