AnimusRex
Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rachel529 i know altitude affects maximum airspeed, because of how thick the air is. and planes cant fly as fast close to the ground as they can at altitude- thornhappys link showed that in a simulator it could be done.however, an experienced pilot in a simulator is different than a poorly trained pilot who went to cessna schoolflying a jumbo jet at sea level at top speed. i highly doubt that plane could go so fast at sea level even with running room to get up to speed(which it didnt have). a fighter with a max speed of mach 2 can barely go mach 1 at sea level. also, since we have now come to the acceptance that plane bodies are beercan flimsy, how did one punch that big of a hole through three layers of reinforced concrete? I am too fucking lazy but you can find out for yourself: How much does a fully loaded and fueld jet weight? about 300 tons, maybe as much as 330 tons. What is the area in square feet of the fuselage? (the area of the profile, looking straight on) My estimate- about 400 sf. how fast was all this mass traveling? 350 mph give or take. Knowing that, one can calculate exactly how much force was being exerted on the wall of the Pentagon. How much force could the wall resist before collapsing? The walls are 24 inches deep, of limestone, brick and concrete. An engineer can calculate exactly how much force it would take to push through a 24 inch deep wall. Basically, you have 300 tons of steel and aluminum moving at 350 miles per hour, all of which is concentrated in a small profile of maybe a couple hundred square feet. Yeah, that does sound pretty reasonable that it would cause that much damage. Its like a tiny one ounce bullet traveling at 1200 feet per second, smashing a hole in a wall. Not surprising at all. Here is a good graphic by the Seattle PI by way of Snopes that shows the damage and wall construction. But see, rachel, here is the thing- you don't know how much force was in that plane, and you don't know how much was needed; but instead of using logic and calculation, you are basing you entire thinking on your vague suspicion that the government must be lying, must be trying to hide something. Right now, the government's version of events seems the most plausible. If you have a better one, lets hear it. vague suspicions and questions that you cant answer aren't good enough.
|