How To Make A Convincing looking Plane Crash

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Neither plane at the WTC looked like a 757. The 757 is a narrow body, neither plane there was a narrow body.

The "pods" are the center wing box and wheel wells for the main landing gear.


That's because they weren't. They were 767s.




posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I'm well aware of that, but in the posy I was replying to he said it looked like a 757 to him.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I'm well aware of that, but in the posy I was replying to he said it looked like a 757 to him.


OK, gotcha'. We see planes all the time flying from airports, but I have never said "oh, that's a such-and-such". Usually I just look up and wonder where they are flying to. Typically people don't know one plane from another while it's flying.

But then again, I suppose airplane enthusiasts can do that.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   

snowen20
Or you could just fly a plane into the building at 500 miles per hour.


well, except for a passenger jet tearing apart at that speed, at a dense air altitude of a couple of hundred feet...



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Well except that they don't hit 500mph and suddenly fall apart either. It takes time for the stress to build up to the point it causes a structural failure.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Well except that they don't hit 500mph and suddenly fall apart either. It takes time for the stress to build up to the point it causes a structural failure.


Oh that person just made me laugh out loud and your response was too funny. We all know that airplanes cross the Atlantic and Pacific oceans at high speeds at very high altitudes. Their construction design is made for that purpose. They are constructed of sheets of aluminum that are riveted together because the body needs a little wiggle space for expansion of air. They don't fall apart in turbulence either.

When I just took a trip last month, I flew from Chicago to Toronto, the plane I was waiting for was delayed in Toronto because one of the engines had a bird strike. They had to fly back to the airport to check it out. So bird strikes are way more common, but I have never heard of a plane just breaking apart while in flight. Planes are checked on a regular maintenance schedule for stress and mechanical defects. And statistically, flying is still more safer than driving.

If anything, it's the integrity of the rivets we should be most concerned about.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


It's happened a few times, usually after something else started it. At least one DC-10 crashed after the aft cargo door opened in flight and the floor collapsed, cutting the control cables. Then there was Aloha 243, where the roof ripped off.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Well except that they don't hit 500mph and suddenly fall apart either. It takes time for the stress to build up to the point it causes a structural failure.


Wouldn't the stress start building up after it exceeded it's VMO? The aircraft probably would be tearing apart by the time it reached 500 mph.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 



Boeing computer modeled (then later in the Sim) a 767 in a dive to below 10,000 feet (I don't remember the exact parameters) at near mach 1 without it coming apart. Aircraft a number of times have exceeded their flight parameters. They tend to put a bit of cushion into them.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Neither plane at the WTC looked like a 757. The 757 is a narrow body, neither plane there was a narrow body.
Well, you might think so but the plane in that video that I posted a frame of looks pretty narrow to me.

The "pods" are the center wing box and wheel wells for the main landing gear.
I didn't say, "wing pods", I was talking about the engine housings, sometimes called "pods" or cowlings.
edit on 18-9-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

United Airlines 175 and American Airlines 11 were both 767-222.
You said "757" for whatever reason.
The second WTC tower hit is what I am concerned with, which flew over Battery Park, with a video camera set up on the south end of the park, which I watched the feed of.
The flight allegedly that was involved in that incident was United Airlines Flight 175.

We know that 4 planes left airports with manifests that included passengers and crews.
There was no actual flight 175 scheduled.
The plane identified as the one used in flight 175 was seen the next day at an airport, based on the tail number.

The security cameras show people boarding those planes.
There is no authentic video available of passengers boarding.

For your theory to work, something happened to every passenger and crew member on each plane.
No one showed up at the airport in Los Angeles (the claimed destination) to meet any passengers flying in on that supposed flight.
Most of the supposed passengers on the supposed flight 175 were employees of defence manufacturing contractors and were probably fictitious people invented as covers by intelligence agencies.
edit on 18-9-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Not in the least. A 757 fuselage is so narrow it could got through some engine cowlings.


I can't post pics right now but that plane is NOT a 757. I say that with 100% certainty. For one thing the nose is completely different. The 767 has a fat blunt nose as seen in your picture. The 757 has a skinny nose that looks like a beak, or a hooked nose.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Which was a 767-222, which is what flew over the park and impacted the building. If there is one thing I know it's planes, and that was NOT a 757.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


It's happened a few times, usually after something else started it. At least one DC-10 crashed after the aft cargo door opened in flight and the floor collapsed, cutting the control cables. Then there was Aloha 243, where the roof ripped off.


Scary.

But the plane with D.B. Cooper didn't fall apart when its cargo door was opened. BTW, how did the guy know there would be parachutes in that plane? Did he maybe pack it with him?



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


That wasn't a cargo door, it was boarding stairs. The 727 and some models of the DC-9 family have boarding stairs under the tail, and under the forward door on the left side.

He told them to give him the chute with the money. He was very specific about the type he wanted.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


That wasn't a cargo door, it was boarding stairs. The 727 and some models of the DC-9 family have boarding stairs under the tail, and under the forward door on the left side.

He told them to give him the chute with the money. He was very specific about the type he wanted.


Well, he was almost a genius. He did get away, but not with all the money.

I don't know anything about planes, I just know they fly. With your understanding of planes, and the constant theories of remote control, wouldn't a 767 HAVE to be outfitted with the equipment in the plane and they would have to remove the passenger seats and cockpit seats?

I can't buy that one, even though I don't much about planes. I just can't see a full size commercial airliner that is remote controlled from Boston to NYC. For it to be outfitted, wouldn't you have to exchange every hose and lever in the aircraft? It would seem to me that a remote control commercial jet would have to be built fin a factory. I just can't see someone doing this in a hangar somewhere, because they aren't designed for that.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


It could be done, but there would be a few external changes made that we should have seen that I don't remember. The aircraft would be out of service for awhile though and these weren't. If they were someone would have come forward by now about it.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


It could be done, but there would be a few external changes made that we should have seen that I don't remember. The aircraft would be out of service for awhile though and these weren't. If they were someone would have come forward by now about it.


CNN witness Sean Murtaugh first says he thinks it was a 737. That means he doesn't know what type of aircraft is what. But conspiracy theorists jump on this thinking another plane is what did it.

Here is one of just 25 seconds of the second plane


The announcer here doesn't even realize a plane has hit and says "another explosion". This has to indicate that the media was not fed a single news feed, if at first they don't know what was going on.

So we can kind of guess how fast this plane was moving. From the moment it first comes into view which is about 25 seconds into the video until 41 when you see the explosion impact. That is about 16 seconds that you see the plane and then when it hits. It must have been going pretty fast because when you see it, the plane is well out of range, flying over the Hudson Bay. But you can clearly see the descent into the building.

But 16 seconds to get over the Hudson Bay is amazing. A flying gas tank missile was what it was at that moment.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


There was all kinds of confusion that day. They initially said it was a small plane that was lost, then a 737.

One of the most famous quotes that was used for years was the person that said it had to be military, because it was grey with no windows. Then it turned out that they were like a mile and a half or two miles away when they saw it.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


There was all kinds of confusion that day. They initially said it was a small plane that was lost, then a 737.

One of the most famous quotes that was used for years was the person that said it had to be military, because it was grey with no windows. Then it turned out that they were like a mile and a half or two miles away when they saw it.


When I was young growing up in Ohio we used to have Air Force jets fly over us all the time because we lived in their area of operations from Wright Patterson. Sometimes they flew right over the tree tops and you could almost see the pilot if you were standing in the right place. But I didn't live in an urban area, it was all rural farms and fields.

But still, if you asked me what kind of jets, I would not know. I have to say, looking back on it, as a child it was pretty impressive how those jets sounded and the speed was incredible. I mean you would see the jet, then seconds later hear the engines.

At nighttime we watched the lights from airplanes come over us as they took of from Dayton International. We just happened to be in their flight pattern. I wish I had a camera back then but your post brought back memories of my Ohio childhood.

Sometimes as the Air Force jets flew over us, as children we would wave at them, hoping the pilots would see us. A few times they dipped their wings as if they were saying hello back to us. I would like to think they were.




top topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join