How could the planes wings penetrate the WTC?

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I guess a bunker buster comes to mind. Or a missile that uses a charge to penetrate a concrete bunker, and then detonates a second charge once inside. Maybe thats it
I was under the impression that bunker busters use the kinetic energy of the missile/bomb to penetrate the bunker and then it explodes once inside. They are really heavy, made of something strong and traveling very, very fast. I can't see how you would have one charge go off without the whole thing just blowing up.

I think there are thermal type bunker busters, used more for caves. They explode at the entrance and the explosion sucks all the oxygen out of the cave/bunker.
 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Actually Weedwhacker, if I'm not mistaken the CT's claim the missile was attached to the fuselage. They claim there is a bulge there that didn't belong but I'm having a hard time finding a photo of the claim. I know its BS, just thought I would share
I am well aware of that claim, from the past. Was involved in long Forum posts at another site several years ago, debunking it.

Here's the claim:


First two (L/R) are the claim, circled in red. Last pic on right the proof that it is just the fairing that encases the Main Gear when retracted.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
What causes that "ghosting" effect?
A bit outside my field. My guess is a slight algorithmic mismatch between the particular formats used in cameras and broadcast networks. The information gets compressed immediately it is stored for the first time. (It's a guess)...

are you and Jazzy supposing the CT sites added in the red flash, like photo shopped it.
No. They just increased the contrast. That would also intensify any color information present in the image file.

And just to be clear you guys are chalking this up to the O2 tanks
No. They might well have exploded on impact and provided a handy (and instantaneous) oxidation of the aluminum vapor generated by impact, but there's no way to know they did.

sun reflection off the curved surface of the aircraft
No, because the flash is visible from viewpoints both left and right of the plane's trajectory.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Not sure either about aluminium plasma as the radome is not made from aluminium or any metal.
I wasn't suggesting the radome would flash. But the bulkhead following it would.
odd that only the cockpit created a flash as it hit the building, whereas the wings do not.
Not really. The first point of impact had the whole of the plane's KE at its disposal for an instant*. By the time the wings joined the action a lot of that energy (and velocity) had been lost. Some had been expended, but a large amount remained in the steel parts which had already moved on, and couldn't have been part of the energy transactions between wings and tower.

* Insofar as the frame had the strength to transmit it.
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
I didn't mean it that way, sorry. I was just trying to present their claims as best as I could... I didn't mean to call it BS (even though it is and as are 99% CT claims)LOL
We really don't need to search for BS claims to dissect and it's not about what you called it. There is no end to nonsensicle claims about 911.
 

Jason

Senior Member
Not really. The first point of impact has the whole of the plane's KE at its disposal. By the time the wings join the action a lot of that energy (and velocity) has been lost.
How much energy and or velocity could've been lost in the fraction of a second it took the wings to hit after the fuselage? My take, and I'm not as qualified as most of you is that the wings are swept back, and they didn't enter the bldg the same way as the body. The body already created a large cavity which allowed the wings to slice through with less resistance, near the body that is. The wings would've been entering the bldg and cutting out towards the direction of each wing tip as opposed to the wing hitting the bldg's exterior all in one shot. Does that make sense?
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
I agree, and I thought it was a reasonable question. The fireball that is.
Seriously? How do you know it's a "fireball" in the first place? Where did the "fireball" go in the next frames? If you pick through every grainy image on video of ANY event you can find obscure things to "question". Do you REALLY think that can have been a missile?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
How much energy and or velocity could've been lost in the fraction of a second it took the wings to hit after the fuselage? My take, and I'm not as qualified as most of you is that the wings are swept back, and they didn't enter the bldg the same way as the body. The body already created a large cavity which allowed the wings to slice through with less resistance, near the body that is. The wings would've been entering the bldg and cutting out towards the direction of each wing tip as opposed to the wing hitting the bldg's exterior all in one shot. Does that make sense?
Some people have plotted the deceleration of the planes (as masses of debris moving through the tower floors) quite carefully, analyzing video data frame-by-frame. You should find and study them. I have no links…

A swept-back wing hits progressively from root to tip. Yes. Slowed-down sound recordings indicate a rapid series of blows after impact. I would suggest that would be the column pieces bursting in an outward-moving sequence.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member
This thread is a joke.You people are being played the same way you were with Gulf of Tonkin.And the Germans with the Reichstag bombing.You'll deny it till the end.
Us people are simply using knowledge and understanding of the physics involved to arrive at the conclusion that the aircraft would not, could not, simply smash and mash up against the side of the structures.

OTOH you posted(bolds mine)
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.
Which illustrated at the outset that you are either , uninformed even on the construction of the buildings in question, or not very good at asking questions in English. The former we can help you with, the later we cannot.

As we understood your question to mean the concrete floor pans, and the steel column structure of the tower, we answered your question in some detail.

That you cannot bring yourself to accept this and now simply deride us as being deluded would seem to put the lie to your first sentence in this thread.

Are you a believer in the no-planes theories (not necessarily limited to the Judy Wood contentions) or feel that such theories are credible?
 
Last edited:

Svartbjørn

Senior Member
I still question not only how they hit both wtc's with such precision that each entire wingspan was contained to each building face but they fully penetrated and all video evidence shows not one pixel of deformation and or collision physics.

Debunkers often cite non analogous footage of a jet not penetrating a concrete wall and ask if there is any deformation.

How can In one instance planes donot even pierce a concrete wall (and in DC penetrate 3 entire rings of steel reinforced concrete) but can fully penetrate a concrete and steel facade and exhibit not one pixel of deformation and or deceleration.

You're comparing apples and oranges Truthful. There's a HUGE difference between the construction of the Pentagon and the WTC Towers. The construction methods are completely different. The area of the Pentagon that was hit had been retrofit to withstand bombings.. IE Kinetic attacks. Neither of the WTC Towers were designed that way, nor had they been retrofit (as far as I know) to withstand kinetic attacks.. at least not on the scale of 747s crashing into the building, or even up that high.

The fact that the walls of the pentagon had been re-enforced means that the kinetic energy from the hit was "reflected" back towards the plane more (every action has an equal and opposite reaction) than in the WTC collision. Without the reinforcement in the WTC Towers, the aircraft's kinetic energy penetrated deeper and was dispersed in a completely different manner.

Im not a physicist, or a structural engineer, so maybe one of you guys that ARE, can explain what Im saying better, but thats my understanding in layman's terms.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member
You're comparing apples and oranges Truthful. There's a HUGE difference between the construction of the Pentagon and the WTC Towers. The construction methods are completely different. The area of the Pentagon that was hit had been retrofit to withstand bombings.. IE Kinetic attacks. Neither of the WTC Towers were designed that way, nor had they been retrofit (as far as I know) to withstand kinetic attacks.. at least not on the scale of 747s crashing into the building, or even up that high.

The fact that the walls of the pentagon had been re-enforced means that the kinetic energy from the hit was "reflected" back towards the plane more (every action has an equal and opposite reaction) than in the WTC collision. Without the reinforcement in the WTC Towers, the aircraft's kinetic energy penetrated deeper and was dispersed in a completely different manner.

Im not a physicist, or a structural engineer, so maybe one of you guys that ARE, can explain what Im saying better, but thats my understanding in layman's terms.
Actually, and this has been covered many times here and elsewhere, Flight 77 only had to penetrate ONE concrete wall, the initial outside wall. Truthful seems to have not bothered to check out how that section of the Pentagon was laid out.

Secondly comparing a wall to a ten foot thick solid block of concrete IS comparing apples to oranges as is attempting to directly equate the impact of an F-4 to that of Boeing 757. If anyone is up to it perhaps they might calculate the mass of an F-4 and how that would compare to the load capability of a Boeing 757.
It is not unlike the argument that a B25 hit the Empire State Bldg so a 767 hitting the WTC towers should have had a similar result. (IIRC I discovered that the B25 had a total mass less than that of the max fuel load of a 767)
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member
Secondly comparing a wall to a ten foot thick solid block of concrete IS comparing apples to oranges as is attempting to directly equate the impact of an F-4 to that of Boeing 757. If anyone is up to it perhaps they might calculate the mass of an F-4 and how that would compare to the load capability of a Boeing 757.

I absolutely agree Jay, and thats exactly what I was trying to explain.
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member
Actually, and this has been covered many times here and elsewhere, Flight 77 only had to penetrate ONE concrete wall, the initial outside wall. Truthful seems to have not bothered to check out how that section of the Pentagon was laid out.

Secondly comparing a wall to a ten foot thick solid block of concrete IS comparing apples to oranges as is attempting to directly equate the impact of an F-4 to that of Boeing 757. If anyone is up to it perhaps they might calculate the mass of an F-4 and how that would compare to the load capability of a Boeing 757.
It is not unlike the argument that a B25 hit the Empire State Bldg so a 767 hitting the WTC towers should have had a similar result. (IIRC I discovered that the B25 had a total mass less than that of the max fuel load of a 767)
F-4E loaded weight was 41,500 lbs.
767 MTOW is about 350,000 lbs, per wiki.
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member
The formulae are here, but my maths isn't up to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy
You're looking for kinetic energy for impact energy.

KE=(mv^2)/2

Since the KE is proportional to the mass, a 767 would have over eight times (8.43) the KE of an F-4 at equivalent velocities.

I did the math here before: the plane that hit WTC2 had KE equivalent to ~2T of TNT (KE=7.86GJ).
 
Last edited:

jaydeehess

Senior Member
F-4E loaded weight was 41,500 lbs.
767 MTOW is about 350,000 lbs, per wiki.
41,500 lbs =~20 tons. The 767 freightliner can carry 58 tons over 3000 miles
So to compare the F-4 to a 767 one notes that a 767 in its freight model, can carry two fully loaded F-4s as cargo.
In fact an F-4 is only 20% heavier than the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building.

A 767-200 has max fuel capacity of 100,000+ lbs.
 

Bunnykinns

New Member
No. As I said, physics. Let me try this...which would win, a wood 2 X 4, or a brick wall?
Th
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.
[That looks like] plastic siding?! https://www.fauxpanels.com/ [...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hevach

Senior Member
Faux stone vinyl or plastic panels don't break like that under impact. Most types of brick and block do.

Plastic will deform and separate for some distance from a break, and will usually have hard foam underneath it.

Cheaper brick will shatter, but the breaks will stop at the boundaries of affected blocks. Higher quality bricks will break cleanly, like in that picture. A hit directly on a seam can cause mortar to separate all the way to the corners but that hasn't happened here. Insulation will be set back several inches by the thickness of the bricks, and because brick is a fair insulator itself older houses may not even have any.

There are also giveaways. No repeating shade pattern seen in faux siding, and the framing board and uneven settling seen in old brickwork.
 
Last edited:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member
People intuitively think about relative structural strength. They imagine trying to force a plane through a steel structure with a bulldozer behind the tail. It would crumple.

But you should be thinking about kinetic energy.

People play around with strange shotgun loads. How about a bullet made of silly putty?


What has more structural strength? The silly putty or the TV set? But at high velocity each molecule in the lump of silly putty has a lot of kinetic energy. It's the transfer of kinetic energy that causes the damage to the struck object.

Also have seen many comments like this: The plane would break up on impact, and the tail would fall straight down to the ground.

Of course it wouldn't fall straight down. It's the same lack of understanding of inertia that you so often see in FE believers. Every molecule of the plane has inertia. Every piece of the plane would continue forward.

These are similar examples of "intuitive physics."
 
Last edited:

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
If anyone is truly interested in taking a deep dive into the physics of how the wings severed the columns, a peer reviewed paper was published on the subject back in 2003 (14 years ago).

It's probably behind a paywall for most, but the abstract is unambiguous about the potential for the wings to severe the columns:

Another peer reviewed paper on the same subject was published in 2006 (11 years ago), and, while it too may be behind a paywall for most, its abstract is also unambiguous about the potential for the wings to severe the columns:

A tip to would-be 9-11 "truth" movement followers is to actually run some searches for yourself on scholar.google.com if you have questions about technical issues like this and how they are viewed by actual experts on modeling the physics involved. You are not likely to find any such experts contributing to literature that is passed around in the conspiracy theory bubble.
 

dc_hatman

Member
Even something with small bit of mass can cause a major impact damage when propelled at a high speed. I remember some years ago doing an advanced driving course and the instructor telling me it was dangerous to have a tissue box lying loose on the back seat because if I was to brake suddenly from a high and the box was propelled into the back of my head the momentum could mean that even something as light as a tissue box could cause a major head injury. We were even shown photos of major head trauma caused by tissue boxes.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Even something with small bit of mass can cause a major impact damage when propelled at a high speed. I remember some years ago doing an advanced driving course and the instructor telling me it was dangerous to have a tissue box lying loose on the back seat because if I was to brake suddenly from a high and the box was propelled into the back of my head the momentum could mean that even something as light as a tissue box could cause a major head injury. We were even shown photos of major head trauma caused by tissue boxes.
That's a bit of an urban legend. A tissue box is too light to cause any injury while braking, or even during an accident.

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/box-of-tissue-in-car-crash/
Source: https://youtu.be/AsVVTHAhXPU?t=38m30s

Video link goes to the final test, and conclusion, myth busted.

However, if it were to hit you at 500 mph, it would easily shatter your skull. and anything a bit more dense would be a problem. But if you are slamming into a wall at 70mph then a tissue box is going to be the least of your problems.
 

dc_hatman

Member
That's a bit of an urban legend. A tissue box is too light to cause any injury while braking, or even during an accident.


However, if it were to hit you at 500 mph, it would easily shatter your skull. and anything a bit more dense would be a problem. But if you are slamming into a wall at 70mph then a tissue box is going to be the least of your problems.
Fair enough
I withdraw my comments then.
 


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

Also have to remember there were two events. The impact of the plane into the building, and the explosion of the fuel from inside the building. What you see here is after the explosion. After the plane enters the building, the hole would be smaller and look more "airplane shaped." AFTER the fuel explodes, random pieces that were just cut through by the wings (but still attached) would be blown off, as the fuel explosion expands past the perimeter cols
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Also have to remember there were two events. .....
whoa - message necro!! ;)

also of course the planes wings are not actually 180 degrees opposite each other - on the ground you can see slight dihedral - the wings are each a few degrees higher than perfectly horizontal -

upload_2018-5-1_14-27-15.jpeg


In the air this is more pronounced as the wings are supporting the weight of the fuselage and are "bent" upwards even more - back in the 1970's there was a film of testing of the wings of 747's - they broke at 29 ft upward deflection at the tip, and 27 ft down (IIRC - it was 40 years ago but made a strong impression on me back then!):

upload_2018-5-1_14-29-17.jpeg
 

betamonk

Member
I ran the Speigel TV youtube video through an editor and did a screen cap at the time of impact. It shows a white flash.

View attachment 6547

So my question is: why do the pics from the conspiracy sites show a red flash? Is the difference due to post processing colour saturation settings?

View attachment 6548
if you scroll through the video slowly, there is an initial white flash (i assume glass shattering and debris) right when the initial impact occurs. a few frames later, around the time the area between the nose of the plane and the front of the wings are entering the building, there is a red/orange flash. probably aluminum melting under the extreme force, but could also be an initial explosion if the impact had already damaged the fuel tanks. regardless of the cause of each, there are 2 distinctly separate flashes.
 
Top