Thread: Hunt the Boeing
View Single Post
Old 04-20-2006, 08:25 PM   #335 (permalink)
shakran
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Wow. Maybe I should address this before people make further mistakes.
So your'e saying the "should" and "actual" pictures are exactly the same diminsionally. I didn't even point out the small fact that the contrast was spiked on the doctored photo.



Quote:
A Boeing 757-200 is about 44' tall with it's landing gear down, and 40' tall at the tail with it's landing gear up (I don't know if the plane supposedly had it's landing gear up or down, I'll assume up for the sake of this).
It doesn't matter. The plane was off the ground. If the plane had hit the ground with the gear down, it would have collapsed. Planes that heavy do not do well when they try to land on anything but heavilly reinforced concrete.

Quote:
Using the yellow line as a measurement of 77' at the entry point, one can start to get perspective on the picture. Allowing for an entry of about 60 degrees from the wall (acording to the info the FBI released), the tail is about 25' above it's supposed entry point. Now we have perspective on the plane's distance from the ground. 25' + 40' is 65', which is only 12' shorter than the roofline. The problem is that the tail is not 12' from the roofline, it is closer to 40' from the ground and 37' from the roofline.

You're making several assumptions which do not make sense.

The most glaring is the part about the tail. You're assuming the airplane remained solid and kept its shape throughout the entire crash. Airplanes look solid but they're really not. They're made out of aluminum - their skin is very THIN aluminum, to save weight. They're flying soda cans. The instant that plane's nose hit the reinforced concrete wall of the pentagon the entire plane started to crumple. By the time the tail got to the wall, who knows what position it was in. It could have been horizontal for all we know, and that's assuming it was still in the shape of a tail. The reason the planes did so much better against the WTC is because the WTC was not made of reinforced concrete. It was not designed to withstand an attack. The pentagon was.
shakran is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360