In context of a high-speed aluminum construction, thin skinned, flying craft striking or getting struck by anything of weight, it might as well be paper.
I respect your former flying status, but consider: I've been one of the guys on the ground fixing everything pilots did to the aircraft and I do it all: Engines, hydro, sheet metal repair, electronic repair, literally everything from nose to tail.
My full (brief) resume includes: been everything from Aircraft Mishap Investigator, Jet Engine Mishap Investigator, Wing Flight Safety Officer, to Quality Assurance, to Chief of Maintenance, to the guy turning the wrenches/inspecting/performing scheduled maintenance. The odd ones are that I was also on the PACAF Space Shuttle recovery team, weapons courier in the AOR, and Convoy gunner. There's more but serve as tie-ins to what I've already listed; i.e. different but the same wheelhouses, so to speak.
These days, I'm happy just working on aircraft for the DoD with that full skillset under my belt. Point is, I am keenly aware of what even a sparrow hitting a radome can do at speed. I've seen holes punched in C130 leading edges by Pelicans off the Louisiana coastline that crushed the piccolo tubes, snapped reinforcing structures, and nearly severed flight control....by a pelican.
There is no person alive that will convince me, based on my extensive knowledge of aircraft design and metallurgy, that a steel reinforced building meant to take a hit from a modern airliner was near cut in half by one. Just no.
That is a very impressive list and my experience of 1500 hours or so is fairly meager.
I must say that I certainly don't think the aircraft cut a building in half but refer to my argument regarding the fuel being forced into the building at speed, burning and then weakening the structure. It is pretty much the popular mechanics theory.
Yeh didn't mean to drop all that as a brag, just a "heads up" so to speak of what lines of experience I'm speaking from: it is indeed extensive.
As far as the burning fuel, look into the many independent Engineering papers submitted on that particular study: Universally agreed that the fuel + burning interior wood/paper/plastic still would not have been hot enough to melt or weaken the building that high up to create the "pancake" effect [they] pushed to the masses.
Also, look into independent papers submitted by demolition experts from around the world that gave testimony that the way the building fell into its own footprint was a 100% tell-tale sign of a controlled demo. They give one glaring and obvious side reason to consider: IF the building would have failed under all the "auspices" of the Feds, it would not have free-fallen straight down. Rather those large top sections would have failed independently of the undamaged lower and crumbled or slid off the weaker side. This would have smashed down onto other buildings creating a massive destruction perimeter. This did not happen and is the basis of why Demo experts pour meticulously over building constructions to find out how to bring it down safely.
Research, Fren, as the info is still out there. Be prepared to have a lot of the brainwashing the MSM/Feds put out sandblasted away.
One thing that could have increased the likelihood of the impact and fire bringing down the steel structure is that the elevator shafts and holes in the side of the building created a much hotter fire than skills typically be expected. The increased airflow were like air bellows that pushed the fire to be more intense and much hotter than what would typically happen.
In context of a high-speed aluminum construction, thin skinned, flying craft striking or getting struck by anything of weight, it might as well be paper.
I respect your former flying status, but consider: I've been one of the guys on the ground fixing everything pilots did to the aircraft and I do it all: Engines, hydro, sheet metal repair, electronic repair, literally everything from nose to tail.
My full (brief) resume includes: been everything from Aircraft Mishap Investigator, Jet Engine Mishap Investigator, Wing Flight Safety Officer, to Quality Assurance, to Chief of Maintenance, to the guy turning the wrenches/inspecting/performing scheduled maintenance. The odd ones are that I was also on the PACAF Space Shuttle recovery team, weapons courier in the AOR, and Convoy gunner. There's more but serve as tie-ins to what I've already listed; i.e. different but the same wheelhouses, so to speak.
These days, I'm happy just working on aircraft for the DoD with that full skillset under my belt. Point is, I am keenly aware of what even a sparrow hitting a radome can do at speed. I've seen holes punched in C130 leading edges by Pelicans off the Louisiana coastline that crushed the piccolo tubes, snapped reinforcing structures, and nearly severed flight control....by a pelican.
There is no person alive that will convince me, based on my extensive knowledge of aircraft design and metallurgy, that a steel reinforced building meant to take a hit from a modern airliner was near cut in half by one. Just no.
That is a very impressive list and my experience of 1500 hours or so is fairly meager. I must say that I certainly don't think the aircraft cut a building in half but refer to my argument regarding the fuel being forced into the building at speed, burning and then weakening the structure. It is pretty much the popular mechanics theory.
Yeh didn't mean to drop all that as a brag, just a "heads up" so to speak of what lines of experience I'm speaking from: it is indeed extensive.
As far as the burning fuel, look into the many independent Engineering papers submitted on that particular study: Universally agreed that the fuel + burning interior wood/paper/plastic still would not have been hot enough to melt or weaken the building that high up to create the "pancake" effect [they] pushed to the masses.
Also, look into independent papers submitted by demolition experts from around the world that gave testimony that the way the building fell into its own footprint was a 100% tell-tale sign of a controlled demo. They give one glaring and obvious side reason to consider: IF the building would have failed under all the "auspices" of the Feds, it would not have free-fallen straight down. Rather those large top sections would have failed independently of the undamaged lower and crumbled or slid off the weaker side. This would have smashed down onto other buildings creating a massive destruction perimeter. This did not happen and is the basis of why Demo experts pour meticulously over building constructions to find out how to bring it down safely.
Research, Fren, as the info is still out there. Be prepared to have a lot of the brainwashing the MSM/Feds put out sandblasted away.
One thing that could have increased the likelihood of the impact and fire bringing down the steel structure is that the elevator shafts and holes in the side of the building created a much hotter fire than skills typically be expected. The increased airflow were like air bellows that pushed the fire to be more intense and much hotter than what would typically happen.