Boeing Wings Versus WTC Towers

by
Morgan Reynolds

I recently was put on one of those mostly useless email threads loaded with 9/11 accusations but decided to enter the fray (against better counsel) with this entry:

There are many things wrong with the 9/11 plane theory (www.nomoregames.net) but one is the proposition that 767 wings can stay intact/attached in a high-speed, violent collision with a maxi-strength tower and those wings disappear inside said tower.  Not to mention heavy tail sections disappearing within too.  And such unprecedented (alleged) crashes occurred twice within 16.5 minutes?  Wow.  To paraphrase Gerard Holmgren, why don’t we have rotary aluminum blades and hacksaws for cutting steel today?

Watch this 46 sec. video of hijacked Ethiopian Airlines flight 961, a 767 out-of-fuel, trying to make a low-speed, soft landing adjacent to a Comoros beach.

The left wing was immediately ripped off by contact with water while the right wing was quickly “dismembered” by deceleration and roll of the fuselage.  Too much stress.  Doesn’t take much.  And encounters with steel?  Lots of steel?  How would wings fare there?  You decide.  By the way, NIST never gave the dimensions of the cut-outs in the towers; couldn’t because they were undersized, well short of the 155’ wingspan of a 767, especially the WTC2 hole.  Measure the holes yourself, recalling that the 14” columns were on one meter centers.  Like the Pentagon and Shanksville, every hole that day was too small to accommodate passage of the claimed Boeing aircraft.

In an effort to end this particular debate within our lifetimes, can everyone support an experiment proposed at www.911crashtest.org?  Except Mr. Lawson who apparently believes in non-767 200 aircraft stronger than structural steel.  In brief, the experiment would place a section of a 767 wing vertically on a rocket sled and accelerate it to 500+ mph, thereby crashing the wing section into a stationary, horizontally placed steel “wheatchex” identical to those that formed the perimeters of WTC 1&2.  The sled of course would pass below the wheatchex and decelerate down the track.  Naturally not everything would be identical to the alleged WTC crashes (no lateral floor edges, departures from right-angle/head-on impact, etc.) and there is room to debate experimental alternatives, but a simple crash test promises to prove quite a bit for or against the official WTC plane crash story and variations of it as advocated by “truthers” like those represented here.

This entry was posted in 911. Bookmark the permalink.

142 Responses to Boeing Wings Versus WTC Towers

  1. jeff says:

    I love reading all these comments and seeing different theories about what happened. First of all none of us will ever truly know what would happen if a 767 flew into those buildings unless we saw it first hand. Beyond that I personally do not believe those planes brought the buildings down. Before I get into that a little about my history, I have had a construction company for 40 years and have worked in just about every facet of construction. I have erected iron on midrise buildings, I’ve done all types of concrete including tilt ups pre and post tensioned slabs and I installed curtain wall glass systems on the exterior of several 30+ storied high rise buildings. I also had a friend that was a demolition expert in the army and when he got out worked with a company that dropped buildings. With all that being said my first comment and this one I don’t know if the footage is accepted as being factual but it showed one of the planes slamming into the side of one of the buildings at close range , but what you don’t see is any ripple in the glass as the plane hits nor is there any reflection of the plane in the glass when there should be. After that it is incredibly hard to get a building to fall straight down. If those planes did slam into the exterior of the buildings I am sure they would of done some amazing damage and I have no doubt they sheared a few columns especially some of the exterior ones, but there is no way it took out the all the interior columns and even if it did the buildings would of tipped in the direction of first cut columns or do you think it would sit there until they were all cut and drop straight down. Same thing on the fire theory all the interior columns would have to heat up at exactly the same time, and then what? the top part of the building would sit straight down on the next lower floor and why would the rest of it collapse? There is no way you could of heated up all those interior columns to failure at the same time I don’t care how much jet fuel you have. All of those columns have a sprayed on fireproofing that they are coated with and I have held a cutting torch on steel with the same material on it for 15 minutes and not even got the steel warm. There are way to many discrepancies in the official findings for me to believe in. My last comment is after the buildings were dropped and there was a picture of one of the columns with a diagonal slice on it and it was glowing, there is only one thing in world that will do that and that is thermite.

  2. onebornfree says:

    Another anniversary today- 15 years after. Despite the fact that 99% to 100% of members here disagree with my most of my assertions, I will re-state them all again, just for the record:

    An Inside Job:

    1] 9/11 was an inside job, a “psyop” carried out by the US DoD and associated, with the full complicity of the US MSM [ CBS,CNN,ABC,NBC, Fox] , either because the MSM was “steamrollered” into compliance with the military, or because the MSM is wholly owned/operated subsidiary of the US military.

    “A Never Ending War For Never Ending Peace”:

    2] The primary goal of the 9/11 psyop was to create a brand new, post collapse of the USSR, enemy.

    In other words, the goal was to create a worldwide faceless enemy [“terrorism”], in a “never ending war for never ending peace”, which would therefore ensure the future “jobs” and positions of 100’s of 1000’s of military personnel who were otherwise going to be out of their “jobs” [basically the military is a gigantic welfare system where the beneficiaries get to wear uniforms, medals and guns etc. ]

    100% Faked “Live” 9/11 TV Footage”

    3] To that end [see 2 above], the US MSM broadcast 100% faked “live” footage on the morning of 9/11.

    That is, all of the alleged live footage [ planes hitting buildings, buildings collapsing , plus the human”tower jumpers”etc. etc.] were in fact faked, prefabricated, made -on- computer sequences concocted months, possibly years before 9/11, and then broadcast as being “live” footage on 9/11, by the MSM.

    Close To 3,000 Fake 9/11 Victims:

    4] Most, possibly all of the close to 3,000 alleged victims of the events of 9/11, as listed on the various memorial sites, never even existed in the real world. They are/were fake personalities with faked personal histories and bios, and with faked portraits composed via Photoshop and other image compositing software [e.g. “face morphing” software].

    And so it goes ……

    Happy anniversary🙂
    Regards, onebornfreeatyahoodotcom

    • william02138 says:

      This is ridiculous. I went to high school with one of the victims, long before 9/11. She was friends with my brother, was at our house a few times. Just about anyone in or from the greater NYC area knows someone who was killed, or who was there.

  3. Rich Cutcher says:

    If you guys paid more attention to your spelling and sentence structure – I might believe you were actually physicists and/or commercial airline pilots. As it is, I’m forced to conclude y’all are just bored college dropouts with a nagging wife who forces you into your locked office/den where you put on your ‘smart’ hat and contemplate the Universe. Well, have at it. I don’t think you’re hurting anybody. By the way, there was no grand conspiracy. The government just isn’t that smart.

    • Edawrd Crutchley says:

      This is an insult to scientific method! That’s what happens when you get confirmation bias.

    • lumberjake says:

      I don’t buy the official story at all after having read and reviewed both sides of the argument. The official side has way too many oddities that seem blatantly unreasonable such as the outright exclusion of even considering the possibility of explosives. This
      alone tells me the investigation had a forgone conclusion as this is a standard investigation practice of ANY investigation involving fire and structural failure.
      The fact that NIST ignored significant factual evidence such as the thermal data from NASA, multiple physical sources of evidence showing molten metal and the hundreds of eye witnesses who described explosions. Who in their right mind could possibly conclude this was a fair and objective investigation?
      Don’t even get me started with how NIST chose to bury what had to have jumped out at them (being well educated scientists) being the measured free fall drop of WTC7, defying basic physics.
      Every incident involving 9/11 had enormously unusual components to them that defy common sense. Perhaps if it were just one or two I could understand but there are so many! In NY none of the black boxes are recovered nor are even the microscpoic remains of a full third of the victims despite being thoroughly screened by hand, they vapourized. The fact that all that steel just happened to have been severed in sections that easily was removed to be shipped away. Important evidence, shipped away immediately?
      Shanksville was weird in that there was almost no wrechage visible? It had mostly been buried? About 100 tons…buried…a parking lot full of cars essentially, buried? OK but if you say you recovered 95% of it, does anyone else find it odd that they refuse to produce it? Is that too much to ask? They have been doing this with every other airline crash, even ones in the middle of the Atlantic. I think this qualifies as weird.
      Then there is the Pentagon, flight 175. A guy who can barely fly a Cessna flies this thing at V max, does a 180 without scraping the lawn plows into the recently upgraded facade that also happened to be auditing the unaccounted trillion dollars. Would it not make more sense to not take such a risk and simply dive into the massive target that would be the roof? Bizarre, no? What about the video? Does anyone seriously believe that the Pentagon has no video of this? A fucking airliner, flying into the most secured buildng on Earth,lol? You couldn’t write a more ridiculous story. What they do provide conveniently appears to have been tampered with despite claims its not. The other problem is, assuming it was 175, it should be visible due to its size and not obscured as claimed. Oh, and of course, again, there was little debris to be found and whatever was found we never see. Again, unlike every other airline crash.What about the mystery count down in the bunker. We have the haed of the civilian AA under the impression it was flight 175 but then we have Dick Cheney who denies this yet refuses to elaborate on exactly what it was. Who do you trust?
      That is a whole lot of bizarre stuff IMO

      Finally, the common theme I get with those who defend the official story is typical, they have done little to no investigating of their own and know little on the subject, often choosing to avoid any objective discussion while choosing to name call and say the government is too stupid to master some conspiracy. These people are ignoring recent history in which not just one government but 3 conspired together to plan, engineer and build the most devastating weapon know to man which involved thousands of people from politicians t scientists to blue collar miners. The Manhatten Project proves that a government can conspire successfully even at times when there is heightened levels of foreign intelligence.

  4. 1stusedbooks says:

    I’d like to leave a reply to Issac, but where the hell did he go? Why am I being alerted to his submission if he has for some reason been scrubbed from the forum? Who does the scrubbing, by the way?

  5. onebornfree says:

    Gregg said: “Question; how thick is the average paper drinking straw? New question, how is that a 7 year old can take that papers straw and drive into a potato with ease at speeds much lower an aircraft and with a mass measured in points of a gram? Last question; if a 7 year old can do that why can’t a 211 TON aircraft flying at 400+ mph enter a WTC Tower?”

    First of all , you are comparing “apples to oranges” as they say. A pointless task 🙂.

    9/11 – A Plane Fact :

    The alleged speed of the flight of Fl. 175, immediately prior to its “hit” on WTC2 was supposedly around 520 mph.

    That figure [520 mph approx.] was computed by measuring the speed of the passage of the plane image, versus the frame speed per second of the individual videos clearly showing the plane image’s passage [from right to left- or left to right, depending], prior to impact.

    For example, the plane speed might have been computed from this allegedly live Fox network footage :

    A Plane Fact About Plane Speeds:

    It was/ is impossible for a jetliner to travel at anything like 520 mph at 1000 ft. and lower.
    500 mph [or thereabouts] is in fact the speed routinely used [for fuel economy purposes] by airliners at their cruising altitude of around 35,000 ft.

    At 35,000 ft. the air is one fourth the density it is at 1000 ft. and below – meaning that the air resistance encountered by an airliner at 1000 ft. and below is enough to prevent it from ever traveling through the far denser air at that speed[500 mph].

    If a pilot [automatic or real world] tried to fly the plane at that speed at that altitude [1000 ft. and below], the plane would quickly lose its wings- they’d be torn off by the increased air pressure.

    Furthermore, the planes engine intakes are unable to handle the increased amount of [far denser] air that they would encounter at 1000 ft. and below. They are simply not built to handle anything like that increase in air volume/density.

    The top speed of a 757 airliner and similar at 1000ft and below is around 250 mph, if even that.

    Also, the plane , regardless of whether it was piloted via remote control or by a real life pilot would , at 500+ mph., never be able to fly in a straight line, let alone perform the sharp descent and swerve first right, and then left [from the “pilot perspective”] that is so clearly seen in the CBS “live” clip of Fl.175’s last 16 sec.s .

    At 500+ mph. the plane wings/engines would have immediately sheared of, in the real world🙂 :

    Conclusion:

    As it was/is impossible for an airliner to get anywhere near the measured-on-film airspeed of 520mph, any alleged live video that has a plane image moving at that speed must be a fraud, regardless of source.

    N.B. This is just one of many “plane facts” which, when taken together, reveal the absolute fraudulence of all of the alleged 9/11 MSM “live” video broadcasts.

    Regards, onebornfree.
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/

    • onebornfree says:

      To self correct my previous post, official speed of Fl 175, according to Pilots For 9/11 Truth, was 520 _knots_, not 520 mph as I previously stated. 520 knots translates to 598 mph🙂 .

      However, as I previously stated in my blog, whether the actual claimed speed was 520 or 598 mph makes no difference- air density at 1000 ft altitude renders the plane engine intakes inoperable [i.e. overloaded], making it impossible for the plane to ever reach an airspeed of anything like 500-600 mph at 1000 ft. above sea level .

      Meaning that an on line, officially archived MSM sequence showing an airspeed of 500+ mph must be fraudulent, purely from the impossible speed aspect.

      And the Fox5 sequence shows a plane speed of around 540 mph, measured frame to frame.

      See :”The 9/11 Scam For Beginners- Fox 5 Plane Speed = 540 mph! ”
      http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-911-scam-for-beginners-fox-5-plane.html

      Fairbanks Footage Directly Contradicts Fox5 Plane Speed!!!!

      Furthermore, if you compare the frame to frame speed of the plane in the Fox5 sequence with the frame to frame speed revealed in the Evan Fairbanks sequence, you will see that plane is traveling at _less_ than 300 mph in the Fairbanks sequence !!🙂 :

      See: “Fl. 175’s Speed: Fairbanks [290+ mph] or Fox [540 + mph]? “:
      http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2015/10/fl-175s-speed-fairbanks-327-mph-or-fox.html

      And so it goes…
      Regards, onebornfree

      • Edawrd Crutchley says:

        You can’t use your own blog as a source extremely unethical and very disingenuous. You made FAR to many assumptions and relied on untested information. Poor research that proves nothing except that you don’t understand the scientific method!

        • onebornfree says:

          Ha! And yet you cannot even spell your own name! Go back to sleep, please.

          No regards, onebornfree.

        • onebornfree says:

          “You can’t use your own blog as a source ” .

          Ha! And you apparently cannot even spell your own name correctly and you want to tell _me_ about how to conduct scientific research etc.! Funny that. Go back to sleep, doofus.

          No regards, onebornfree.

      • Playd76 says:

        “It was/ is impossible for a jetliner to travel at anything like 520 mph at 1000 ft. and lower.”

        That is an outright lie. You’re going on the VMO, which aircraft are designed to exceed by at least x1.5. The VNO can also be exceeded, but that’s when problems CAN potentially arise. All we can say for sure is that at airspeeds outside the design & test envelope, the airplane’s performance is no longer guaranteed. That does not mean that a 767 will explode at Vd + 1 knot, merely that the engineers can no longer promise that everything will stay together up to their specs. Flight 175 was at height & had to dive all the way to the tower, increasing speed as it did. Repeat, the aircraft was in a dive, & it crashed. There isn’t much control in crashing in case you wasn’t aware. The aircraft was more than capable of pulling of this move, confirmed by the fact we watched it happen. Flight 11 for the record didn’t exceed it’s VD. You need to stay off that ‘pilots4truth’ website, they’ve been exposed as lying time & time again in order to validate their claims.

    • onebornfree says:

      To self correct my previous post, official speed of Fl 175, according to Pilots For 9/11 Truth, was 520 _knots_, not 520 mph as I previously stated. 520 knots translates to an even more outrageous 598 mph🙂 .

      However, as I previously stated at my blog, whether the actual claimed speed was 520 or 598 mph makes no difference- air density at 1000 ft altitude renders the plane engine intakes inoperable [i.e. overloaded], making it impossible for the plane to ever reach an airspeed of anything like 500-600 mph at 1000 ft. above sea level .

      Meaning that an on line, officially archived MSM sequence showing an airspeed of 500+ mph must be fraudulent, purely from the impossible speed aspect.

      And the Fox5 sequence clearly shows a plane speed of around 540 mph, measured frame to frame.

      See :”The 9/11 Scam For Beginners- Fox 5 Plane Speed = 540 mph! ”
      http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-911-scam-for-beginners-fox-5-plane.html

      Fairbanks Footage Directly Contradicts Fox5 Plane Speed!!!!

      Furthermore, if you compare the frame to frame speed of the plane in the Fox5 sequence with the frame to frame speed revealed in the Evan Fairbanks sequence, you will see that plane is traveling at _less_ than 300 mph in the Fairbanks sequence !!🙂 :

      See: “Fl. 175’s Speed: Fairbanks [290+ mph] or Fox [540 + mph]? “:
      http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2015/10/fl-175s-speed-fairbanks-327-mph-or-fox.html

      And so it goes…
      Regards, onebornfree

      • Anonymous says:

        You are just making stuff up here, as well as being disingenuous. Just stating that a planes max speed is 250 mph at sea level and if it went any faster its wings would be ripped off is pure fallacy. And I believe you know that. Engines “inoperable” at those speeds? Completely made up. Back to speeds…FAA calculated Vno and Vno limits and/or manufacturer ratings that you are quoting are by no means the maximum speeds these planes are capable of. This “limitation” is what the manufacturer says is the fastest speed the airplane SHOULD be flown. It does not in any way mean it is the fastest airspeed the airplane is capable of flying. No matter the rating at whatever altitude, these planes can easily exceed these speeds. Put the plane in a minor dive (+4 degrees) and it will exceed max safety limits which will even cause damage to the aircraft (hence the manufacturer “limitations” – these planes need to last 20-30+ years). The speeds reached on 911 are not unheard of, you can research plenty of plane crashes where they exceeded Mach 1. Yes, absolutely damage would have occurred to the 911 planes at those speeds, but the “pilots” did not care about that at all, did they?

    • Paul Blake says:

      Turn the straw into aluminum, and the potato in reinforced concrete…And I don’t care how fast you move the straw, it will not make it, DUH!

      • 1stusedbooks says:

        What reinforced concrete are we talking about?

      • Edawrd Crutchley says:

        If you actually believe that, you have zero knowledge of physics!

      • Playd76 says:

        So now you’re rejecting the physical laws that govern our entire universe. And you wonder why nobody of any worth takes anything you guys say seriously? You deserve all the ridicule you get.

        F = M x A

        You lose.

        Ps. the towers weren’t concrete reinforced, they were a steel framed tube in tube design of which the building received its structural integrity. The concrete cast core was there simply to take the load of the elevator system.

  6. Gregg says:

    Question; how thick is the average paper drinking straw? New question, how is that a 7 year old can take that papers straw and drive into a potato with ease at speeds much lower an aircraft and with a mass measured in points of a gram? Last question; if a 7 year old can do that why can’t a 211 TON aircraft flying at 400+ mph enter a WTC Tower?

    • Anonymous says:

      The straw is entering the potato as a tube, end first. try getting the straw to enter the potato side on, like a wing

  7. Bill Smith says:

    Two very BASIC things wrong with your suggested experiment:

    The wing section would need to be filled with jet fuel (or a liquid with a similar specific gravity) as were the wings of the two jets on the morning of 9/11. A lot more mass in the wings impacted the WTC 1 & 2 beams at roughly 500 MPH than just aluminum. For example, each wing of a fully fueled 757 holds over SEVEN TONS of fuel, not to mention the weight of the wing itself. I guess in your world ramming 7+ tons of mass into the side of a steel building at 500MPH won’t damage the building. Not to mention that given the relatively short profile of a wing that this concentrates the energy of the impact on a very small cross-section of the steel beams. Ignoring the weight of the wings themselves, the weight of the fuel in each full wing alone had the equivalent kinetic energy of over 800 pounds of TNT.

    And where do you come up with this notion that any sane person claims that the wings “stayed intact/attached” (your words, not mine.) It’s pretty obvious from the ensuing fireballs that the wings were not intact once they’d impacted the buildings.

    Next, the steels beam(s), at a minimum, would need to be subjected to vertical loading similar to that on 9/11.

    And those are just the simple obvious ones. There’s also the structural integrity of both the buildings and the wings to consider.

    It’s very obvious to anyone with some basic materials science knowledge that BOTH the wings AND the steel beams suffered substantial damage at the points of impact. The notion that the wings “stayed intact” doesn’t even rise to the level of being a straw man.

    • Mark W says:

      Are you shitting me? Weak aluminium skin is STRENGTHENED by containing several tons of unstable fluid mass? ever seen a water balloon? The steel box section was inch steel plate, 14″ square and 25′ between portals. Steel has about 4 times the tensile strength of aluminium by gauge, so each vertical outer wall portal is about 16 times stronger that a 767 wing of 1/4 inch aluminium. Your contention is that a single portal (wing) of 1/4 inch aluminium will pass transversely through 45-odd steel portals of inch steel plate box section because the aluminium portal is full of fuel? you’re off your fucking rocker.
      Add to that Newtons 3rd law and observe from the reference of the building and you have a 767 in a fixed position, facing into a 500kmh headwind (about 200km/h faster than a force 5 hurricane) and give it a smack with 45 inch steel portals travelling 500 kmh… how do you think that plane is going to look? You’re full of shit mate… but then your argument was pretty much sunk when you started talking about high altitude cruising speeds at sea level. You’re delusional… but fortunately only self-delusional.

      • You are absolutely correct in regards to the third law of motion – it does not matter which is travelling towards the other – outcome is the same ! Many sheeple will state the dynamic force of impact known as momentum or its inertia one thing they forget to mention without going into physics is why did the wings then not penetrate the pentagon ? Secondly – the aircraft could not have been doing the speeds reported at sea level in controlled flight – it’s impossible for so many reasons . Add to that these were inexperienced pilots with no clue how to operate these machines ! The manoeuvres completed test pilots can not even recreate in a simulator . If it was that easy pilots would not have to do 3 weeks of ground school on a new type at least 50 sectors just to be able to fly them some what proficiently . I am a Boeing pilot I fly them for a living , travelling at over 100 mph over the vmo trying to hit a building like the trade centre is like threading a needle with your hand as fast as you can thrust your hand forward toward the needle getting the thread through the eye . Look at this from another common sense point of view . They break into the flight deck – kill the pilots – and at over 30 000 feet are able to get the decent profile correct and some how are able to navigate the aircraft using visual flight rules . The aircraft would have been in LNav mode using the DNS to navigate it – they would have to know which weigh point to program in know how to execute that weigh point and allow the aircraft to navigate to a weigh point near by the wtc buildings, then at speeds none of us have ever flown at in a decent get the decent profile absolutely bang on . Not possible and if it was by a fluke not an additional 2 times …….

        • william02138 says:

          You say you’re a Boeing pilot and you call it a “weigh” point? hahahahahaha

        • Anonymous says:

          if the best you can do is to criticize my spelling of way points then you have no argument. If you really believe the government account is true and factual you are either, 1 – uneducated with no concept of physics or 2 – so wrapped up in your little bubble that if you find out it was a lie your entire world will crumble.

          Next you will try and tell me the pyramids were built by slaves that pushed around 100 tonne pieces of granite across 500 miles of dessert after highly polishing them with copper chissels and dolomite stones……..

        • niall8or says:

          It’s not just a spelling error, NO pilot would EVER misspell that

        • Edawrd Crutchley says:

          It’s almost like they went to flight school. Three lucky shots and a miss, you can’t ignore flight 93 and the relatives phone calls. Those plane speeds have been studied by multiple sources. You are spouting bullshit!

        • Playd76 says:

          So many things wrong with your comments i wouldn’t know where to begin. To claim you’re a pilot really is stretching it a bit far lol, you clearly aren’t so please don’t insult our intelligence by claiming otherwise. REAL pilots know there was no issue with the capabilities of those aircraft in terms of those manoeuvres & they were perfectly capable of pulling them off with very little skill involved. To say they couldn’t have smashed through the columns of the twin tower, well that is nothing more than utter ignorance of physics. F = M x A shows us that the planes could have been travelling much slower & would still have had more than enough force to smash through them. It’s the same principle applied to explain how a piece of 2×4 punches through solid concrete during a tornado, or how a ping pong ball can smash through a paddle if propelled with enough force. It’s all about velocity, & a 150 ton bullet in the form of a commercial airliner, travelling at approx. 500mph at full throttle cut through those columns with ease. Anybody who disputes this does so through ignorance. Find me a physicist who says it couldn’t be done.

    • George bush jr says:

      You’re full of crap because the aircraft weren’t fully fueled.

      Jet beams can’t melt steel fuel. Illuminati confirmed

  8. Anonymous says:

    look what happens to a f4 phantom hit a concrete barrier on a rocket sled at 500 mph. no way an engine or landing gear would travel through the building. impossible. construction for 30 years wtc 7 collapse impossible physically impossible

    • Anonymous says:

      Here’s an experiment. Take a full can of Coke and throw it at a brick wall. What happens? Now take another can of Coke and throw it at your screen door. NOW what happened? Imagine if you will that the WTC was far more like the screen door than it was a brick wall. Take a look at Bill Smith’s explanation above. It makes much sense.

      • dothemathsdumbarse says:

        Even though the proportions were now favoured towards the coke can, The full coke can bounced off the screen door. For this experiment to be correct the object the coke can needs to be thrown against would be more like a security door. It woild need to be made out of steel box sections 8 times thicker than the coke can skin.

        Thus the coke can would be smashed and and it would also shred if I could throw it fast enough. The steel box sections would be damaged a little but in the end the can would be impaled by the steel structure and hang there or fall off.

        If it were a scale model of a jet airliner the front of the fuselage would probably be stuck in the box girders whilst the wings, tail and most of the fuselage would drop to the ground. The engines would do the most damage to the box girders as they are much more of a solid mass. They may have cut into the box girder, I would need to know their actual mass and construction to be sure what damage they would actually do.

        In any event seats, luggage, passengers would have been littered all over the ground bellow, possibly all burning.

        The laws of physics cannot be suspended, unless god did it,

      • Issac says:

        You and Bill make no sense at all. You suggest wtc buildings more like fly wire screen. So either you are a moron or trying to spread moronic disinformation. If the coke can represents the wing, then you would need to be throwing it against a something more like a security door, but why not use some steel bars 4 times as thick as the coke can’s skin. The can, if you could propel it at 500knots would be shredded through the gaps. Like going through a mincer.
        The steel structure would be damaged, but cutting a hole in the shape of a plane right to the wing tips: the only answer to that would have to be god did it.

  9. Do any of you work with aircraft ? Talking abouts the width of the steel columns is not valid when you see how thin the aluminum of a wing is. Whether the aircraft is moving or the building is moving towards a stationary airplane , the result is the same . I have seen on these videos a piece of wood stuck in a brick, that’s not valid as the wood impacted head on , turn the wood side ways and put a steel column in its path the wood will break at the impact point . Has anyone seen the damage a bird does when the airplane impacts it ? The airplane is a thin metal tube , with thin metal wings , look back in history when a b 25 hit a building , it fell down the side of the building , of course some of it or penetrated the building but the aircraft broke up on impact . Now you all talk about the pentagon being made of different materials that’s great but where in the hell did the wings go , am I to believe the wings folded back aligned themselves with the fuselage and dissapeared into the pentagon . Take the crash of the other airliner into the field , they suggest it went so fast it buried itself underground , now there are many aircraft accidents out there to watch and never does an airplane dissapear under ground . Lastly from an aerodynamic point of view it’s impossible the aircraft were doing that speed of 560 mph at sea level in controlled flight , watch wind tunnel model of aircraft over the vmo, and outside the safely envelope , it’s uncontrollable and the wings tear off . every pilot knows these airplanes are incapable of these manoeuvres at the speeds suggested, flown by guys that were below average pilots flying a 65 kt Cessna . Pentagon impossibility due to ground effect. Air at 35000 ft is less dense than at sea level , at 18000 ft we lose half of our air density , ramming air into a compressor section of a turbine engine going 560 mph would cause compressor stalls at sea level besides the fact for an airplane to do those speeds at sea level would need an engine 6 times more powerful than the Pratt engines fitted to them . Science is science , aero dynamics is aero dynamics and we can’t change the laws of them so we can think happy thoughts at home knowing we were told the truth . Let’s not forget that poor fly that hits our
    windsheild while we drive , even if we were stationary and the fly was coming towards our car at 500 mph the outcome would be the same splat !!!

    • william02138 says:

      It doesn’t matter how thin the aluminum is. There’s 100 tons of the stuff coming at 500mph. It’s going to keep moving forward; it’s not simply going to stop dead in its tracks. It’s not even going to take its time to move sideways a little to squeeze between the columns. Those columns are simply in the way. And they’re not that strong. 1/4″ steel isn’t magical. Crack!

      • 1stusedbooks says:

        Yup.

      • First watch a video on the construction of the WTC and then watch this test:

        I love this video

        • william02138 says:

          I love this video too. It helps confirm that the 9/11 planes were real. This plane struck a solid concrete block at 500+ mph and there was only a tiny deceleration of the tail. A plane striking a mostly-hollow tower should have even less deceleration of the tail. Just as we see in the 9/11 videos.

        • iansview says:

          The plane completely disintegrates and doesn’t penetrate the concrete. I think it proves the point about how flimsy the airframe is rather than the other way around personally.

      • Adnane says:

        Now that’s the problem : prove that a stock 767-200 can fly @ 500+ mph near sea level! that’s impossible for both the airframe and the engines’ N1 fans (air density near sea level would never permit that). Furthermore there was NO DECELERATION upon impact as if the building’s environment (steel girders backed up by steel reinforced concrete floor slabs backed up by 47 inner steel core columns) is the same as outside (thin air). Moreover the impact was not perpendicular thus the plane cannot continue on the same path because the left n°1 engine cowl would have hit the building first (assuming we neglect the effects of the fuselage’s impact), causing the plane to rotate counter clockwise (newton’s 1st law of motion) and the tail to break up under the huge G loads and fall to the ground!
        One more point : how come a plane supposedly disappeared completely into the building (south tower) without any part of it breaking, bending or falling to the ground can create a gash of 107 feet wide, actually shorter than its own wingspan (156 ft)??

      • Richard says:

        Forget about the skin of a jet, take it away and view the jet face on and think about what is coming at you at the speed a ramset nail gun fires into concrete every day on construction sites (these have to be shot away from the edge of concrete pillars else they chip a chunk off). You have thousands of bolts, servo actuators, titanium engine parts, enourmous control surface hinges, huge structural ribs, heavy avionics modules, hydralic pumps and valves. Would you feel safe with this lot coming at you and your protection is a few ribs of concrete and a large area of windows??

    • Adnane says:

      Ditto!

    • Mark W says:

      exactly, and never mind the fact that the engines can’t produce enough thrust, or function at all at that speed at sea level… When considering Newtons 3rd law and observing from the reference point of a stationary plane, it must also be remembered that not only is the building travelling at 500mph toward the plane, but the air around it also… in other words, even before the plane gets pummelled by 40-odd inch plate steel portals, it is struggling to withstand the force of air that is moving 200kmh faster than a category 5 hurricane.

      • william02138 says:

        Mark W, sure, it doesn’t matter which one is moving and which one is stationary. But so what? Either way the impact is violent enough to obliterate the plane and put a big hole in the building, which is exactly what happened.

  10. onebornfree says:

    D Dub said :” The cringe worthy irony is the dismissal of ACTUAL research done in real life…”

    D Dub, please name/link to what you consider to be the “ACTUAL research done in real life”.

    Regards, onebornfree.

  11. Robert E. Salt says:

    The 9/11 no-planer theory is not a theory; it IS a fact. The idea that a jetliner crashed in to each of the Towers is a popular theory with a couple of holes. The hole in the southern side of WTC-2 is too small for an even smaller plane to enter. The hole in the northern side of WTC-1 is large enough to see that the inner core is intact with jetliner wreckage missing. When you see a magician saw a pretty girl in two, she doesn’t really get sawed in half, and when you watch a movie and see a city like L.A. or NY get destroyed, it’s just special effects. Perhaps defense contractors, Applied Research Associates, Inc., could tell us how this trick was done. There was no jetliner at the Pentagon or Shanksville either. It’s time to leave Fantasyland and face the facts. By now everyone knows we’re not getting the truth from mainstream media.

  12. D Dub says:

    Thompson twins:

    “I have worn out TWO DVD players studying this, clear proof of fakery,– “Naudet Brothers” flight 11 impact film!”

    This is a perfect example of the failure of the “truth” movement..watching DVDs and YouTube videos count as research to everyone involved. The cringe worthy irony is the dismissal of ACTUAL research done in real life…

    Watching someone’s video and agreeing with it is not research. It’s parroting.

    • the thompson twins says:

      Perhaps this little analogy will help the learned gent…if you were to stuck your thingy in a tin of Swarfega (propriatry industrial hand cleaning gel) and then withdrew it, you would have a very clean thingy BUT would you find it odd/contrary to the laws of science if the impression of your ‘old gentleman’ formed in the Swarfega SIX to TEN seconds AFTER you had withdrawn it? In my universe impact holes invariably form directly after impact no delays!

    • Mark W says:

      what a complete load of shit D Dub. The veracity of information is not determined by the format of its source, nor even by its source… and the source was not even named… secondly parroting, is repeating information without comprehending it. You have no clue whether the writer understood what he was repeating or not… another pointless statement. Why did you bother saying anything, if you have nothing to say that isn’t utterly meaningless?

      • What I would like to know – I am a Boeing pilot is what makes you so stead fast in your argument that it happened as reported . I know for a fact it did not , how I fly them !!!!! Not a Cessna not a piper but a Boeing airliner . There is so much proof out there now to totally crush the governments account yet you hold to your belief with the conviction of a Jehovah witness without listening to reason . Do you really think everything else aside a man living in a cave on dialysis would have been able to orchestrate this . What does it say about Americas air defence system ? I didn’t hear any reports of the pentagon air defense systems being triggered , and if they were why was it not reported to the public . Unfortunately my friend you have been lied too by the government you support . Let’s not forget the bay of Tonkin incident which lead to war in Vietnam and the government finally had to admit their lie …. It’s all about the money

  13. D Dub says:

    I can’t believe truthers are still vomiting the same lies that have been proven false after all these years. This blog post only proves one thing, that the auther has not even an elementary school level grasp on physics…and that selling ignorance to those who crave being ignorant will never be a failing business model.

  14. We have seen 2 x4 flat ended pieces of wood penetrate cinder block walls and even car tyres in tornados. A wing with (pointy) ribs/spars and partially full of fuel at 1/3 the speed of a bullet has significant energy, sure, it will compress up to a point.

    Physics at work.

    Let say there are 30 videos of second plane hitting the building, each video with a camera person and other people nearby. All these people are government agents?
    Video of first plane hitting was by a foreign person who had been filming firemen for many days, those particular firemen who were being filmed when the plane hit, immediately refer to what they saw, making calls on their radios. They are also in on it? These firemen then lost hundreds of colleagues to this operation that you say they were part of, but still stick to their story?

    Also filmed on that street corner, the public who all look up at the same time are in on the operation too.

    Then you suggest these videos were apparently edited and special effects added.
    Perhaps 50,000 eyewitness to the second plane hitting.
    No leaks from the guys who did the special effects work or the hundreds of actors.
    No one saw the jet engine that is pictured in the street being thrown off the back of a truck.
    So half of Manhatten was a film set and 50,000 members of the public are either in on it or saw exactly what you claim to be animation.

    • John says:

      In my opinion the only way to explain what was observed is PROJECTION. A real life cartoon mixed with real life explosions and building holes.

      No real plane would just glide into a building. At the same time, I agree that it would be cumbersome to have so many videos be faked. Too much work and way too risky. You’d have to insert, CGI style, a plane into every individual video.

      Still, planes are extremely fragile and the moment one encounters a structure as tough as the WTC towers, no matter its speed, it would begin to crumple and shatter – not to mention decelerate rapidly. It would be a huge mess with debris, baggage and body parts raining down the side of the tower. That just plain didn’t happen.

      It’s time we seriously consider the idea of a three dimensional, real life animation of aircraft on 9/11. It makes the most sense. Sure, it’s far out – but so are beam weapons. And yet the evidence proves their existence!

      • Kohlrak says:

        You’d be amazed at how well things stay together at high speeds. Things under the influence of inertia have amazing durability and momentum to keep going. Especially airplanes, which are not fragile by any means. Just because the wings bend does not mean they’re fragile. They’re designed to bend so they’re not brittle and weak. We’ve seen wood do much less than this. I’d be more curious on why the birds didn’t go the whole way through. In the real world, things don’t shatter simply because they have the same durability at the same speeds. When one object is moving faster than another object, the results of collisions is very, very, very different. You can send a .5mm steel cube through (and still have the cube shape when it’s done) a 1m steel beam if the cube has enough inertia behind it. A body in motion wants to stay in motion, while a body at rest wants to stay at rest. They’ll both cancel each other out, but the one in motion has more influence than the body at rest. The moving atoms are probably going to beat the stationary atoms.

        • Mark W says:

          what a breathtakingly ignorant thing to say, you nearly answered your own stupid statement in the opening sentence but clearly lacked the capacity to think it through. You mentioned Inertia. People who hold your view seem to latch on to the imaginary magical effect of increased velocity changing the outcome of two bodies colliding, yet somehow not think as far as the inertia of the stationary object, which must accelerate out of the way at an increased rate in proportion to the increased speed of the other body. As far as I am aware F=ma is not velocity dependant.

        • Anonymous says:

          Mark W: You show your ‘breathtaking ignorance’ to physics to even bring up F=ma in this scenario…it’s not even worth explaining to you because you just wouldn’t get it

  15. the thompson twins says:

    Doesn’t the “Naudet Brothers” film of alleged flight 11 impacting the north tower 911 conclusively prove fakery? In it we see “the plane” (1) impact and penetrate the tower nose to tail, (2) a series of incongruous explosions, (3) then SIX SECONDS post nose to tail “impact”in unmarked WTC1 fascia a small fire erupts, grows then a second to its lower left divided by intact upright steel column followed by the ‘road runner’ impact silhouette (30ft short?)formation left/right. Hadn’t these “flight 11 impact”floors just been vacated by a mystery performance arts troupe?

    • william02138 says:

      Not at all. The Naudet Brothers’ recording fully supports the standard explanation.

      1) Yes, the plane crashed into the building, nose to tail. Were you expecting it to turn around first?

      2) The plane crashed into the building, explosions resulted, there’s nothing incongruous about that. If you’re complaining that the sounds aren’t synced with the visuals, well, that’s reality, not Hollywood. The explosions were far away; it takes a few seconds for the sound to get to the camera.

      3) Wrong. By six seconds it is a gigantic fireball nearly 200 feet across. You’ve described the spread of the fire and shape of the impact accurately enough, but what’s your complaint? With the ‘road runner’ comment, maybe you think the impact area *shouldn’t* have matched the outline of the plane… but in your “30 feet short” comment you seem to be complaining that it didn’t match the plane’s outline more closely! So which is it? To me, a rough outline of the thick parts of the plane with some contraction of the wingspan makes sense, i.e. nothing fake about it. “Mystery performance arts troupe”? That’s the first I ever heard of that in all these years.

      9/11 could have been an inside job, but it was done by crashing planes pretty much as we see in the videos and the official account.

      • zonsb says:

        “9/11 could have been an inside job, but it was done by crashing planes pretty much as we see in the videos and the official account.”

        Too funny. LOL… Comedy Central at nomoregames.net

        • william02138 says:

          > Comedy Central at nomoregames.net

          More than you realize.

        • zonsb says:

          “9/11 could have been an inside job, but it was done by crashing planes pretty much as we see in the videos and the official account.”

          When I first read william02138’s post I laughed not realizing he was actually serious. Realizing that he was serious, it’s just sad.

        • patrick appleton says:

          Yes it is sad about William. Whats sadder is there’s 800 million like him and they remind me of the story about the frog. If you toss a frog into a pot of boiling water it will jump out but if you toss it into a pot of cold water then allow the water to boil you will have cooked fresh frog. There’s 800 million Americans sitting in the pot provided by their government and as the water heats up and bubbles appear they think the government has generously provided them with a spa bath,
          they should get suspicious as diced vegetables are tossed on top of them in the pot but they allow themselves to believe it is just raining carrots due to global warming. I hope William has the wealth to be able to pay the cannibals to eat him last.

      • the thompson twins says:

        I’ve always thought it an urban myth you don’t do irony in the US Wills’ but just in case here are the plane facts…

        (one incongruous explosion was 20 floors down from the “impact point” floor on the opposite WTC1 side!)

        • william02138 says:

          What are you referring to? There’s no such explosion “20 floors down” in this video. The place where the arrow points is just about at the right edge of the impact area. So there’s fire at the impact area… why is this an issue? I can’t quite tell if it’s part of the big fireball to the left, just visually separated by the smoke, or if it really is separate. Either way, that’s just what fires do. They flicker and change and have smoke. They char things too; the mysterious black mark that appeared to the right of the impact site just looks like one more effect of the fire. There’s no inconsistency with a fire created by a plane crash going on here. You guys are really grasping at straws.

        • the thompson twins says:

          My question about the mystery performance arts troupe renting & vacating the “flight 11 north tower impact” floors just prior to 9/11 was RHETORICAL , I thought this was common knowledge…

          please keep up!.
          I have worn out TWO DVD players studying this, clear proof of fakery,– “Naudet Brothers” flight 11 impact film! By using the frame by frame and x4 magnifying functions anyone can see… the smoke clear and the initial fire form and grow SIX SECONDS post alleged flight 11 melding without deceleration into the tower(the first fire) in unmarked WTC1 fascia then a second fire forming to its lower left clearly divided by intact vertical exterior columns, then finally the remaining(30ft short?) impact silhouette forms right /left. I’m not sure what Simonshack’s point is with the black extension,what is causing this black smoke on the floor where “the hollow aluminium wing tips severed all that box steel and concrete” perhaps? (the 20 floors down explosion was on the opposite to the “impact” side so is not visible in the link)

        • william02138 says:

          Thompson twins, thanks for the video. That Gelatin thing is interesting. It reminds me of the kinds of hacks MIT students do — putting a police car on top of the building, etc. Of course, if someone was going to surreptitiously plant explosives in the WTC, the last thing they’d want to do is risk drawing attention to themselves by removing a window and extending a temporary balcony — then publish a book about it right before the ‘secret’ explosives were to be used.

          About that explosion you say happened 20 floors down on the opposite side from the WTC1 impact… have you got a link for that?

          It’s not clear what point you’re trying to make describing the fluctuations of the fire. You capitalized “six seconds” as though you found this length of time to be surprising in some way, but I don’t find it surprising at all. I already said the fire looks legit to me, and all you did was describe it again. So what’s your point?

          What makes you think the plane had no deceleration after it hit the building? We only see it for such a short amount of time after the nose hit that we can’t tell how much the intact portion of the plane slowed down. I’m guessing by the time the tail made it to the perimeter of the building it was traveling a couple hundred mph slower than it was a second earlier. Obviously most of the mass of the plane came to a complete stop inside the building (in shreds). That’s deceleration.

        • zonsb says:

          Zero deceleration.

          There’s link on the right sidebar: Joe Keith’s No Plane Deceleration at WTC2 Courtesy Killtown

          Spin away William. I need a few more laughs.

        • the thompson twins says:

          Try this wills’… click on the “plane facts” link , freeze frame at forty one seconds , make it full screen and carefully count the number of intact vertical columns from the right corner to the six second fire, you should make it 11 columns intact…then freeze frame at one minute one second , full screen again and count the intact columns from the right corner. Somehow the figure is now seven point five intact columns!?! the right wing tip three and a half column silhouette part has formed AFTER the six second late fire! I think we’d all be interested to hear you rationalise this little anomaly.
          Gelatin b thing could be yet another 9/11 coincidence, even the Atta link but could a performance arts troupe afford to rent several floors of WTC1 for that length of time?
          The list of incongruous non carbon looking “flight 11 impact” explosions is available on another simonshack link, I’ll dig it out shortly.

        • the thompson twins says:

        • william02138 says:

          Thompson twins, in The Plane Facts @ 1:01 we see the upper right-most impact damage in the sheet metal fascia of column #109 (using the numbering system in the diagrams that can be found at http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm ). There are seven fully intact columns between #109 and column #101, which is the start of the angled corner.

          You’re wondering why that damage on #109 isn’t visible in The Plane Facts @ 0:41, right? I see the angled corner (column #102), then only seven visible fully intact columns, not 11. All the columns to the left of these seven, starting with column #109, are partially obscured by smoke (#109 and #110), or by smoke and flame (#111+). I believe that the damage at column #109 is roughly at the same height as the tip of the yellow arrow. The only reason you can’t see this damage is because it is obscured by a small amount of smoke that covers #109 at that height. There’s no inconsistency.

          As for part of the fire being six seconds “late”, it’s not like the plane crashed in an open field where everything’s the same. The crash was spread over a few building stories, so there’s different pockets of fuel in different sized chambers with different distances to the fresh air at the mouth of the hole. It shouldn’t be surprising at all that different parts of the fire flamed up at different times.

          About the alleged south side explosion 20 stories below the impact, at 9/11 Amateur Part 2 @ 1:41. I think what we’re looking at is a very small part of a very large fireball emanating from the stories where the plane hit. Look at the numerous videos of the WTC 2 impact. The fireball on the far side of that building is several hundred feet high, and extends far more than 20 storeys below the level of the impact. I think that’s what we’ve got here at WTC 1; there’s a big fireball on the other side of the building and we’re only seeing a little bit that extends far enough to be visible from the north side.

          Zonsb, Joe Keith’s No Plane Deceleration video is pretty good but not quite accurate. He says it took 11 frames for the plane to travel one plane length in air, and 11 frames for it to “travel” the same distance “through” the skyscraper. First of all, we’re not looking at an intact plane traveling through the building. That’s a myth. The front end of the plane is being obliterated just out of view while the back end maintains its trajectory due to momentum.

          I think he stopped counting the ‘plane into the building’ frames too soon and it should have been 12, not 11. That means by the time the tail got to the building it was moving at 13 frames per length, since when combined with the initial speed of 11 frames per length the average comes out to 12.

          Thus I calculate a 15% deceleration of the tail by the time it reaches the building, based on the Joe Keith video. That’s not much, but it’s different from “no deceleration”.
          However there’s a lot of copy degradation and slop in this video, so all the measurements are imprecise. By my calculations his “frames” each represent 1/60th of a second, probably 2x or 4x what the original camcorder video was, so there’s some “slow motion” interpolation going on, plus several conversions between different formats.

          What amount of deceleration should you expect to see? When a car crashes into a brick wall the front stops immediately but the back continues to move for several more feet, crushing the front of the car. For a plane going 10x the speed of a car, the forces involved are 100x stronger since velocity is squared. It’s hard to slow down the back of a plane much, even when the front is hitting an immovable impenetrable brick wall — and the WTC wall was far from such a wall.

        • zonsb says:

          William wrote: “I think he stopped counting the ‘plane into the building’ frames too soon and it should have been 12, not 11.”

          I think you’re fudging facts to make your case. There’s no way a plane can be so durable as to penetrate the building yet also be so fragile as to disappear without a trace. You can’t have it both ways. Spin way. Again, I enjoy laughing at you chasing your tail. Comedy Central at nomoregames.net

        • the thompson twins says:

          Look William if you’re going to rewrite history it’s a waste of everyone’s time and we’ll have to just conclude you’re just a troll contrarian or in the pay of the 9/11 guilty! it is there in plain sight ,not obscured by smoke or flame,in unmarked north tower fascia six seconds after alleged flight 11 melded seamlessly into all that steel and concrete a small fiery eruption, if it were a delayed fuel fire it would be visible from all the windows on those floors…and it isn’t. simonshack spells it out for you in 9/11 amateur part 2 repeatedly forwarding and reversing the Naudet footage and revealing that at least 30% of fascia from the right is unmarked pre the six second late fire number one.Also the two to three column wing tip impression forms AFTER the six second late fire FACT. The(guardian?) link you gave me contradicted itself, in figure 2-16 we see that the right wing tip part of the impact silhouette has 10 or 13 vertical box columns to its right (I’m not sure whether the final 3 on the right are corner sections) ,also horizontal bandrelle 98 that spans the finished impression is somehow intact!?! . In figure 2-13 we see the right wing tip part of the silhouette is, as per Naudet, seven point five vertical columns from the the right corner section .
          Do we have photos of the opposite “impact” side of the north tower? You have ducked commenting on the several other recorded “one fuel tank” WTC1 explosions for some reason.

        • william02138 says:

          Zonsb, look at the Joe Keith video where he’s counting frames as Flight 175 impacts the WTC 2. After he counts “11” it looks to me like the tail hasn’t quite made it all the way to the building yet. I’m not absolutely certain because it’s so blurry. If we could see frame 12 we could tell for sure. Unfortunately he didn’t include frame 12 in the video.

          Planes are fragile but buildings are fragile too, just not quite as much. There’s no contradiction in the plane smashing a hole in the building while being turned into shrapnel itself.

          Here’s a video of an F4 fighter plane smashing into a solid block of reinforced concrete at 480 mph. It’s not a direct comparison to a 767 hitting a hollow building, but it does give an appreciation of how the rear of the plane continues to travel along smoothly while the front of the plane is being obliterated. Check out the slo-mo at 3:40. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPe-bKIid8w

          Thompson Twins, I never said any part of the fire was obscured by smoke. I said the damage to the fascia on column #109 was obscured by smoke where you said it was missing — in The Plane Facts at 0:41. This damage I’m talking about is where the right wing tip hit. I believe you’re calling it the ‘wing tip impression’.

          The fascia is the thin sheet metal skin of the building. In several places the fascia is damaged but the structural column behind it is not damaged. That’s why the Guardian doc figure 2.16 shows columns #109, #110 and #111 undamaged. They’re talking about the structural columns, not the sheet metal. No contradiction. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm

          Yes, the three columns at the right side of 2.16 are part of the angled corner of the building. They are #101, #100 and #459. You can see this in the Guardian doc section 2.1.2.

          I don’t know what you mean when you say something is seven point five columns from something else. What’s point five of a column? Please use column numbers to identify locations.

          > horizontal bandrelle [sic: spandrel] 98 that spans the finished impression is somehow intact!?!
          So maybe they drew that part wrong, big deal. The footnotes say the damage to columns 115 to 111 at level 98 is estimated.

          The 9/11 Amateur Part 2 video is tedious to watch. Every random puff of smoke or dust he calls an explosion. Look, there was a big plane crash in an office building. I can’t predict all the different places smoke is going to come out, or which part of the fire is going to flare up or die out at any given moment, and neither can you. Here are my rebuttals to each of the main issues he brings up, indicated by what time they appear in the video:

          1:16 “Do wingtips explode? or do they shear off?” — Maybe they just break windows and smoke from the rest of the fire comes out those windows.

          1:24 “North side explosion, east side explosion” — These are obviously the same explosion coming out different sides of the building.

          1:31 “Top floor explosion” — I believe this smoke came up from the fireball below.

          1:35-1:38 “West side explosion”, “South side explosion” — Smoke and fireball from the south side expanding enough to be visible from the north side. Here’s a photo of the south face about an hour after impact; there was obviously plenty of action back there at one point. http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/yc4eb8c8d1.jpg It’s possible the west side had its own holes with smoke pouring out.

          1:46 “Top floor smoke” — I don’t know, maybe air vents, or people breaking windows to get air.

          1:52 Okay, he drew arrows pointing to all the places that smoke and fire came out of a building that just had a 767 smash into it and burn up inside it. The big question is, so what?

          1:54 “One heck of a fuel tank” — Yeah, enough to propel a hundred tons of plane & passengers across a continent at 500 mph. That’s a lot of fuel.

          1:57 “A very odd shape hits the tower” — Yes, a fast-moving object on a 4th or 5th generation video re-encoding will look blurry.

          2:12 “If it wasn’t an airplane, JUST WHAT caused that AIRPLANE-SHAPED HOLE in the tower?” — It was an airplane, Sherlock.

          2:16 “160 feet +” — I don’t know what he thinks he’s measuring here. His line doesn’t go all the the to the left edge of the impact damage, and it goes beyond the right edge of the damage into the black mark that came post-impact (see my comments for 3:53).

          2:35 “Secondary linear explosion” — Fire shot out of the part of the hole where the wing hit, and that fire is the same shape as that part of the hole. I don’t see the problem here.

          2:51 “Pre-placed charges” — At first glance this is absolutely preposterous. If a flying object caused the impact hole there’s no way anyone could have pre-placed any charges so precisely, they wouldn’t have survived the impact, and they wouldn’t serve any purpose anyway. However if he’s saying the entire hole was made with pre-placed charges (no flying object), then I see how you could think these were charges that accidentally fired late. The problem is, for this to be true then lots of other stuff he’s saying doesn’t make any sense at all. For example this requires that someone photoshopped in the flying object at 1:57. If they’re faking it anyway, why not make it look more like a plane?!? If all the smoke and fire is from intentionally placed charges, why put some on the “wrong” side of the building?? Then of course there are the larger questions of what happened to those planes and their passengers if it wasn’t this crash? And why would anyone go to all the trouble instead of just using real plane crashes?

          2:55 “No wing, no plane” — He drew his lines in the wrong place, that’s all. They should be further to the left.

          3:05 “At least ten vertical fairings are still intact” — Wrong. He can’t count, and/or he’s ignoring the fact that flames and smoke are covering up a portion of the fairings he says are intact. The portion right by the impact hole where the fire is coming from.

          3:34 “30% of the tower wall is still intact” — We’re looking at an image so blurry you can’t even distinguish individual columns. Look at the same image on The Plane Facts @ 0:34. That’s a much clearer picture. About half of the columns 9/11 Amateur Part 2 says are “intact” are actually obscured by smoke. You can’t see whether they’re intact or not. And they’re not intact.

          3:53 “black gash stretches out to edge” — Judging by other videos, the black ‘gash’ is a stream of thick black smoke coming out of the window between columns 103 and 102 on that floor, blowing from right to left. It’s possible there is smoke from another window a few columns to the left adding to the stream.

          4:02 “No airplane here” — His upper arrow is RIGHT NEXT TO the impact hole with flames shooting out of it! What in the world is this guy talking about?!?

          4:17 “The gash made by cutter charges (and missile?) was 30 feet short of a Boeing 767 wingspan (160 ft)” — By my calculations his line marks off 138 feet, not 130. It doesn’t extend to either end of the impact area. If you draw it correctly it’s 148 feet. A 767 wingspan is 156′ 1″ (he exaggerated). I don’t know why the damage area is 8′ less than the wingspan. Maybe the wings bent in. Maybe the plane simply didn’t go in straight. It’s a very small inconsistency.

          5:30 “More black gash is painted in” — More smoke. See my comment for 3:53.

          6:13-6:24 “No gash tip here” — Not much smoke is coming out of that window at that particular moment, that’s all. See my comment for 3:53.

          So there you have it. No big mysteries. Just a few very minor open issues, which is to be expected since we’re stuck looking at blurry videos of a building that no longer exists. With few exceptions, all the 9/11 ‘truth’ material is like this. It doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.

        • zonsb says:

          william02138, Could you elaborate on that, please. I’m just not seeing whatever point it is you’re trying to make.

        • the thompson twins says:

          You really have too much time on your hands William, (or are they paying you piece rate?) as you well know, in plain sight we see the Naudet camera has recorded the light message (3.28 9/11 amateur part2) just short of six seconds after alleged flight 11’s nose to tail Newton debunking ghosting into the steel and concrete of WTC1, thirty percent of the vertical exterior columns from the right corner are INTACT NO aluminium commercial jet wing tip clean cut shearings in ANY of them. In your Guardian guestimate link , dressed up as a peer reviewed scientific report, we’re informed in figure 2.16 the completed impact silhouette ends 10 vertical columns from the right corner of WTC1 BUT… in figure 2.13 the six seconds plus late completed f11 impact silhouette right wing tip is seven and a half vertical columns (count them!) from the right corner. Now that’s what I call contradiction and I’d appreciate it if you desist from wasting my time with any more science fiction links.
          So to summarize … 0:41 ‘the plane facts’ six seconds post alleged flight 11’s total melding into the tower, at least 10 vertical columns to the right of the initial fire are intact , 1:01 ‘the plane facts’ the completed wing tip is visible in the 8th vertical column from the right corner, therefore the 10th 9th and 8th column from the right corner section of the impact silhouette has formed AFTER the 0:41 ‘plane facts’ six second late fire, pretty conclusive proof of fakery I think I can say without fear of contradiction.
          I suggest you get hold of the Naudet bros’ 911 DVD and examine all the above in high definition.

        • emucentral says:

          Some people here complain that the plane doesn’t break into little bits and fall down the side of the building, yet when the cloud of jet fuel does so, you say that the fireball doesn’t match the shape of the hole.

          Dickheads.

        • Niall8or says:

          Um…ever heard of jet fuel vapors? And you don’t mention here about the other tinfoil hat ‘truthers’ saying that there is no sound from the planes or impacts…probably because there IS sound of the plane and impact here🙂

      • the thompson twins says:

        Debunking “The Plane Facts”

        ” “The Plane Facts” says this frame from the Naudet Brothers film, six seconds after Flight 11 impact, mysteriously shows no damage where we know that later there was damage to the fascia sheet metal on column 109. I’m saying the damage existed at this time, but was merely obscured by smoke.”

        This is what william02138 calls “debunking”?

        • william02138 says:

          Thompson Twins, you stumbled upon a work in progress, not a finished work. Well it was in progress until I sort of lost interest in it. After your response to my last post here I realized I needed to put this stuff in picture form otherwise you wouldn’t get it. So I made a graphic and I used that other account to host the image file. But I decided I didn’t like that graphic so I didn’t post it here, I started to work on a better graphic, then I got busy with other things. In your last comment here you said I had too much time on my hands because I spent a lot of time trying to explain this stuff to you. I’ve taken that comment to heart. I’m no longer in a rush to try to convince you of anything. You can believe whatever you want about 9/11; not my problem. Maybe in a few days or in a couple weeks I’ll finish the new better graphic and I’ll post it here.

        • the thompson twins says:

          “..work in progress” eh william02138? let me help! What you have to prove is… (1)that at 1:13 simonshack’s ‘the plane facts’, six seconds post “flight 11’nose to tail totality’ “, what caused that that initial flaming (remember there’s no flaming in any of the surrounding floor windows) where there was nothing previously(2)the upright columns between the 6 second late fire number one(1:13) and the smaller forming fire to its lower left are severed and (3)where, at that point in time, were the “commercial jet right wing tip clean shearings” in the 10th 9th and 8th box steel columns counting from the right corner “impact side”, visible in the final amended “flight 11 WTC1 impact silhouette”???

      • Adnane says:

        There’s 2 aspects that I want you to take into consideration in regards of the “flight 11 impact” :

        1 – the fireball following the alleged “impact” produced an ash grey fume, a color that has nothing to do with the black charcoal one characterizing a standard jet fuel fire (look on YouTube for planes crashes and compare the two colors). No jet fuel = no plane! (maybe all the jet fuel got inside the tower and burned there, duh!);

        2 – Absence of wing vortices : a plane’s wingtips generate strong circular wind turbulences known as vortices that follow the plane. The left one spins clockwise and the right one spins counter clockwise! After several seconds from the “crash” there was NO SINGLE TURBULENCE whatsoever to indicate those vortices! No vortices = no plane!

        In fact, both aspects mentioned above apply also to the alleged UAL175 “crash”.

    • Peter Hunt says:

      I promised myself that I was going to leave this topic alone because personally I find it far too scary to contemplate the idea of there actually being no planes.

      Notwithstanding, if one can stand back and not be attached to a particular position about this, then I truly believe that the matter should be provable using real science.

      My gut instinct is that I expect to see deceleration of the tail and major bits of broken plane raining down onto the street?

      So I ask, like a naive child, “why not?”

      Then someone will say look at the Sandia test of an F4 smashing into concrete.

      But that does not cut it for me.

      1/ The F4 engine is at the back of the plane AND the engine is still running!!

      2/ The thrust per weight ratio of the F4 engine is far greater

      3/ The relative area of contact is far less with the F4. The 767 has a very wide wing span relatively so there is a much greater contact area

      4/ When you see the F4 hit the wall there is a gigantic spray of dust etc. Why would you not see a big spray of dust etc where sections of the wings, engines and fuselage hit the floors of the WTC. I don’t buy those tiny little puffs as the engines apparently hit the girders.

      5/ Why can’t you see any of the plane inside the hole?

      When the F4 hits the concrete you see the devastation from the moment it hits. Sure there is some space in between the floors for the parts of the plane to fit in. But where the floors are, either the plane or floors have to destroyed instantly in order for the plane to keep going in. But we don’t see that. It just slips in and then explodes. On the Hezerkhani video particularly and others you can actually find one or two frames where you can freeze the video and the plane has already entered the building. Yet there appears to be almost no sign of any damage. No big pieces of falling glass, wall, plane, nothing, except for some tiny puffs of white smoke.

      Why can’t an expert offer a reasonable explanation? Children in the next century will be asking the same questions.

      Reading the discussion that had been going, I am glad that the tone of it was generally fair and polite. What hope will there be for any of us, if we can’t learn to be kinder towards our fellow human beings. Being kinder is more important than being right.

      • william02138 says:

        Peter Hunt, you are correct that the F4 is not a perfect comparison due to the different size and shape compared to a 767. However, I believe the engines were *not* running in the F4 smash test. As to whether the 767 bits that hit the immovable parts of the towers should have sprayed sideways like the F4 hitting the concrete block, I think you can’t assume that. Most of the 767 material was moving forward into the building, and IMO would have taken the “spray” with it.

  16. Anonymous says:

    william02138 is an opinion operator, that is clear. But gotta say, one of the best I have meet. He is sophisticated articulated and even tries to be friendly, but the usual strategy of “port scanning” that they use -switching reasons and arguments when they find resistance/knowledge in one area- gives him away.

    • william02138 says:

      Aw shucks, thanks… I think. I don’t know what an ‘opinion operator’ is. I’m here on my own just like this guy: http://xkcd.com/386/ But there’s more to it than that. I’m a long-time libertarian, Ron Paul supporter, LewRockwell.com fan, etc. There’s a lot of overlap between my side (the overall ‘freedom movement’) and truthers — just look at the links Morgan Reynolds chose to include in the sidebar. So I’m not just disagreeing with people I think are wrong about a variety of technical things; I’m hoping to convince people on the same basic side as me to not waste time (and credibility) on something grossly misguided.

      • zonsb says:

        Grossly misguided; like not knowing that factually government is men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun. If government services were valuable and wanted by a free market they wouldn’t be provided on a compulsory basis.

        And, factually the constitution is four pieces of paper that nobody bothered to sign in contract. (Google: No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, by Lysander Spooner. Murry Rothbard called it “the greatest case for anarchist political philosophy ever written.”)

        And, the Federal and State codes/laws/regulations are not applicable to anyone. Several times people have challenged prosecutors to put forth evidence that the code is applicable and prosecutors have all failed to do so. Because there is no evidence. BTW, the prosecutor has the burden of proof to prove every element of a crime.

        And, everyone violates at least one law every day (google “Three Felonies a day”), including government workers. We’re a lawless bunch that despite massive lawlessness society hasn’t self destructed.

        Everyone is ignorant of the million+ laws/codes/regulations (LCR). Conversely, no one is ignorant of the non aggression principle (NAP). 98% of people don’t initiate force or threat of violence against their fellow man.

        The 2% that do initiate violence are for the most part petty criminals. Government criminals dwarf the damage and injury caused by all petty criminals combined.

        Criminals don’t abide the law, especially the NAP — the one law/principle/moral that defines peace, freedom and civility. Government — men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun — violate the NAP everyday against essentially everyone.

        With government it’s, “do as we say, not as we do.” Thank goodness the people don’t follow the example set by government. For government to be legitimate it must follow the example set by 98% of the people — voluntary interaction.

        That everyone violates their (government’s) laws/codes/regulations every day is evidence that the LCRs have failed and so have the enforcers failed (thank goodness for that). Failed spectacularly.

        It’s further evidence that individuals are self-governing. The 98% honor and abide the NAP despite the government’s psychopathic example.

        Belief in external authority/governance/government is a most dangerous superstation – an illusion.

        Also, in 1935 Major General Smedley Butler, who was at the time the most decorate Marine in U.S. history, published a pamphlet: “War Is A Racket”. Today, government is a racket. Government has always been a racket. Historically swapping back and forth power (bogus illusion of authority) with the Church.

        Today’s politicians ought to wear NASCAR driver suits with the logos of their corporate sponsors/co-conspirators.

        A thought about freedom. There is no path/way to freedom, freedom is the path. Freedom is the right to be left alone when you tell a person to leave you alone. Freedom is me telling you to leave me alone and you leave me alone. Freedom is a person telling the government to leave them alone and government leaves the person alone. Tell a thief to leave you alone and when he/she doesn’t they are a criminal. Which is what government does.

        I could write much more and the above is a brief synopsis. The really good stuff is elaborating on what’s to come. Briefly articulated in a quote by Paul Casey: “The thought of how far the human race would have advanced without government simply staggers the imagination.”

        Misguided? You’re certainly not alone in that you took the bait, swallowed the hook and ran with it. Oblivious that you were being guided all the way. Yes, misguided.

        It’s impossible to defeat an enemy that has an outpost in your mind.

        One more thing. It’s important. Aside from Ron Paul’s great value in waking up and educating people, when he was asked if he thought the constitution is a contract, he replied: “ I know Lysander Spooner would disagree. But I think it’s a contract. “ That opinion is refuted by the facts in evidence. More appropriately, the absence of evidence of all necessary elements that constitute a contract.

        • william02138 says:

          Zonsb, I agree with a lot of what you say on the political philosophy, close enough for our purposes here. But what does this have to do with the physical events of 9/11? When I say “there were no incongruous explosions in the Naudet film” that’s got nothing to do with whether government is honest or we as citizens agreed to be bound by the Constitution. I just mean there were no incongruous explosions in the Naudet film (or any others I’ve seen, by the way).

          If you think the military industrial complex or other nefarious characters on “our side” benefited from 9/11, sure, no question about it. But 1) that doesn’t mean they’re the ones who did it, and 2) even if they did do it, it doesn’t mean they did it with controlled demolition or disintegration rays, etc. Nineteen Arab highjackers could be 19 CIA zombies and it wouldn’t change anything I’ve said on this forum about fires, collisions of wings and buildings, etc. The plane crashes brought down the towers.

        • zonsb says:

          That you think what I wrote is political philosophy, you’re more misguided than I thought.

        • william02138 says:

          “That you think what I wrote is political philosophy, you’re more misguided than I thought.”

          Yeah, whatever.

        • zonsb says:

          Like I said William, Comedy Central at nomoregames.net LOL… Thanks for another good laugh.

        • jamie says:

          I love how the truthers always respond with fallacies instead of actual science. And posting a youtube video isnt science. Grainy video that disproves your own theory is not proof of your theory. The best sign that you have nothing real is your “comedy central” comments, nothing but ad hominem.

  17. johnjuan says:

    “tips of the wings did not crack any columns but larger parts of the planes did.”

    Then explain how the tips passed through the outside colums, without bending or breaking off. Magical “folding wings” like the Pentagon?

    There’s no way in hell a 767’s wings and tails would stay in tact while “penetrating” the outer steel columns of the towers. Anyone who believes they do has got to stop drinking that kool-aid.

    • FirstUsedBooks says:

      Impossible to say what could or could not have happened because we don’t have a model with which to compare it. The columns were not solid, rather frabricated from sheet steel (or was it iron?) which at that height was only 1/4″ thick. Could the wings have folded back some after the engines impacted with the columns? Possibly. Another poster’s idea of using a jet sled to ram a wing piece into a similar fixed structure does not adequately model the situation. The columns were not fixed. They were designed to bend under the force of strong winds. They had dampers built into the floor trusses to minimize building sway. The only way I can see of getting comparable data would be to fly a plane similar to a 767 into the Chicago Sears Tower (a building of similar construction) shortly before the building becomes scheduled for demolition.

    • william02138 says:

      > Then explain how the tips passed through the outside colums, without bending or breaking off.

      Why? There’s no reason to believe they did that, and I never said they did. The tips probably broke off.

      I’m curious — what makes you think my position (the conventional explanation, pretty much) requires wing tips to have magically passed through the outside columns without bending or breaking off?

      “Unscathed wing tips” (or tails) is not part of the conventional explanation, so disproving it isn’t going to accomplish anything for you. Focusing on it just makes you look like you don’t understand what’s important.

  18. Steve De'ak says:

    Thanks for the hat-tip Morgan.

    Here’s a video in support of the project. Please watch Tired of War Without End

    Thanks,

    Steve De’ak

    • Robert E. Salt says:

      Special effects belong in the movies, not on the six o’ clock news.

    • william02138 says:

      I found your videos very informative, but not in the way you intended. Here are some facts you provided that help debunk truther theories:

      1. WTC column material was only 1/4″ thick, not 1″ thick as I had previously thought. That’s downright flimsy when hit from the side. Yes, as your quote goes, one would have to be an idiot to think a jet plane could not knock through several of those columns. Heck, one suitcase moving at 500 mph could probably dent a column pretty severely. Don’t think this means the plane (or suitcase) would have to survive undamaged.

      2. The video of the fighter plane crashing into the concrete barrier (8:20) is illuminating. If they had put a flimsy office building facade one foot out from the concrete barrier it would looked just like the second WTC impact — a plane flies into a building, what you see outside the point of entry looks like a perfectly intact plane, so the assumption (if you don’t think about it very carefully) is that the portion of the plane you can no longer see is intact too. Try playing the above video while covering up the point of impact with your hand. Doesn’t it look like the plane is simply flying unimpeded behind your hand? It’s a trick of the eye, obviously. We know the plane was obliterated just out of your sight. Same happened with the second WTC plane, except there the pieces kept traveling forward at high speed because the structure of the building was a lot more fragile and porous than a concrete block. If a truther thinks a plane can’t slice through an office building like a hot knife through butter he’s right, but it’s just his failed perception that made it look that way in the first place. My theory is that truthers misunderstand what they see, they’re smart enough to realize it couldn’t be true, but they’re not willing to go back and take a harder look at what they think they saw.

      3. A truther on another site claimed that all the floors of the towers were secretly built using I-beams instead of trusses. He offered as proof some photos of one floor built with I-beams. In his mind this proved the officials were lying about the construction of the entire building, and that the official story of hot weakened trusses sagging and causing the sides of the building to buckle catastrophically must not be true. Your video acknowledges the I-beams yet explains how they were only used on a few floors, just where heavy mechanical apparatus was located. Thanks for effectively debunking the other truther.

      4. Thanks for including the text of Newton’s three laws of motion. That made it easy to confirm that the official story does not in fact violate any of these three laws. When other truthers say “the official story defies the laws of physics” or somesuch, it would be nice if they too would actually state the laws of physics they think are broken so an objective viewer can check for himself.

      5. The Mythbusters video on your site of the car being crushed at 700 mph has a great quote, something like ‘there’s nothing resembling a car left, just shrapnel’. This addresses a common truther complaint about the 9/11 crash sites, that there was nothing resembling an airplane left. The Mythbuster experiment you showed indicates this is the way it should appear. Thanks for helping to debunk yet another truther myth.

      I know you didn’t set out to debunk truther myths, that’s just the side effect of including a lot of facts🙂 I wish you luck in getting your wing experiment funded, even though I’m pretty sure the result will be the opposite of what you’re expecting.

      One issue though: It really doesn’t matter at all what happens to the wing in your experiment. The only thing that matters is what happens to the column — i.e. does it break or not. If you’re concerned about the wing you’re looking at it all wrong; maybe that’s why you’re banging heads with the rest of the world.

      Also, I just hope when your experiment fails, there isn’t a backlash of disillusioned nuts who now think the Iraq War, etc., must have been right after all. I’m totally with you on the wars. It doesn’t take believing in controlled demolition to know that Bush took advantage of 9/11.

      • yankee451 says:

        @william02138 – if you learned something by watching the video, just wait and see what you’ll learn by watching the crash test. Even a quarter inch of steel is much thicker and denser than the aluminum sheet metal of the wing, but why speculate? If we are able to conduct one test, then we’ll conduct two.

        The same equation works whatever way you slice it, so if the jet wing cuts through the stationary columns, then the same should happen to the columns if they’re on the rocket sled and crash into a stationary wing, right? Care to place a wager on that?

        I’ve already put my money where my mouth is. Can I count on your donation or

  19. Patrick Appleton says:

    Oh now I get it! with your repeating of my comments I guess you are a parrot.

  20. Robert E. Salt says:

    Scroll 2/3 down this site and you can read about holographic projectors for the military.

    http://thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/World_Trade_001.html

    • william02138 says:

      I realize a military budget document that includes the words “holographic” and “projection” in the same paragraph might cause a non-technical person with an active imagination to suggest the things John Lear is suggesting. However I believe I have a more realistic explanation for the document.

      I suspect the “holographic techniques, materials and processes” refers to active camouflage. With this technology they cover a tank (or similar object) with light-emitting display elements that display a picture of whatever is behind the object. So if the tank is parked in front of a building and the enemy looks in that direction, they just see an image of the building and don’t realize there’s a tank there. In the simplest version it only tricks people looking at from one direction. In the more sophisticated version, so called “computational holography”, people looking at the tank from different angles will each see the background that corresponds to their point of view. Here’s more info about it; see the “In Research” section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_camouflage

      Even if they had this fully operation in 2001 it doesn’t support the ‘holographic airplanes’ explanation. That’s because this technology can only hide objects. It can’t make non-existent objects appear in thin air. A flying object would have to be as big as a 767 in order to carry the image of a 767, and it would have to fly the exact same path as the plane they were trying to fake. So what would be the point of going to all the trouble of faking it when there were real 767s available to do the same job much more easily?

      • Robert E. Salt says:

        We exist in a virtual reality where almost anything is possible including time travel, teleporting, time slips, etc. You can get a crash course in reality in two hours by viewing “Tom Campbell at the Bob Monroe Institute” on youtube. You can get more detail by watching his seven videos in Calgary. The first Saturday video goes into detail about the famous double slit experiment which is the key to understand reality. You are correct that holographic techniques can be used for camouflage. It is being used for this purpose on the moon. On 10/7/2009 the camouflage was turned off for a while and things which are not supposed to be seen could be viewed through a telescope. One of the things seen was a mining operation owned by Dr. Joseph Resnick. It included some buildings, two cranes and five huge containers of helium 3. Technology is far more advance than we are told including that of holography.

        • Anonymous says:

          How’s the tea and how’s the company? You have just joined Alice and Icke and the dormouse et al. at the bottom of the rabbit hole. Lear’s site made no reference to Joseph Resnick as owner of the operation supposedly occurring in the crater that I could find. Note also that Penn’s drawing shows two crains [sic] on its perimeter.

  21. Robert E. Salt says:

    The 9/11 massacre could have been accomplished using hang gliders, but it would have been more difficult getting people to believe that these devices actually penetrated the building. Come to think of it, it might be easier than convincing them that Flight 93 disappeared into a tiny hole in Shanksville, or that a waste basket fire burned down a 47 story steel structure.

    • william02138 says:

      Are you suggesting that this airplane did not penetrate this building?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU (south tower impact)

      It certainly looks to me like an airplane penetrating a building. I see stuff shooting out the far side consistent with the speed and direction the airplane had been moving. I don’t see any hunk of airplane body stuck on the outside, unable to penetrate the ‘solid’ wall of the building.

      If you don’t think this airplane penetrated this building, what are you suggesting happened here instead?

      Do you think it wasn’t a real airplane? Tell that to the families of the people who died on it.

      Do you think it wasn’t a real building? I’ve been in that building. It was a real building.

      Do you think the video was faked? All the news videos? Tell that to the people on the ground who saw the same thing with their own eyes.

      Where do you think the body of the airplane went, if not into the interior of the building — i.e. the direction it was headed at 500 mph.

      I can understand how the crash may have looked different from what some people would have expected beforehand. But now we’ve seen it, we have our answer. The airplane penetrates the building. Time to reassess what you think you know about materials science and high speed plane crashes.

      • Robert E. Salt says:

        I was working on the north side of the north tower on 9/11. I know for a fact a plane never hit the building that day. I’ve been to little league baseball games near Kennedy airport. The sound of an occasional jetliner flying over the ballfield was deafening. I was working in a very quiet environment on 9/11 with two other people nearby. The first sound we heard were simultaneous explosions above and below us. One blew a hole in the face of the building. The one in the basement made the building sway southward. Plenty of technology has been developed in the last fifty or sixty years that hasn’t been shared with the public. John Lear offered the best explanation of what people near ground zero saw. Someone he knows went to a lecture about the history of television. During the talk the speaker would walk to the edge of the stage, take off his glasses and clean them. At the end of the talk, the speaker snapped his fingers and disappeared. He was a hologram. Technology exists that can take the action on your TV and display it on top of your dining room table in the form of a 3D image. I lost friends and coworkers on 9/11. It’s diabolical to sacrifice thousands of people in order to get Americans to surrender their liberties and support wars in the mideast. People need to know how they’re being lied to. I watched videos on youtube on 8/6. Witnesses to the shooting at the sihk temple told of multiple gunmen. One well spoken witness said there were four gunmen, each dressed in black. None of the news sources covered this story because it contradicts the official story. I went to youtube the following day to send the videos to someone, and they were both gone.

        • william02138 says:

          I find your story far-fetched. I have to ask, if it was holograms that crashed into the buildings, then what do you think happened to the actual planes and their passengers?

          Regarding what you heard — Unlike at the little league games, on 9/11 you had a 1/4 mile high building blocking the sound between the plane and you. IMO that’s why you didn’t hear it. I don’t know about what you’re calling an explosion in the basement; 1) maybe it was an electrical explosion caused by all the electrical shorts caused by the crash or, 2) maybe it was echos or some other effect changing the apparent direction of the crash sound. Sound travels faster through steel than through air, so you could’ve heard the structure of the building shake before you heard the crash itself.

          I don’t believe the hologram explanations. I saw a little display at a science museum done with mirrors that projected an image of a small object in motion — something that I believe holograms cannot do (they just do still shots). I believe a larger version could work for a person-sized image standing in one place, with the right equipment including a large concave mirror. For all I know that’s what John Lear’s acquaintance saw. There’s no way it would work for an aircraft; the mirror would have to be like a mile in diameter. There may be better technology than I’m aware of, but I’m not going to believe it just because John Lear says someone told him he saw something once that may or may not be anything relevant.

          Sorry to hear you lost friends and coworkers on 9/11. I knew two victims, but not closely. I am also against the wars in the mideast, and I have a general distrust in government.

          However the only plausible explanation I can find for the physical events of 9/11 is they happened pretty much the way the ‘official’ story goes: hijackers flew planes into buildings causing lots of damage including the collapse of the towers, along with WTC7 as a result of indirect damage. People in government definitely took advantage of 9/11 after the fact. Maybe some even knew about it beforehand; maybe even intentionally let it happen, maybe even gave the hijackers support (though probably not that). That doesn’t mean there were bombs in the buildings. Any problems with the ‘plane crash’ explanation are really small compared to the huge inconsistencies you come up against when trying to explain it with holograms of airplanes, bombs synchronized perfectly to explode right where the image of the holograms hit, a second set of bombs synchronized to go off an hour later to make the towers fall (why not do it all at once?!?), and the huge amount of preparation that would’ve had to have been done in perfect secrecy. If you laid out the whole ‘truther’ scenario end-to-end, I could flaws in it every step of the way that far exceed anything you can legitimately criticize about the standard explanation.

        • Robert E. Salt says:

          I don’t believe the planes from Boston actually existed. Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. You can use your imagination as to what happened to the crew and passengers. I have no information on the flight from Baltimore except that it didn’t crash into the Pentagon. The lobby was barely recognizable when we passed through on 9/11. The ceiling in the adjoining mall was down. William Rodriguez was on one of the basement floors during the explosion. He can give you more details. The only thing between the three of us on my floor and a possible plane coming from the north was a window. There was no plane! Without a plane the official story is far-fetched.

      • Patrick Appleton says:

        Dearest william 02138, It certainly looks like an airplane penetrating a building to you because that is exactly what it was meant to look like to people like you who don’t question authority. And as you need to ask ” what are you suggesting happened here instead” means you have not looked at any of the evidence. It takes an open mind to look at it but it seems your forte is an open mouth but you don’t look at evidence because your mind is made up.
        The longer you deny reality, the sooner you will lose all hope of preventing your freedom being taken from you. Good luck.

  22. someone foreign says:

    I took standard math, physics and chemistry high school classes in USSR. I am aware that it is a common knowledge that the USSR education was far inferior to that of US. However, I am appalled at even a suggestion that what we have seen on 9/11 was the truth.

    On holes in towers being too small. Yes, Morgan is correct, it doesn’t make sense if you can “feel” the resistance and inertia of materials in collision. If those wings could indeed penetrate steel facing of the tower, then the holes must have been an appropriate size or larger than the wings, because we are constantly reminded that the calculations include total weight of those wings, i.e. they are being considered as homogenous objects.

    If we consider them in detail, as objects made of multiple materials, shapes, each having different properties, we can count the wing as a heavy duty strength frame, with attached airfoil, much larger in size than the frame. With this correction in mind, if we progressively strengthen the wing frame elements while keeping the wing airfoil the same, then we could eventually achieve the condition where only the frame would penetrate the tower face (at that point, the hardness of the frame material must far exceed the hardness of the structural steel – thus taking us outside of allowed assumption envelope).

    In other words imagine shooting a depleted uranium bullet into a steel panel, where a bullet is traveling within an airfoil balloon, much larger in size than the bullet itself. The hole made by the bullet will be smaller than the visible balloon. This was the official theory, I understand. If the bullet was made from anything softer than steel, then it could never penetrate a steel object of bigger size than itself. If this was not true, we would not need armor-piercing bullets made of uranium, we would just make them from the recycled coke cans.

    But this is easily checked by calculating an appropriate momentum and material deformation properties. It does not feel that it could be possible. Roughly, the rule is that if you want two objects to take the equal amount of damage then the object that is twice as soft should be twice as massive than the other (and that is only if spatially congruent). This is not the case with the planes. The planes represent nothing to the towers. And speed of aircraft doesn’t matter, as it is only a speed of the collision that does, in other words, we can just as easily consider massive steel towers smashing into a standing still Boeing Aircraft at that speed. Now do you feel that the towers will end up penetrated?

    • william02138 says:

      Your 1st paragraph is wrong:
      > On holes in towers being too small. Yes, Morgan is correct

      Your mistake is thinking Morgan has a coherent position on this. He says the holes are too small but he also says there shouldn’t be any holes at all. That is contradictory. The truth is in between the extremes he contradictorily believes. The holes in the steel frame should be smaller than the outline of the aluminum plane. That’s what we saw. Reality is great. The more massive areas of the plane smashed through the columns (while being shredded in the process). The lighter parts of the wings flowed around the columns. Why is this so hard for people to comprehend?

      Your 3rd paragraph is wrong:
      > If the bullet was made from anything softer than steel, then it could never penetrate a steel object of bigger size than itself

      Bigger total size? That’s ridiculous. A tiny 1/2 ounce soft lead bullet can penetrate a steel car 100,000 times its size. Total size has nothing to do with any of this. It’s all about mass, strength, leverage and other properties in the area of impact.

      Your 2nd paragraph is wrong:
      > at that point, the hardness of the frame material must far exceed the hardness of the structural steel
      But your 4th paragraph fixes it:
      > if you want two objects to take the equal amount of damage then the object that is twice as soft should be twice as massive

      Yes, with enough mass the softer material *can* do damage to the harder material. Glad you finally agree.

      However, elsewhere in your 4th paragraph you make another mistake:
      > The planes represent nothing to the towers.

      The full size of the towers is irrelevant to the amount of damage the planes do on impact. I can’t even comprehend how anyone could even *think* it’s relevant. However the mass of the planes (~100 tons each) was highly significant to the few tons of steel in the area of impact.

      You’re right that the relative speed between the objects is what matters, not which of the objects was the one moving. But again, so what? Whether the plane hit the tower at 500 mph or the tower hit the plane, either way the result is a bunch of broken columns in the area of impact and a bunch of shredded airplane material inside the building.

      • someone foreign says:

        Yes, as it was written, it does sound contradictory about the holes being too small, while there should not be any holes. I do give people a pass on their writing skills, and try to understand what they meant. Would you not agree that it is not too hard to see that Reynolds believes there would not be any holes, except for may-be engines and so on, but that he mentions holes being too small because the media and the government clearly attempt to use total mass of the planes in the discussions relating to a possibility of penetration? So, he picks it up and says, that if you use total mass, then you must account for total size.

        You say: “The lighter parts of the wings flowed around the columns.” Yes, of course. But, if this is how you see it, you must only account for the mass of the objects that did penetrate. Correct? Then, reading further, you can not use “~100,000 tons each”, because that is an obvious reference to the total mass. Otherwise, this is a contradiction.

        Thank you for correcting me on the bullet paragraph. I was intending to refer to the part being penetrated, not to the total size of the car (if this was a car). I should have made it explicit. The tiny 1/2 ounce bullet of soft lead would not be able to penetrate a sheet of steel with thickness of the diameter of the bullet. It is penetrating a steel sheet that is insignificantly thin as compared to the dimensions of the bullet.

        I stand by my “at that point, the hardness of the frame material must far exceed the hardness of the structural steel” statement. This is because you will not easily find any frames of the plain that have dimensions such as those 14 inches columns. So, your average 6 inch dimension frame part needs to be more than twice stronger than the steel column material, to be able to destroy it.

        Reached comment limit, will continue below…
        Reach

        • someone foreign says:

          I hope you did not really mean your critique of my “planes represent nothing” statement. I do so, because here you are dismissing the total mass of the tower (correctly so, because not all that mass was participating in creating a reaction force, the tower was not a solid object), only to immediately invoke the total mass of the plane, as if it was a solid brick.

          I had posted about relative speed, in hopes of helping people to see it from another perspective. Most people visualize a speeding jet, and it makes it far easier to imagine some big damage done to whatever that jet hits, while at the same time, if you imagine speeding steel tower hitting airfoil/plastic object, it is not too hard to see that most of it will be gone, with only the toughest parts ending up inside of the tower.

          What we should have seen, was that there are holes for each engine, or may-be only for some engines, we should see absence of lighter material such as glass, concrete, and aluminum tower window detail. We should see large part of the softer plane being inside through the windows, and having done no damage other than cosmetic damage to the interior columns. We should see most of the plane mass being reflected and thrown away from the tower. We should see some of the riveting / welding joint work of tower face panels being torn due the the leveraged action, and panels being moved / turned.

          We should see a lot of airplane debris being stuck and hanging visibly on the face panels. And again, most importantly, whether or not some of the airplane parts could penetrate the face panels of the towers, there is simply no reserve left for them to continue through the building, removing other columns. There should be practically no damage to the inside columns to speak of. The various plane gear would be found in front of the towers, and even quite far in front, with only “the luckiest” gear being found behind the towers, having skipped (not impacted) any columns on their way through the tower.

        • william02138 says:

          This is a reply to both parts of your message.

          > if you use total mass [of the plane], then you must account for total size

          I’m not going to argue with you as to whether this is what Reynolds really meant, because 1) you’re not him and 2) we’d waste time defining “account for”, so instead I’ll just answer what I think your concerns are:

          We need to consider the total mass of the airplane because it is that 100 tons of material that decelerated from 500 mph to 0 mph. The building didn’t change its velocity, so it’s mass doesn’t matter. This remains true regardless of whether you look at it as the plane hitting the building or the building hitting the plane.

          Suppose the last 12 feet of each wing only weighs half a ton, and they didn’t break any columns (i.e. the hole is smaller by this amount). These half ton masses still did damage — when the nose first struck the wall the plane was not a ‘solid brick’ but it was still one piece, so the momentum of the wing tips was contributing to the overall momentum of the plane as it started to break columns.

          > The tiny 1/2 ounce bullet of soft lead would not be able to penetrate a sheet of steel with thickness of the diameter of the bullet.

          That’s better than your earlier statement, but I think it too is wrong. It doesn’t take into account speed or the shape of the objects, for example. If we shot that bullet into a slightly thicker steel plate at 10mph it’ll bounce off. At 100,000 mph it’ll zoom right through (and be obliterated in the process). At 500 mph? I don’t know. What does diameter even mean if it’s a conical bullet?

          Leverage is key too. I can not break a 1/2″ diameter steel bar with my bare hands, but I’ve easily bent them by hand when one end was attached to a stationary object and I had 18″ of bar to pull on. So some parts of the plane hit the columns midway between the floor and ceiling — getting six feet of leverage to bend the column a bit before it snapped. You don’t have to be a harder material to do that.

          BTW, those 14″ columns were hollow. The column walls were only 1 to 2″ thick where the planes hit. Sturdy, but not as invincible as you were thinking.

          Also, you say all the plane material’s momentum would have been spent [“no reserve left”] going through the perimeter columns and it wouldn’t damage the core columns at all… That would be a pretty big coincidence, yes? That it had exactly that amount of momentum and nothing more? You’d have to prove that with some calculations otherwise, no, I think you’re just making it up.

          To dig deeper there’s a lot of materials science, finite element analyses, etc. that we’d have to use that’s beyond my expertise. I can’t say exactly what would have happened but neither can you. But there are some things I can say would not have happened. The plane would not have simply hit the columns and hung there or bounced off. 500 mph of momentum says it’s going into the building one way or another.

          P.S. I appreciate that you are approaching this in a rational, methodical way even though I disagree with various technical details and therefore your conclusions. We need more rational, methodical debate in this world.

        • someone foreign says:

          I did present the picture of what I can see happening if an Airliner like 767 hits the tower like WTC. I don’t believe I said that the plane would hang on the building. The curious point was my insistence that the interior columns would not be damaged, you say. This Is because it seems unlikely to me that more than, say 10% of the plane mass would penetrate the steel facing, if that happens, it must be at the limit of its inertia, so, this is what I meant by saying that there will not be damage to the interior columns, other than cosmetic. In order for the interior columns to sustain structural damage, there must be some energy to deliver it. That energy must be a remainder of the total energy of the hard elements of the airliner, after the subtraction of the energy spent on penetrating the steel facing. Of course, because I hold that it is unlikely that there even would be much of the steel facing penetration, I must hold that the energy required for that is nearly equal or greater that what was available. Therefore, in my understanding, there is very little chance that any energy would be left available to damage the interior columns.

          Yes, the columns are hollow. This is because of well known fact that the material inside of what would become a column, offers only marginal increase in strength, while it would be a major contributor to the weight of the column. This has to do with the electric currents that generate each other where they flow (near the outer skin of a conductor), and resist deformation, like an induction coil resist a change of current. So, we build them empty. I am sure, this is not a new principle to you. You must also understand then, that the same would apply to an aircraft, and so, what we have is an empty aluminum frame hitting an empty steel frame, if we wanted to go into the details.

          The leverage, too, would not only work to magnify the damage to the building, but to accelerate the destruction of the plane. In practice, at any angle of impact, however humanly perfect, the leverage would work to destroy the plane before its furthest part can even reach the tower to impact it. the nose of the plane would deliver virtually no damage, as it is not a structurally important element, and therefore is not tough enough.
          I am not an aircraft builder, but my common sense tells me that the strongest parts of the plane would be the part that connects the engines with the main part of it’s skeleton, and then the part that connects that with the tail. Beside that, the wings would have to be able to carry the wight of the fuselage. So, essentially, my guess would be, that if we could move a lever and magically remove the parts of the plane beginning with the weakest, and until we have the strongest 10% left, then we would have a support element through most of the wingspan, connecting the engines with another main support that goes from the wings midpoint to the tail. Moving the lever back, we would be able to see “the ribcage” of the cargo compartment and the mechanisms actuating the moving prats of the wings. Then the passenger sections with kitchens and bathrooms, and finally the nose would appear with it’s equipment consoles. So, the engines would hit first, after the nose had simply “disappeared”. Whichever engine is going to hit first, is going to start the plane demolition process through the leverage. It is easier to see when a plane lands in emergency.

          Also, I believe you are wrong to assume that the total mass of the plane is going to participate in the creation of the impact force through the part that is actually making a contact. That can only happen when all the elements are strong enough to be capable of transferring their momentum through each other. In a case of the plane, 90% of it if not more would began moving towards the impact area, breaking their connections to the plane, and this is where their energy will be dissipated. This, I believe is the main reason we use nails to penetrate wood driven by the momentum of the hammer, and say, not steel-tipped pencils. So, the total mass of the plane will still impact the tower, but rather as a cloud of material, not as a solid, structurally sound object. It’s energy would be dissipated by an accordingly larger area of the steel facing.

          I do not want to create (or maintain?) the impression that those who argue for impossibility of the plane damaging the steel tower in the way officially suggested, mean to imply that “nothing could damage those towers”. Of course not. But the airliner, in particular, is a very poor choice of the impact driver for this particular purpose.

          I would however agree with you that the definitive proof would require an exact calculation, and may-be even an experiment, because most people do not have the feel for mechanics. Yes, I am very much in agreement with you, on the need of a rational debate, because while we are bickering we are losing time, people are forgetting about the whole deal, and soon it will become another Pearl Harbor, that no one really cares for, one way or another.

        • william02138 says:

          Someone foreign, I never said the plane would go undamaged. Of course it would be damaged. It would be completely shredded up. But even after losing structural integrity the mass still has momentum — less after crashing through the perimeter columns, but still greater than zero.

          Here is a simulation of what happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOKJ4ZXgK4Q
          The view from inside the building shows how even after being ripped up the pieces of the plane are still moving with enough momentum to damage some core columns.

        • someone foreign says:

          I’ve seen it before. Does not look right to me. And I think it obviously bogus. Watch the view from inside the tower! You will see the aluminum “skin” penetrating the tower and taking off the columns.

          Which means that:
          a) the authors really don’t know physics, or
          b) they didn’t think we could tell the difference, and there was no more mathematical “room” for them to play, – they had to do it this way to have enough energy for the damage to have the extent that they were trying to prove.

          There is absolutely no way you would have seen this unfolding the way the simulation shows. If you were standing at the back of the tower (side opposite of that penetrated), you would see all this junk losing momentum immediately on contact with interior. You would see the heavy pieces moving forward, “outracing” everything else. Those heavy pieces would be the ones taking the columns off.

          I can guarantee you, that you can throw all the material that comprises the “skin” of the 767, at that speed, at just one of the interior columns, and it all will be wrapped around it, or teared by. The column, yes a single column, would be intact. You need the heavy pieces to do the work, and we do not see this in the simulation.

          I did my own simulation. I know, Reynolds idea is “no planes”. But, I didn’t think that far. What I wanted to know is if a “pile driver” is possible. So, I built the tower, and hang 20 floors one floor above the rest (on a nail in the space). Then I dropped the pile. It did exactly what I thought it would do, – it slammed down and after a random number of random collisions, it found a better course, and slid off the sloped side of the building. No matter how one drops it, it always finds randomly more damaged side and continues there, eventually sliding off at more than two thirds of a tower’s height.

          This, is why, everything that piles down forms a pyramid too, if you think about it. I still wanted to see if it would be possible to destroy the towers completely, so I made those “pile driver” floors filled with lead, instead of air. Nope! The result is the same.

          I had to build a wall around the tower, to prevent sliding, and keep the top floors made out of led, to achieve somewhat a result. The pile smashed almost half of a tower on the way down, and stopped. You know why? Because as you get lower, you get to break structural support elements that were made to be progressively stronger and stronger, while your “pile driver” is loosing momentum to destruction work, from the get-go.

          The only way I could destroy the tower to the ground, was after I placed timed explosives on each floor, that were removing the resistance on the approach of the “driver”. But, it turns out, that one has to remove all support, not just some, or the fall leaves symmetric condition way early and the whole mess falls everywhere, not on it’s own footprint.

          I am need to read Dr. Judy work, and Reynolds work on other possible causes. But, it seems it has to be some sort of radio wave, because the steel needs to be rapidly destroyed, while we know that the paper wasn’t. If one could rapidly heat it up, or may-be even heat – pulse it, then it would destroy the concrete around it to dust, exactly what seem to have happened.

        • Robert E. Salt says:

          I recommend that Dr. Reynolds duplicate this experiment and get back to us.

        • william02138 says:

          Someone foreign, here is a picture of damage from a tornado:

          The wind from the tornado knocked down the brick wall.

          Yes, a large volume of an extremely flimsy material — air — traveling at no more than 300 mph was sufficient to knock down a brick wall.

          If 300 mph air can do that, do you really think 767s are too flimsy to break a bunch of steel columns when traveling at 500 mph? They are much much much much much more substantial than air! I realize steel columns like these are stronger than brick walls, but not by *that* much.

          Here’s how I see the impact playing out, with respect to the points you made. Once the plane hits the wall some parts continue onward like an egg going through an egg slicer:
          https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQOx98TB9TsOitITGVC76KrzzwvxlsNhwJKMfLRoQDlZl6w7cETbw
          Meanwhile the plane does exert drag on the columns (or vice versa), sufficient to snap several columns. So now there’s a hole. The remaining portion of the fuselage passes through this hole relatively unimpeded, though shredded by the broken ends of the columns, and traveling somewhat slower than 500 mph. Now the plane hits the interior columns. The assorted shreds of plane have enough momentum to break several interior & core columns, but that finally stops them (mostly).

          I did not really follow your description of the simulation you said you did. Was this a computer simulation, or did you build a physical model? Physical models don’t scale well in matters relating to strength and momentum. A computer can model or simulate any size you want, equally well or equally poorly. There’s a lot you have to get right in order for it to behave realistically, such as how strongly all the pieces are attached to each other for one thing, in addition to the dimensions and the masses obviously.

          I agree that Reynold’s suggestion of firing a real 767 wing into a WTC-like wall at 500 mph would be a realistic test.

  23. william02138 says:

    > There are many things wrong with the 9/11 plane theory (www.nomoregames.net) but one is the proposition that 767 wings can stay intact/attached in a high-speed, violent collision with a maxi-strength tower

    Huh? Where in the world did you hear this proposition? This is not part of the standard explanation. Maybe you’re jumping to all sorts of crazy conclusions because you don’t understand what the standard explanation says. When the planes smashed into the buildings they took the brunt of the damage but they did manage to do some damage to the buildings. The tips of the wings did not crack any columns but larger parts of the planes did.

  24. william02138 says:

    This article is nonsensical. First you say aircraft wings are too flimsy to break the steel structure of the building, then you complain that the wings should have made a bigger hole than they did. Well, which is it? Don’t you understand that you’ve just entirely contradicted yourself?? I cannot fathom the stupidity it takes to write or believe something like that.

  25. My Dad is a retired Mechanical Engineer,who worked for Boeing Aircraft, he agrees with you Morgan–regarding 911 and the World Trade Center, “There’s is no way those airplanes would have disappeared into those buildings like a hot knife through a stick of butter.”

    • william02138 says:

      I don’t think the standard explanation says anything about hot knives and butter. It’s a bad analogy; of course it doesn’t explain it. The situation was more like a chunk of soft butter being shot into a bar of harder butter. They both lose, to differing amounts.

  26. i just watched the myth busters ;could not figure what they were trying to prove .It made no sense. Then you watch Jennings , and that makes no sense . When the front of the plane (nose ),hit the building ,the resistance would have caused it to vibrate enough to even knock off parts of it . Someone with scientific knowledge ,or engineering ,could set me straight . I don’t buy it for one minute . By rewinding the video ,you see how that plane comes back out so smoothly ;This is all trick photography by NRO ? Tenet and others knew and actually planned it .. Google William Clapper , who was appointed 2 weeks before 911 , I believe Hayden went to CIA /.

  27. it came upon a midnight clear ? The book ,”102 Minutes “, explains how the wind shakes the WTC at a higher velocity than the airplane did ? or would ?

  28. 1stusedbooks says:

    It was indeed a magical day. More coincidences than a Charles Dickens novel, and so many of the laws of physics temporarily suspended. The crash test seems like a good idea; I’ll go from here to take a look at it. Hope that the wheatchex structure affords the same flexibility as the perimeter columns.

  29. Keith says:

    Absolutely, Robert Salt, the preciously fragile components of an airplane get CRushed in the ensuing mayhem.

  30. Robert E. Salt says:

    When steel and aluminum clash, aluminum loses every time. It doesn’t matter which one is moving or how fast. Aluminum will lose its form, and steel will go unscathed.

    • william02138 says:

      > When steel and aluminum clash, aluminum loses every time.
      You’re just making this up. Don’t believe me? Then try this test: Take an aluminum baseball bat and whack the fender of your car as hard as you can with it. Now that the car is dented and the baseball bat is unscathed, how smart do you feel about speaking in such absolutes?

      The reality is that steel is stronger than aluminum but not as much as you think it is. When the planes hit the towers they were shredded to tiny bits but still offered enough resistance to break several steel columns in the process. Why is this so difficult to understand?

      • Robert E. Salt says:

        Car fenders are made of alloys, many are aluminum alloys. Take your aluminum bat and whack a steel column a few times and see what happens to your bat.

        • william02138 says:

          All I have to do is show you *one* case where aluminum does not “lose” to steel to prove you’re wrong. There are enough all-steel fenders out there you should be able to imagine a steel fender being dented by an aluminum baseball bat. But if you keep trying to not see the error of your original statement, I’ll just have to make it more obvious: smash an all-steel paperclip with an aluminum baseball bat and see which one loses. Got it? Saying “aluminum loses every time” without consideration of the masses, shapes and other factors involved is incorrect. Such non-technical proclamations detract from any fact-based discussion.

          Now, if you backtrack and suggest that the paperclip is an extreme case and you were talking about more everyday cases, well, smashing 100 tons of airplane at ~500 mph into the side of one of the tallest buildings ever made is not an everyday case. Your everyday sense of scale does not apply.

          The WTC crashes were a new thing. Nothing like them had ever happened before (a plane crash at 200mph is a much much lower energy event). The people saying “everyone knows the holes wouldn’t have looked like that” or “everyone knows the towers wouldn’t have fallen that way”, they have no clue. Nobody had ever seen the holes look differently or the towers fall a different way either. None of this had ever happened before.

        • Mr Magic says:

          Why not try to se the big picture, instead of going into discussions with small things.
          Compare WCT-planes with Pentagon or Flight 93 in pennsylvania.
          Not the same result. Not even similar.
          50m long and 50m wide plane dissapears into Pentagon..
          no burned out grass, no luggage, no seats and no people..
          AND…THAT plane did not fit into that hole. So what hit pentagon?
          not a 767 anyway…😉

      • Robert E. Salt says:

      • PATRICK APPLETON says:

        Dear william02138, A fender is barely 2mm thin sheet metal. The WTC buildings where not. Having read all your ridiculous comments I must conclude you are a paid government stooge or you have some psychological defense mechanism working inside your pointed head that inhibits your tolerance of reality. You claim a ” general distrust in government, ” I think you should develop a serious distrust in your ability to reason.

        • william02138 says:

          Patrick Appleton says > A fender is barely 2mm thin sheet metal. The WTC buildings where not.

          Yes, and a 767 is bigger than a baseball bat. My point was to give an everyday example to show that “when steel and aluminum clash, aluminum loses every time” is not true. One concept at a time, man.

          > Having read all your ridiculous comments I must conclude you are a paid government stooge

          You are wrong. Goodbye.

      • Mr Magic says:

        Sorry for my english, not american…

        How about the “wrong” engine that was found in the streets of NY..
        There were no engine from a 767, but a engine from a 747, much smaller.
        Thats bothering me…
        Why put an 747-engine in the street, and saying a 767 crashed?
        Doesn´t match up

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s