"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
news

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
fuselage head on is pretty stout, the whole
structure would be in compression. If an airliner flew 150 mph greater
than
its top speed, the wings and tail would sheer off.


All fine, except that the official report says the wings disintegrated
on impact. No sections wings or tail section were found. So they didn't
sheer off, yet there's no impact area for them. Oopsy.


If they disintegrated then there would be nothing left. Isn't that the
meaning of disintegration?

Airplanes have lots of aluminum, magnesium and other metals that burn.
Solid fuel rocket motors are made of powdered aluminum. Magnesium is used
in flares. Look at other airplane crashes. There are several where there's
nothing left of the plane. Forest fires melt aluminum structures and
objects.

Next time Bubbles is sitting next to a campfire, he should throw and empty
aluminum can into the glowing coals. The next morning he can see what is
left--provided he can find it.

Max

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
It was a Mexican gardner. We need to get Bush and Cheney down to the
border.

I did see a rake in the photos. You're on to something!

And that huge fireball--all that grease.

(Sorry, that was uncalled for.)

Max

The aircraft struck the ground immediately before hitting the Pentagon.
It
is speculated that the impact with the ground probably broke the wing
spars
and the wings folded back along the fuselage as the plane entered the
building. The entrance hole was actually between the first and second
floors, lending credence to the idea that the plane actually bounced
slightly after striking the ground.


Virtually no wing fragments were found outside the building and the
lawn outside is also mostly intact. Planes, loaded with fuel have hot
mountainsides...and they still found parts of the wings, tail section
and so on. Jet fuel burns almost instantly, very fast, which is why
even in the most violent crashes much of the plane can be found.

RB
35s5
NY

But funny of course.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
It was a Mexican gardner. We need to get Bush and Cheney down to the
border.

I did see a rake in the photos. You're on to something!

And that huge fireball--all that grease.

(Sorry, that was uncalled for.)

Max

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...



Virtually no wing fragments were found outside the building

Then the wings must have folded back and gone inside. Maybe it was a flying
machine that had no wings.


and the
lawn outside is also mostly intact.

Credit the Mexican gardener with that!





Planes, loaded with fuel have hot
mountainsides...and they still found parts of the wings, tail section
and so on.

That's because when planes hit mountainsides the wreckage flies all over the
place. The wreckage here flew into the Pentagon and went inside. Do you
expect the plane to actually bounce off of the building?

Look at the WTC. You see the plane piece coming out the other side of the
building.






Jet fuel burns almost instantly, very fast, which is why
even in the most violent crashes much of the plane can be found.



Jet fuel is kerosene. It burns slower than gasoline and has less BTU/lb.

That's because when planes hit mountainsides the wreckage flies all
over the
place. The wreckage here flew into the Pentagon and went inside.


What happened to the wings shearing off? Now they're inside...but they
were not found there either. The official explanation that the plane
partially disintegrated....the first plane ever to do so.
I have no convictions one way or the other, but unlike Joe I'm not a
sheep who believes everything I read and hear. As I said, plenty of
experts have doubts. It's a lot easier to just go with the story as
told of course.


RB
35s5
NY

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
The aircraft struck the ground immediately before hitting the Pentagon.
It
is speculated that the impact with the ground probably broke the wing
spars
and the wings folded back along the fuselage as the plane entered the
building. The entrance hole was actually between the first and second
floors, lending credence to the idea that the plane actually bounced
slightly after striking the ground.


Virtually no wing fragments were found outside the building and the
lawn outside is also mostly intact. Planes, loaded with fuel have hot
mountainsides...and they still found parts of the wings, tail section
and so on.

Hitting (hotting?) a mountainside is radically different from penetrating a
solid concrete or brick building. The wings would be fragmented and then
melted into oblivion with the subsequent conflagration. Don't forget that
al Qaeda chose transcontinental flights in order to have maximum fuel on
board.

Jet fuel burns almost instantly, very fast,

Wrong. Jet fuel is nothing but relatively unrefined petroleum. It's far
more like fuel oil or diesel than gasoline. It burns more slowly than
gasoline or kerosene. And in an enclosed space, such as a *building*, the
amount of oxygen available to the blaze is regulated by how much can rush in
through the hole created by the penetration of the fuse/wings/etc., plus any
collapse of the roof. The fire burned extrememly hot for well over 15
mintues--plenty of time to melt all of the aluminum parts, and hot enough to
incinerate any magnesium parts. Incidentally the NSTB reported that the
inrushing wind created by the oxygen demand of the fireball exceeded 300mph
in spots. That alone caused some destruction of the building(s).

which is why
even in the most violent crashes much of the plane can be found.

See above. Equating a mountainside crash with a penetration of a solid
building is something I'd expect from you, Bubbles.

Max

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...

Look at the WTC. You see the plane piece coming out the other side of the
building.

That's roughly the same principle that applies to a piece of straw driven
through a telephone pole in the 200mph+ winds of a tornado. The relatively
soft and fragile fuselage of a 757 is still much more solid than a piece of
wheat straw, and it was traveling in excess of 500mph upon impact, both at
the WTC towers and the Pentagon.

So far the conspiracy theorists are batting *zero.*

Jet fuel is kerosene. It burns slower than gasoline and has less BTU/lb.

While it's convenient to refer to jet fuel as kerosene, in actuality it is
somewhat less refined than K1 or K2. And you are correct--it burns more
slowly than gasoline.

Mr. Crantz: 2 Conspiracy theorists: 0 Bubbles: -5

Max

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
even in the most violent crashes much of the plane can be found.


Jet fuel is kerosene. It burns slower than gasoline and has less
BTU/lb.


It still burns fast, very fast.

Not when confined in a building with only a penetration hole through which
to access oxygen.

Bubbles: -6

Max

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
That's because when planes hit mountainsides the wreckage flies all
over the
place. The wreckage here flew into the Pentagon and went inside.


What happened to the wings shearing off? Now they're inside...but they
were not found there either.

With a fire burning in excess of 2000 degrees F, how much aluminum and
magnesium do you think you're going to find intact in that building?

Bubbles: -7

The official explanation that the plane
partially disintegrated....the first plane ever to do so.

LOL. Where on Earth did you get that??? An ATR (French, by the way)
commuter turboprop hit a farm field in northern Indiana a dozen or so years
back. The largest piece of the airplane found could be covered by a 4' x 4'
sheet of plastic. And there were only a couple of those; most could be put
in a plastic trashcan liner. About the same with human remains. And that
plane hit a muddy field, not a concrete building. So, I suppose *that*
plane doesn't count in your tally of aircraft to disintegrate?

Bubbles: -8

I have no convictions one way or the other,

What's this???? Do I hear the first sounds of someone backing down on his
original premise??

but unlike Joe I'm not a
sheep who believes everything I read and hear. As I said, plenty of
experts have doubts. It's a lot easier to just go with the story as
told of course.

It's easier to believe what you *want* to believe, isn't it? You *want* to
believe that our government is lying and conspiring to withhold the "truth,"
so you choose the conspiracy theory rather than the most logical, most
plausible account, right?

You'd have made a great flower child of the 70s, Bubbles, when the watchword
was "question authority." Are you wearing your tie-dyed t-shirt with the
big peace sign and your bell-bottom jeans, Bubbles?


Max