Flight 77 wings debate?

Hornit · 5th January 2007, 09:48 PM

Just saw this on another site, talking about wing debris(or lack of it). I searched a bit but dont have time tonight to do a big search and want to know if anyone here has any info regarding the wing issue and flight 77.
Basically I'd like to know If there was debris from the wings found and the explanation or debunk to the outside windows being intact argument.

Thanks.

Hornit

Dog Town · 5th January 2007, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by Hornit

Just saw this on another site, talking about wing debris(or lack of it). I searched a bit but dont have time tonight to do a big search and want to know if anyone here has any info regarding the wing issue and flight 77.
Basically I'd like to know If there was debris from the wings found and the explanation or debunk to the outside windows being intact argument.

Thanks.

Hornit

Kill (incert two more ks here, and drop the ill,if you feel inclined)Clown?

Gravy · 5th January 2007, 10:06 PM

Ha! You're talking about flight 77. I'm so used to the flight 93 garbage lately that I just posted about that.

I don't know how much large wing debris you'd expect to find. The wings were laden with fuel and hit the building at 530 mph. The outer third of the wings didn't penetrate the masonry (some may have penetrated the windows) and were probably reduced to confetti.

The windows and frames in that section had been recently renovated. They were designed to be blast resistant and weighed 2500 lbs each.

Pardalis · 5th January 2007, 10:07 PM

I think he's talking about the Pentagon windows, Gravy.

Arkan_Wolfshade · 5th January 2007, 10:11 PM

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentago...e_exit_ho.html
http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=6
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/l...ht-77-wreckage

A W Smith · 5th January 2007, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Hornit

Just saw this on another site, talking about wing debris(or lack of it). I searched a bit but dont have time tonight to do a big search and want to know if anyone here has any info regarding the wing issue and flight 77.
Basically I'd like to know If there was debris from the wings found and the explanation or debunk to the outside windows being intact argument.

Thanks.

Hornit

On the windows.. they were new bomb blast resistant windows. I recall they were 3 inches thick. They had their own steel superstructure independent of the walls themselves. Which brings up the walls. They were very thick brick and concrete with stone veneer. And were retrofitted with a landscape fabric similar to Kevlar bonded to the interior of the wall, A process similar to the earthquake retrofitting of brick structures in San Francisco. It is like gluing a bullet proof vest to the wall of a building. Given the above it is understandable that the wing tips themselves failed to penetrate the pentagon and folded up instead.

Arkan_Wolfshade · 5th January 2007, 10:27 PM

Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts Popular Mechanics. Starting on pg 71

Quote:

Intact Pentagon Windows
Claim: Many of the Pentagon windows remained in one piece -- even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. The animation on www.pentagonstrike.co.uk claims the "intact windows" support the theory that "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" hit the Pentagon.

Fact: A number of windows near the impact area did indeed survive the initial concussion and ensuing explosions, because that's exactly what they were designed to do -- the windows in that section of the Pentagon are blast resistant.

The windows were installed just weeks earlier as part of a massive Pentagon modernization plan. The original windows were essentially standard commercial units from the early 1940s. The need for blast protection in the E and A rings -- the outermost and innermost rings, respectively -- became clear after the bombings of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 and the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

In a rare stroke of good luck on September 11, Flight 77 struck Wedge 1, the first section of the building designated for renovation. The first phase was five days from completion when the plane hit, and 383 new-and-improved windows were already in place. Weighing approximately 1,600 pounds apiece, the new windows feature laminated glass, in which a thin polymer interlayer is sandwiched between two or more panes of glass. The effect is that the windows will crack but not shatter, much like a car windshield. Because the Pentagon was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1992, the new windows were required to match the exterior look of the originals, so it is impossible to tell the old from the new from the outside.

But installing new windows would not have made much of a difference without corresponding structural improvements in the building around them. As a result, the designers engineered a complicated reinforcement scheme with the steel beams built into the walls around the window frames and bolted to the concrete floors slabs. The structure behaves like a catcher's mitt, absorbing the force of an explosion and shielding the people inside the building.

"It would have be imprudent and sort of counterproductive to have a window that was stronger than the wall," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Alabama-based company that designed, manufactured, and installed the windows. "The wall should be stronger than the window glass. If the window construction is stronger than the wall, it would eject the window from the unit and now you've got a flying missile. You want to design your windows and structure so that they fail in a certain order."

Hays declined to discuss the levels of force the Pentagon windows are designed to withstand, as doing so could jeopardize the security of the building. However, he say, the windows performed to specifications. "I personally inspected those windows, and anywhere a windows was not actually hit by the fuselage of the aircraft, the best we were able to determine was that if there was a glass missing, it was because of the subsequent fire burned the glass out."

Bill Hopper, communications manager for the Pentagon Renovation and Construction Program, confirms this account. The Pentagon Building Performance Report adds that the reinforcement around the windows kept the edifice surrounding the impact hole standing for 19 minutes. That was long enough to enable hundreds of Pentagon employees to exit the building before the damaged section of Ring E collapsed.

If the plane had hit an unrenovated section of the building, the damage would have been much more sever -- not only from the force of the blast, but also from fire. In Wedge 1, where a new high-tech sprinkler system had been installed during the renovation, the fires did not spread significantly and most were put out fairly quickly. When some fires spread to Wedge2, which did not have upgraded sprinkler system, they burned on and off for more than hours.

Hornit · 5th January 2007, 10:41 PM

Appreciate the links guys, Ive seen enough. It still dumbfounds me that supposedly intelligent folks cant grasp these facts for themselves. I honestly at times feel sorry for them. It must suck to live in such a paranoid, and egotistical state. They must be just wonderful folks to live and work with.

Hornit

Anti-sophist · 5th January 2007, 10:45 PM

This video is a must-have, as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8

It's the standard retort to the CT gibberish of "hunt the boeing" arguments regarding wings and tails and the like.

LashL · 6th January 2007, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

This video is a must-have, as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8

It's the standard retort to the CT gibberish of "hunt the boeing" arguments regarding wings and tails and the like.

Yes, and that is a particularly good version of the video, in my opinion, as it is short but has good, multiple camera angle shots and close ups, etc.

A W Smith · 6th January 2007, 12:54 PM

heres another good video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

Arkan_Wolfshade · 6th January 2007, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by A W Smith

wheres that other video the guy did a 3d simulation that explained everthing from the lamp posts to the mobile generator hit to the hole in the building? I lost the link. If i find it i will post it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8and http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/

Hornit · 6th January 2007, 07:28 PM

Excellent videos folks, thank you very much!

5th January 2007, 09:48 PM	#1
Hornit Scholar Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 93	Flight 77 wings debate? Just saw this on another site, talking about wing debris(or lack of it). I searched a bit but dont have time tonight to do a big search and want to know if anyone here has any info regarding the wing issue and flight 77. Basically I'd like to know If there was debris from the wings found and the explanation or debunk to the outside windows being intact argument. Thanks. Hornit
Hornit Scholar Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 93

5th January 2007, 10:03 PM	#2
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,462	Originally Posted by Hornit Just saw this on another site, talking about wing debris(or lack of it). I searched a bit but dont have time tonight to do a big search and want to know if anyone here has any info regarding the wing issue and flight 77. Basically I'd like to know If there was debris from the wings found and the explanation or debunk to the outside windows being intact argument. Thanks. Hornit Kill (incert two more ks here, and drop the ill,if you feel inclined)Clown?
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09 Last edited by Dog Town; 5th January 2007 at 10:06 PM.

5th January 2007, 10:06 PM	#3
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Ha! You're talking about flight 77. I'm so used to the flight 93 garbage lately that I just posted about that. I don't know how much large wing debris you'd expect to find. The wings were laden with fuel and hit the building at 530 mph. The outer third of the wings didn't penetrate the masonry (some may have penetrated the windows) and were probably reduced to confetti. The windows and frames in that section had been recently renovated. They were designed to be blast resistant and weighed 2500 lbs each.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links Last edited by Gravy; 5th January 2007 at 10:39 PM.

5th January 2007, 10:11 PM	#5
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Making Mytheon come to life Posts: 7,158	http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1 http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html http://www.911myths.com/html/pentago...e_exit_ho.html http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=6 http://internetdetectives.biz/case/l...ht-77-wreckage
	__________________ Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc. Bender: I am forty percent zinc. Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort. Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.

5th January 2007, 10:27 PM	#7
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Making Mytheon come to life Posts: 7,158	Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts Popular Mechanics. Starting on pg 71 Quote: Intact Pentagon Windows Claim: Many of the Pentagon windows remained in one piece -- even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. The animation on www.pentagonstrike.co.uk claims the "intact windows" support the theory that "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" hit the Pentagon. Fact: A number of windows near the impact area did indeed survive the initial concussion and ensuing explosions, because that's exactly what they were designed to do -- the windows in that section of the Pentagon are blast resistant. The windows were installed just weeks earlier as part of a massive Pentagon modernization plan. The original windows were essentially standard commercial units from the early 1940s. The need for blast protection in the E and A rings -- the outermost and innermost rings, respectively -- became clear after the bombings of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 and the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. In a rare stroke of good luck on September 11, Flight 77 struck Wedge 1, the first section of the building designated for renovation. The first phase was five days from completion when the plane hit, and 383 new-and-improved windows were already in place. Weighing approximately 1,600 pounds apiece, the new windows feature laminated glass, in which a thin polymer interlayer is sandwiched between two or more panes of glass. The effect is that the windows will crack but not shatter, much like a car windshield. Because the Pentagon was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1992, the new windows were required to match the exterior look of the originals, so it is impossible to tell the old from the new from the outside. But installing new windows would not have made much of a difference without corresponding structural improvements in the building around them. As a result, the designers engineered a complicated reinforcement scheme with the steel beams built into the walls around the window frames and bolted to the concrete floors slabs. The structure behaves like a catcher's mitt, absorbing the force of an explosion and shielding the people inside the building. "It would have be imprudent and sort of counterproductive to have a window that was stronger than the wall," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Alabama-based company that designed, manufactured, and installed the windows. "The wall should be stronger than the window glass. If the window construction is stronger than the wall, it would eject the window from the unit and now you've got a flying missile. You want to design your windows and structure so that they fail in a certain order." Hays declined to discuss the levels of force the Pentagon windows are designed to withstand, as doing so could jeopardize the security of the building. However, he say, the windows performed to specifications. "I personally inspected those windows, and anywhere a windows was not actually hit by the fuselage of the aircraft, the best we were able to determine was that if there was a glass missing, it was because of the subsequent fire burned the glass out." Bill Hopper, communications manager for the Pentagon Renovation and Construction Program, confirms this account. The Pentagon Building Performance Report adds that the reinforcement around the windows kept the edifice surrounding the impact hole standing for 19 minutes. That was long enough to enable hundreds of Pentagon employees to exit the building before the damaged section of Ring E collapsed. If the plane had hit an unrenovated section of the building, the damage would have been much more sever -- not only from the force of the blast, but also from fire. In Wedge 1, where a new high-tech sprinkler system had been installed during the renovation, the fires did not spread significantly and most were put out fairly quickly. When some fires spread to Wedge2, which did not have upgraded sprinkler system, they burned on and off for more than hours.
	__________________ Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc. Bender: I am forty percent zinc. Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort. Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.

5th January 2007, 10:07 PM	#4
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	I think he's talking about the Pentagon windows, Gravy.

5th January 2007, 10:17 PM	#6
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	Originally Posted by Hornit Just saw this on another site, talking about wing debris(or lack of it). I searched a bit but dont have time tonight to do a big search and want to know if anyone here has any info regarding the wing issue and flight 77. Basically I'd like to know If there was debris from the wings found and the explanation or debunk to the outside windows being intact argument. Thanks. Hornit On the windows.. they were new bomb blast resistant windows. I recall they were 3 inches thick. They had their own steel superstructure independent of the walls themselves. Which brings up the walls. They were very thick brick and concrete with stone veneer. And were retrofitted with a landscape fabric similar to Kevlar bonded to the interior of the wall, A process similar to the earthquake retrofitting of brick structures in San Francisco. It is like gluing a bullet proof vest to the wall of a building. Given the above it is understandable that the wing tips themselves failed to penetrate the pentagon and folded up instead.

5th January 2007, 10:41 PM	#8
Hornit Scholar Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 93	Appreciate the links guys, Ive seen enough. It still dumbfounds me that supposedly intelligent folks cant grasp these facts for themselves. I honestly at times feel sorry for them. It must suck to live in such a paranoid, and egotistical state. They must be just wonderful folks to live and work with. Hornit
Hornit Scholar Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 93

5th January 2007, 10:45 PM	#9
Anti-sophist Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 1,542	This video is a must-have, as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8 It's the standard retort to the CT gibberish of "hunt the boeing" arguments regarding wings and tails and the like.
	__________________ A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire

6th January 2007, 12:37 PM	#10
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,221	Originally Posted by Anti-sophist This video is a must-have, as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8 It's the standard retort to the CT gibberish of "hunt the boeing" arguments regarding wings and tails and the like. Yes, and that is a particularly good version of the video, in my opinion, as it is short but has good, multiple camera angle shots and close ups, etc.

6th January 2007, 12:54 PM	#11
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	heres another good video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
	Last edited by A W Smith; 6th January 2007 at 01:09 PM.

6th January 2007, 01:09 PM	#12
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Making Mytheon come to life Posts: 7,158	Originally Posted by A W Smith wheres that other video the guy did a 3d simulation that explained everthing from the lamp posts to the mobile generator hit to the hole in the building? I lost the link. If i find it i will post it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8and http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/
	__________________ Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc. Bender: I am forty percent zinc. Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort. Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.

6th January 2007, 07:28 PM	#13
Hornit Scholar Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 93	Excellent videos folks, thank you very much!
Hornit Scholar Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 93