Humint Events Online: Stronger Wings

Friday, April 21, 2006

Stronger Wings

I repeated the experiment I described in the previous post, but this time I made a plane with stronger wings than the first time.

The wings did not break, but I COULD NOT RAM THE PLANE THROUGH THE WALL of columns, even using all my strength. Only after repeated ramming attempts was I able to get the plane inside, and even then it went in sort of sideways, without the wings breaking any extra columns.

Funny-- wings simply will not break columns.

Conclusion: same as before-- no planes (at least no normal planes) hit the WTC towers.

19 Comments:

Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

And where did you receive your degree in structural engineering?

6:32 PM  
Anonymous pinch said...

And a follow-up question.....did you have GI Joe in the cockpit? or perhaps Barbie as a flight attendant? Ken as a steward? Purser? or was he perhaps dual tasked with both jobs? Just asking because I know how important it is for you to be accurate in your pursuit of excellence.

The technical attention to detail and scientific acumen you bring to these experiments simply take's ones breath away. Who needs a CRAY to model all those silly things like stress and acceleration and thrust and weight and impact forces and tensile strength and mass and density and temperature and winds and load capacity and burst strength and compression and elasticity and , etc so on and so forth when you can simply build an....airplane....and shove it into a box.

I'M convinced! I gotta blog on this to get all my readers to see the error of their ways because of Spook's experiment! I'll make sure I post the link here! Salvation!

7:40 PM  
Anonymous pinch said...

You may get a few hits, Spook ol' buddy ol' pal!

http://instapinch.com/blog/?p=135

8:59 PM  
Anonymous James Ha said...

you know pinch, it would be nice if you would put a link to some outfit or other that claimed to have proven scientifically that an aluminum plane can go right thru the side of the WTC without even slowing down much less without any of it breaking off - can you put your childish ridicule aside for even one moment to do that?
I bet that if even one outfit had made this claim, spooked would already know about it and post it on this blog - spooked has legitimate questions about an event that even you haven't denied looks mighty fishy: ghostplane/vanishment
------------

10:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Generally I like your approach. However, a more realistic and compelling method would be to fly a model aircraft into some wooden structure. I'll be running some computer models in May that could provide lower bounds for the tensile strength of the wooden structure's columns. Frankly the planes wings on 9/11 slice too readily into the structural steel of the outer walls of the towers. It is a problem.

10:40 PM  
Anonymous James Ha said...

did the vertical tail fin just slice right thru as well? south tower hole
I doubt it. 911hoax.com

11:08 PM  
Anonymous James Ha said...

if you watch a clip of 175 as it goes thru the side of south, you can see that the right wingtip is almost right at the corner of the building - isn't the tower even more robust at the corners?
aluminum plane steel building

2:44 AM  
Blogger Spooked said...

Look, obviously, I am no engineer. But I think my simply model shows something. Namely, that a wing is not a good cutting tool that will slice through a row of columns.

I welcome ANYONE to do their own real-life expt.

I don't believe in computer models unless they are based on real data, and not just on what happened on 9/11. Any computer model that works on the assumption that an aluminum wing WILL cut through an array of steel columns is flawed.

Pinch, I'm glad you're amused, and feel free to send people over here. The more the merrier.

Anonymous, I bet you could never get a model airplane to fly through a wall of columns. The argument will always be that oh, you weren't simulating what happened on 9/11 because you weren't going 500 mph. Sure, that's true. But, while I was not pushing the model plane at 500 mph, I was giving it an extreme amount of force for its size that should have mimicked a high degree of momentum.

12:00 PM  
Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

"Look, obviously, I am no engineer. But I think my simply model shows something."

Yes, you're a witless endomorph with a double-digit IQ...

10:20 PM  
Anonymous Rob said...

Conspiracy Smasher said...

Yes, you're a witless endomorph with a double-digit IQ...




The usual BRILLIANCE I see, from the Gov't Shill...
"A Zebra never changes his stripes"..right?

;-)

BTW, anyone who still actually believes the Gov't Fairy Tale of 9/11 can't be too bright...can they??

hehe

11:28 AM  
Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

Aren't you one of the dudes who think the WTC was hit by a hologram?

You dunces are the Forest Gumps of 9/11...

p.s. You're invited to get your moronic asses kicked around on my blog - if you're into being humiliated....

4:21 PM  
Anonymous Rob said...

Umm...I've already had my way all over your pho-blog Shill....and my ass STILL remains UN-KICKED by everyone...INCLUDING YOU!

But you're welcome to KISS IT, if all your Lies fail...

HEHE ;-)

(round two....DING!!)

1:13 AM  
Blogger Sh1fty said...

Ok, then lets get a bunch of people to pitch in, buy a used 767 or similar, build ourselves a building, and remotely fly the plane into it. While the remote-control-plane-did-it crowed would say "HA - Told ya so!" its the onlyway to do it safely (unless someone wants to give their lives for science...) All these wood buildings and wood planes and such are nice, but lets be honest - planes and buildings aren't one made out of one material. We've got engines, different strength materials for different parts, window glass, cement, structural steel, office furniture, thousands of gallons of jet fuel, and alot I can't come up with at the moment.

Further note - NASA flew a 707 into a controlled crash in the '80s I think. It can be done.

10:26 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

sh1fty-- I so much wish we could do that. But I think it would just cost WAY too much to recreate. A smaller scale model is more feasible, but then it would be hard to match everything up to satisfy everyone.

1:49 PM  
Blogger Chad said...

I don't believe in computer models unless they are based on real data...

You do realize that your real data was caught by hundreds of video cameras that day. Care to explain how the government was able to confiscate said cameras, digitally insert a very realistic looking 767 flying into the south tower, broadcast that video LIVE, all while brainwashing the tens of thousands of eyewitnesses in lower Manhattan into believing that they just saw a plane fly into the tower?

PS... Just to see how sure of yourself you are, I invite you to New York for the anniversary. I'll be at Ground Zero the whole day. I want you to bring your experiment here and show people what you've found.

PPS... If you have the balls to actually accept this challenge, I'd bring body armor.

PPPS... You're more than welcome to crash on my couch.

10:43 PM  
Blogger Alex said...

What a load of crap.

First off, stop with the "alluminum plane, structural steel" nonsense. The fact that you don't see that it'd be impossible to build a plane of that size out of alluminum tells me all I need to know about your qualifications as a scientist.

FYI the wings are the most complex and most structuraly sound parts of the aircraft. In fact I should say "the wing" (with no "s") because a modern passanger aircraft couldn't have multiple wings - they'd break off on a regular basis. What looks like two wings is infact one long, solid structure, engeneered out of a LOT of steel, with an aluminum skin. The Wing has to be strng enough to support the entire weight of a fully loaded 767 without bending more than a couple degrees. A passanger aircraft's wing is one of the most impressive feats of engineering in existance today. So yes, the damn thing would be more than strong enough to smash through a dozen steel and concrete columns while traveling at 500+ km/h.

And secondly, The aircraft would not need to ram through the columns. Since the wing and engines make up most of the aircraft's weight, their momentum (not to mention the momentum of the rest of the arcraft), even after smashing through the outside columns, would have been more than enough to cause the soft nose of the aircraft to collapse, and then force the structural parts of the airframe to destroy themselves against the core. That much I can tell you for certain. The only thing I can't be sure about is how much damage the frame did to the central core while it was being anhilliated. It's pretty clear that the core would have suffered SOME damage, but I can't determine the exact extent of the damage. If you put together a team of mechanical engineers, physicists, and materials specialists, they should be able to answer that question, but you deffinitely wont' fidn the answer by slamming a badl constructed wooden airplane into a wooden box.

5:02 PM  
Blogger Alex said...

Err, I should say, "the aircraft would not need to ram through the core". I assumed that's what you were talking about. But re-reading your article, it seems you're surprised that you couldn't get it through the outside wall. Obviously you need to start doing more pushups. AND you need to figure out what the scale-speed of the impact would be to make up for both the difference in size and the difference in materials. After which you'd need to simulate that speed.

5:06 PM  
Blogger James B. said...

OK, if it wasn't a jetliner, because a plane could not have been strong enough to cause the damage, then what was it? Did the government create a specially designed titanium reinforce 767 just so they could run it into a building? Occam's razor is mighty dull.

1:07 PM  
Anonymous damn your stupid said...

you are honestly nothing less than a complete fucking moron, do you honestly think this is any kind of re-enactment whatsoever, do the world a favor and kill yourself before you reproduce and make more drains on society.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

1:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger