How could the planes wings penetrate the WTC?

Credible theorist

Member
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.

Attachments

• Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
5.8 MB · Views: 2,288
• How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center.pdf
1.1 MB · Views: 4,078
Last edited by a moderator:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Aluminum plane versus concrete and aluminum is clear who would win.

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 )

Mick West

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

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Aluminum plane versus concrete and aluminum is clear who would win

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.

Soulfly

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

Balance

Senior 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.

WeedWhacker

Senior 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.

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).

Attachments

339.1 KB · Views: 493

SR1419

Senior Member.
.Aluminum plane versus concrete and aluminum is clear who would win.It couldn't even leave a mark at the Pentagon bit it didn't have a problem here.

I understand they were built different but the effects are dramatically different.Oh and cool animation weed whacker.

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.

jaydeehess

Senior 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.

SR1419

Senior 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.

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.

SR1419

Senior Member.
This is where I got the soda can analogy:

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

WeedWhacker

Senior Member

Yes indeed.

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

Last edited:

Soulfly

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

jaydeehess

Senior 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.
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.

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
The Pentagon was constructed to withstand attacks, the WTC buildings were not.
There's not much that could withstand having 100 tons of anything traveling at 450+ mph.

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
...solid object of pencil vs. Hollow aluminum of a/c fuselage for instance...

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.

Soulfly

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

jaydeehess

Senior 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:

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
BTW "atomize" is a bit of hyperbole.

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
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.

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.

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
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.
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.

jaydeehess

Senior 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.

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Found this in my search.
Is Sandia Labs' F-4 Phantom rocket sled test a hoax?
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2008/03/is-sandia-labs-f-4-phantom-rocket-sled.html

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.

Mumbles

Active Member
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?
.

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.

jaydeehess

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

jaydeehess

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

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

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Yup, all those people who saw that footage in the 1990's (including myself) must have been imagining it

The "mostly hollow" claim is literally laughable, especially for the F-4.
Several commenters on kt's blog pointed out they had seen the footage years before 2001.

MikeC

Closed Account
Yup, all those people who saw that footage in the 1990's (including myself) must have been imagining it

The "mostly hollow" claim is literally laughable, especially for the F-4.

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.

MikeC

Closed 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??

Mumbles

Active Member
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.

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:

Jason

Senior Member
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??

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

Mumbles

Active Member
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.

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

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
...but if you start from left to right it looks like a 135 degree angle, not the 180 degrees you would expect...

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.

Jason

Senior Member
Why would you assume that? The 767 wing structure is dihedral.
Ok, didn't know that, but what is the degrees from wing span to wing span in the dihedral wing span

Soulfly

Banned
Banned

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
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.

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Ok, didn't know that...

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.

Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Corbell: "Unidentified glowing objects near US Navy ship" [Planes or drones?] UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 17
Satellite ADS-B Data in FlightAware24 - Blue Planes Prove Globe Earth Flat Earth 1
UFOs Filmed from Moving Helicopters and Planes. Not So Fast! UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 8
Flares in the Sky? [Landing Lights of Planes landing at Phoenix Airport] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
Explained: Why Planes Get Dented Nosecones - It's Mostly Birds General Discussion 4
Donald Trump initially said he thought there were "bombs" on the planes on 9/11 9/11 44
How Do You Take Good Photos of High Altitude Planes and Contrails? Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 1
Automated Video Tracking of Planes Tools for Investigating and Debunking 42
Two Large Planes Flying Parallel, Chiloquin, OR. Is it Legal? Yes. Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Three Planes Turn Right, South of San Francisco Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 15
911 video with edited out planes. 9/11 6
What might these three planes be? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 9
Contrails from Turboprop Planes at lower than typical altitudes Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 10
Explained: Dark contrails behind bright planes Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 10
Two planes at the "Same" Altitude, only one leaves a trail Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 16
Claims Ukranian military using civilian planes as cover Flight MH17 72
Debunk this [Planes at different altitude and different contrails over France] Contrails and Chemtrails 43
Racetrack Contrails and "Bizzare" Planes off the Yorkshire Coast Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 70
Two planes in Germany flying Racetrack patterns together [Likely Eurofighter Typhoon Practicing] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 9
Tip: Planes with "No callsign" in FlightRadar24 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 13
Reward to catch people who point lasers at planes General Discussion 21
9/11: Any Evidence for remote controlled planes? 9/11 91
Debunked: US Reported In Panic After Chemtrail Planes Forced Down In India and Nigeria Contrails and Chemtrails 1
A new low from Aircrap.org - Disney's Planes Contrails and Chemtrails 8
No planes today Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Photos of Planes and Contrails (That you took yourself) Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 1232
Identifying chemtrail planes Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Debunked: Chemtrail Plane and Other Unlabeled Photos from Facebook etc. Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 227
WTC: Were the planes drones, how hard is flying a 767 into a building? 9/11 58
"Unmarked planes" Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Explained: UFOs that look like flares or fireworks [Aerobatic planes with wingtip pyrotechnics] UFOs and Aliens 3
Advocating violence against "Chemtrail" planes, pilots, scientists, and debunkers Contrails and Chemtrails 1762
Crossing planes [Planes at different heights] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
Black Narrow Aircraft-Like Object (With Stubby Wings?) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 9
Sunset Photos with "Angel Wings" Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 12
Plane trail at wings, none at engines? [Aerodynamic contrails, no flaps] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Related Articles