Right, but wouldn't a longer handle be easier to tear off or come loose than a shorter handle if that handle impacted another solid, flat surface that is oriented normally to the length of the handle?On an aircraft with wing-mounted engines, these connections are strong enough to allow the engines to quickly accelerate the fully loaded fuselage to take-off speed.
The 767 wing attaches over ~20% of the length of the fuselage. You'll be hard pressed to find a household item with a bigger handle.
I assume they are under water but the plane mostly impacted the water such that the broad width underside of the wings was one of the first part of the wings to impact the water, which differs from how the narrow front sides of the wings were some of the first parts of the wings to impact the towers. Also in the "rough landing", the plane would be impacting a surface at a shallow angle, whereas in 9/11 the planes were oriented normal to the building face.I assure you they're there.
This was a "rough landing".
In any case, with the "rough landing", a large area of the underside of the wing would be impacting the water at once, meaning the force of the landing would be spread across a wide area of the wing at a slower rate, lessening the impulse and damage to the wing.
Whereas in impacts where the plane is angled and either a portion of the wing impacts the ground or hits a building head on, the force is spread over a narrower area and at a faster rate and so there is more damage to the impacted portion of the wing that is able to be done.