# How could the planes wings penetrate the WTC?

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by Credible theorist, Mar 20, 2014.

1. ### Credible theoristMember

Note

I'm not a no plane theorist.I'm looking to actually put this theory to the test.I first heard it from Judy Wood and this was the problem:How could the wings penetrate the concrete and steel and slide into the World Trade Center?It's known that these planes are made from aluminum.So do the math,aluminum Vs. Concrete steel framed sky scraper.Who wins?

So like I said I would like a logical debunking of this.Here are some photos:http://more911.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/tower1-hole.jpg?w=300&h=241
Notice the wing tip on the right hand side.How is that possible?
Notice this diagram as well:http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/docs/WTC_hole.jpg

How is this possible?That's what I want to know.

#### Attached Files:

File size:
5.8 MB
Views:
1,253
• ###### How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center.pdf
File size:
1.1 MB
Views:
2,123
Last edited by a moderator: May 25, 2017
2. ### WeedWhackerSenior Member

No. As I said, physics. Let me try this...which would win, a wood 2 X 4, or a brick wall?

Resulting from the extreme velocity due to tornado winds.

Physics. Mass times velocity = Force ( F = MA )

• Like x 1

A Ping pong ball can penetrate a ping pong paddle, or a soda can, if it goes fast enough. It's all about speed.

4. ### WeedWhackerSenior Member

Also, BTW:

The structural components that comprised the exterior walls and facades were assembled from individual pieces, and the connections between them are what failed, on the impact.

Indeed.

• Like x 3
7. ### BalanceSenior Member

It would be interesting to see this ping-pong experiment sans the ball! It wouldn't surprise me if damage could still be suffered by the bat at such close quarter.

8. ### WeedWhackerSenior Member

And also don't forget that water can cut steel:

And other metals (at 1:45):

ETA...LOL, I accidentally took a screenshot while I was composing the post...even though I still don't know how, when I want to!! (I know, there is an FAQ where I can learn).

File size:
339.1 KB
Views:
49
• Like x 1
9. ### SR1419Senior Member

The Pentagon exterior was 7 feet thick reinforced concrete...the WTC was a thin facade of glass and aluminum...one would expect dramatically different results.

The multi-ton planes with fuel loaded in their wings traveling at ~500mph penetrated the facade of WTC like a pencil poking a hole in a soda can.

10. ### jaydeehessSenior Member

Sorry, the Pentagon exterior walls are not seven feet thick and the WTC towers while having windows and an aluminum cladding were constructed of steel columns.

• Agree x 2
11. ### SR1419Senior Member

you are correct- my bad...the 7 feet is an approximate aggregate of the all the Pentagon rings...the outer wall was approximately 18 inches thick...although it had been recently reinforced:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/renovation.html

Nonetheless, the dramatic differences in impact between the 2 (3) buildings is to be expected given the construction of each. The pencil/soda can analogy is apt.

• Agree x 1
12. ### SR1419Senior Member

This is where I got the soda can analogy:

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html

• Agree x 1
• Informative x 1
13. ### WeedWhackerSenior Member

Yes indeed.

Have you seen this Purdue computer simulation animation? (The OP may find it useful, too):

Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
• Useful x 3
14. ### SoulflyBannedBanned

The Pentagon was constructed to withstand attacks, the WTC buildings were not.

15. ### jaydeehessSenior Member

Yep!
Pencil analogy would not hold for the Pentagon but for WTC its apt.
Of course all analogies break down at some point of detail and that is where CTists would attack this ( solid object of pencil vs. Hollow aluminum of a/c fuselage for instance)

While one could argue with the Purdue university research, it would require that the contrariant produce similarly detailed research such as their own finite element analysis. That has never materialized from any group or individual taking the stance that the planes could not penetrate the buildings.

• Agree x 1
16. ### jaydeehessSenior Member

There's not much that could withstand having 100 tons of anything traveling at 450+ mph.

17. ### WeedWhackerSenior Member

Oh, I've been presented with that "argument" before. What's not understood by those making the "hollow" claim is the fact of the fuselage being a sealed tube, and the air inside acts to provide structural strength, as it was compressed...if only for fractions of a second, of course.

The "drinking straw through a potato" demonstration illustrates:

I should like to add that in the case of both wings, they could be considered to be virtually 'solid' structures, since they were filled to capacity with fuel. As (most) everyone knows, liquids are not compressible.

• Like x 3
• Informative x 1
18. ### SoulflyBannedBanned

Except maybe reinforced concrete.

It's not just the exterior walls that got impacted, but also the interior columns, ceilings, floors and interior walls. This is why there is not much left of the plane inside the building and why I showed the F4 crash test in the other thread. It shows that aluminum impacting concrete meant to withstand attacks can turn to dust. Or as the narrator says atomize.

More footage.

19. ### jaydeehessSenior Member

The F-4 is ~18 tons, the solid concrete block it hits is 10 feet thick. Not a good analogue to a 100 ton aircraft hitting 17 inch thick concrete non- continuous wall . Two inch thick glass windows are not going to help much either.

Even so, in the test video you can see the concrete block actually flex as it absorbs the transfer of momentum. The views of the aircraft show little if any deceleration of the rear as contact is made. This last bit debunks the notion that the Boeing's should have been observed to slow as they hit.

Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
• Agree x 1
20. ### jaydeehessSenior Member

BTW "atomize" is a bit of hyperbole.

21. ### SoulflyBannedBanned

Straying off topic but...
It shows that when aluminum hitting reinforced concrete at high speeds, has a high likely hood to turn to dust. The construction of the test wall and the pentagon probably didn't differ very much.

The plane hits the outer walls of the Pentagon and continues to hit the floor, ceiling, columns and interior walls, all at high speeds.

The over all thickness of all those surfaces is what? How thick are the floors and for that matter the ceilings of the Pentagon? It's not like the plane went through the outer wall and met no further resistance.

22. ### jaydeehessSenior Member

Oh for sure as broken bits hit still more structure, they'd be broken up even more. Its rather sad that CTs expect large easily recognizable parts to be numerous.

24. ### jaydeehessSenior Member

Killtown!!!!!! My nickname for him in the distant past was " clown town".
He once multiplied seemingly random figures and claimed it resulted in velocity or somesuch. Completely ignored parameters. It was obvious that his science and math education had ended at about the sixth grade level..

I have to admit that, no word of a lie, I laughed out loud at seeing his moniker again. Made my day. Saddest part was that at one time some people took him seriously.

• Like x 1
25. ### WeedWhackerSenior Member

Yeah, that was from 2008. And, it is true that at one time, his stuff was cited and used by CTs to support their contentions. Unfortunately, the same misinformation never goes away...whether it's saved forever on the internet, or printed into those old-fashioned things called "books".

Problem is the web is instantaneously (and usually at little to no cost) accessible.

26. ### MumblesActive Member

Who wins? Momentum and kinetic energy.

For a literal aircraft related aluminium vs steel example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_(1998)

Not totally comparable to the WTC impacts but the fundamental point is the same. It's not the relative hardness of the material, it's the relative velocity and mass.

It's also worth noting it wasn't just the aluminium structure of the wings at play, it is all the mass they comprise as well, including things like fuel.

27. ### jaydeehessSenior Member

Ahhh, yes, in a thread on jref killtown added 120 feet to 580 mph to arrive at a distance of 700 feet.

• Funny x 1

29. ### jaydeehessSenior Member

"aluminum Vs. Concrete steel framed sky scraper.Who wins?"

Concrete steel framed???
Lightweight concrete floor pan , steel framed?

• Agree x 1
30. ### jaydeehessSenior Member

Several commenters on kt's blog pointed out they had seen the footage years before 2001.

• Agree x 1
31. ### MikeCClosed Account

Not sure what you mean by that - all aircraft are "mostly hollow" - even military ones - even engines are "mostly hollow", as are substantial and strong members like undercarriages and hydraulic actuators - they are very strong tubes.

32. ### MikeCClosed Account

An aircraft wing penetrates a steel column-exterior building between the steel columns. and at eth steel columns it either pushes them out of the way or bends/breaks them, or it deforms around them.

What is the mystery??

• Agree x 1
33. ### MumblesActive Member

The way killtown phrases it it's like the expectation is something like the interior of a C-130 hold or something.

When you look at an F-4 cutaway granted it's not a solid lump, but it's not like there's room to swing a cat in the interior spaces either:

http://references.charlyecho.com/Aviation/McDonnell Douglas/F-4E/Cutaway/wallpaper-416350.jpg

Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
34. ### JasonSenior Member

I don't think we can say that the steal beams were cut for sure from wing tip to wing top based on the photos. I also don't think its fair to assume that the plane cut through just the joints of each beam. Something thats always bothered me about this photo was the fact that it isn't a straight line from wing tip to wing tip like you would assume. The upper right tip extends to the center where the fuselage entered at almost 45 degree angle, but then from the center to the left wing tip its almost parallel to the floors above and below... I'm not good at drawing over other images like some on here, but if you start from left to right it looks like a 135 degree angle, not the 180 degrees you would expect considering the right wing sliced through so easily, you would've expected the same or similar foot print for the left wing

35. ### MumblesActive Member

Why would you assume that? The 767 wing structure is dihedral.

37. ### WeedWhackerSenior Member

As "mumbles" mentioned above, there is dihedral in the B767 wings. This is actually very common for reasons of stability in the science of aerodynamics and airplane design. (More aerobatic airplanes, and of course military fighters have less, even zero dihedral and in some cases anhedral).

This image shows the wings relative shape when on the ground. In flight there is more flex (upward in the case of the wings) due to aerodynamic loads.

• Informative x 1
38. ### JasonSenior Member

Ok, didn't know that, but what is the degrees from wing span to wing span in the dihedral wing span

39. ### SoulflyBannedBanned

Which tower is this?
You would also need to take into account the angle of impact. Isn't the 2nd plane that hit kind of turning? Hitting squarely at 90 degrees seems unlikely. That would make one side (wing) of the plane impact a tad bit sooner than the other. Wing could be folded back or just sheered off. Once the plane starts to break up, all bets are off on saying this is what it should look like, as there are so many factors to take into account.

40. ### WeedWhackerSenior Member

It's fascinating (to me) because for pilots it's just intuitive, when we look at the photos of the impact point. Doesn't occur to us that others would have a different conception (or, misconception) of how they 'imagine' the entry damage should appear.