Too heavy to fly, then (depleted uranium), or a COMPLETELY REBUILT wing attached to an existing plane. (Still unbelievable.) Titanium is stronger and heavier than aluminum and lighter but not as strong as the structural steel beams, if for no other reason the SHEER MASS of the beams. Building still would have won: giant cheese grater. Building would have been really damaged, but would have still been standing.
You'd also have SO INCREDIBLY changed the flight characteristics of the planes that even a computer wouldn't have been able to maneuver it. Heavier leading edges would have given the plane a nose-down tendency that would likely have kept the vehicle from takeoff ... and much less able to handle significant air maneuvers. You'd need millions of simulations and analytical data to back up the flight model and you'd have needed true-to-build flight time to prove it.
Buildings were structurally compromised in addition to being impacted. Period.
except for the part about the building being weakened for controlled demo.. gee... you don't think the impact zones were weakened during that time, do you?
I have relevant experience in both aircraft structures and structural steel / wide-flange beams ... as well as general certification testing of flight components and the manufacture of turbine-type engines used in aircraft and missile propulsion.
I may not know the exact truth of precisely what happened that day any more than anyone else, but I'm certainly not "in the dark" about these theories. Logic always prevails.
I mentioned the building would have been affected, but would have still stood.
The LIE is nearly over, but the STORY is far from over.
Too heavy to fly, then (depleted uranium), or a COMPLETELY REBUILT wing attached to an existing plane. (Still unbelievable.) Titanium is stronger and heavier than aluminum and lighter but not as strong as the structural steel beams, if for no other reason the SHEER MASS of the beams. Building still would have won: giant cheese grater. Building would have been really damaged, but would have still been standing.
You'd also have SO INCREDIBLY changed the flight characteristics of the planes that even a computer wouldn't have been able to maneuver it. Heavier leading edges would have given the plane a nose-down tendency that would likely have kept the vehicle from takeoff ... and much less able to handle significant air maneuvers. You'd need millions of simulations and analytical data to back up the flight model and you'd have needed true-to-build flight time to prove it.
Buildings were structurally compromised in addition to being impacted. Period.
wrong..
except for the part about the building being weakened for controlled demo.. gee... you don't think the impact zones were weakened during that time, do you?
period.. end of story.
Not wrong.
I have relevant experience in both aircraft structures and structural steel / wide-flange beams ... as well as general certification testing of flight components and the manufacture of turbine-type engines used in aircraft and missile propulsion.
I may not know the exact truth of precisely what happened that day any more than anyone else, but I'm certainly not "in the dark" about these theories. Logic always prevails.
I mentioned the building would have been affected, but would have still stood.
The LIE is nearly over, but the STORY is far from over.
Also: https://steemit.com/conspiracy/@budz82/9-11-and-the-israeli-bomb-expert-infiltrated-art-groups-gelatin-demo-wiring-team-and-e-team-sol-gel-team
planes didn't take down the buildings
we agree on that
I know all about E-Team and the B-Thing
Ok. As long as we're in agreement on something important ..........