Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash

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.
Article:
Fig3.png
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?
I assure you they're there.
This was a "rough landing".
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
SmartSelect_20211022-052334_Samsung Internet.jpg

Well like the window glass is the weak point in a building, the wings are a less sturdy piece of an airplane and the weak point in an airplane (wings seem like the first to shear off an aircraft in any crash or extreme turbulence), so I don't see why it would be unreasonable to assume that if the airplane was traveling at a slower speed, the wings would be sheared off during impact and not fully make it into the building, while the front part of the fuselage would still make it past the exterior columns.
Note that you both suppose the wing would shear off.
So wouldn't it follow that in a lower speed plane crash (like was envisioned when the towers were originally constructed), at least a significant portion of the wings farther away radially from the fuselage would be sheared off and not enter the building?
The fact that the wing might detach from the fuselage says nothing about its ability to enter the building on its own.

We've established that the weight of the fuel in the wing tanks provides the wings with a lot of inertia, while the low profile of the wing concentrates the pressure on the front edge, like a knife.

I suggest to not draw conclusions without a thorough analysis that uses actual numbers and physical laws.
 
Last edited:
Note that you both suppose the wing would shear off.

The fact that the wing might detach from the fuselage says nothing about its ability to enter the building on its own.

We've established that tje weight of the fuel in the wing tanks provides the wings with a lot of inertia, while the low profile of the wing concentrates the pressure on the front edge, like a knife.
Okay, I can see that even torn up and damaged and traveling at a slower speed, the wings would still be to enter the building and still provide a broad cutting motion.
I suggest to not draw conclusions without a thorough analysis that uses actual numbers and physical laws.
Okay, I was going by visual observations of the incident and similar such plane crash incidents to see what occurs in such situations. However, I see that anecdotal evidence and expectations of what occurred in previous crashes on its own isn't enough to explain apparent discrepancies in what occurs in some plane crashes.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I was going by visual observations of the incident and similar such plane crash incidents to see what occurs in such situations.
Visual observation: wing-shaped holes in the outsides of the WTC towers, right?
G11.jpg
What "similar plane crashes" are you referring to? I didn't see you cite any?
I did provide you with a picture of a wing that impacted an obstacle at take-off.


expectations
Expectations only count if you actually have experience.
You, on the other hand, expect wings to detach "in any severe turbulence, rough landing".
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
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?
You specifically asserted "the wings would be sheared off". I don't see how the length makes a difference concerning the resistance to shearing?

My point was that the attachment of the wing to the fuselage is quite wide in the direction of the motion and so provides good shear resistance.
 
Visual observation: wing-shaped holes in the outsides of the WTC towers, right?
G11.jpg
Yes and I have no doubt that at the speeds the planes were traveling at, the most of the wings would have penetrated the exterior facade of the building. I intially had some doubts that similar would occur if the plane was traveling much slower, but the continuum explanation about how more and more of the wings would penetrate the building in faster speed crashes cleared up that confusion I had.

I had also had confusion about airplane wings coming off first in rough turbulence, but that appears to be more a case of bad maintenance, as apparently even in extreme turbulence, airplane wings shouldn't come loose or snap off.
https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/can-airplane-wings-snap-off
What "similar plane crashes" are you referring to? I didn't see you cite any?
I don't know of many other similar plane crashes into buildings other than the plane crash into the Empire State Building, although that was a much smaller plane.

By "similar plane crashes", I meant the type of plane crashes where the wings impact the ground first (such as the plane crashes that occur at air shows) and get torn off. My intent in mentioning similar plane crashes was to say that in similar situations where a plane is crashing (not just having a "rough landing"), I have seen that the wings are some of the first parts of the plane to become loose and fall apart, compared to the fuselage, making me think that the wings are very vulnerable to coming loose first in any plane crash.
You specifically asserted "the wings would be sheared off". I don't see how the length makes a difference concerning the resistance to shearing?
Isn't a longer handle more easily able to be bent and snapped off than a shorter handle if it impacts a solid surface oriented at a 90 degree angle? The longer handle in this case being the wing and the solid surface oriented at a 90 degree angle being the building.
My point was that the attachment of the wing to the fuselage is quite wide in the direction of the motion and so provides good shear resistance.
If the attachment of the wing to the fuselage is quite wide that would make sense that it provides better resistance than a smaller, less wide attachment that would more easily come loose from damage.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
I don't know of many other similar plane crashes into buildings other than the plane crash into the Empire State Building, although that was a much smaller plane.
What happened to its wings?

By "similar plane crashes", I meant the type of plane crashes where the wings impact the ground first (such as the plane crashes that occur at air shows) and get torn off.
But when an aircraft flies into a building, the nose impacts first? Quite a different situation.
And with a swept wing, the wing tip impacts the building last, while it is often the first/only part to impact the ground in the type of incident you envision. And even then, an airliner wing tip making ground contact is usually not catastrophic; wing tip strikes are a more common occurrence than you probably expect.
Article:
SmartSelect_20211022-062934_Samsung Internet.jpg

I only remember one passenger jet crashing at an air show, were there more?
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
Mick West Debunked: AE911Truth's WTC7 Explosive Demolition Hypothesis 9/11 175
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 8
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 75
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 9
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top