How do I explains to the CT folks why planes were able to enter the towers?

[SallyBoy]

This is one argument I was not able to defend, no matter what. The CT folks brings a good but stupid question and I don't know how to answer to that other than to say that there is nothing in between the core and the outer steel shell other than office spaces.

The CT folks' argument is a plane is aluminum, no matter what. The outer face of the WTC are steel, therefore the plane should have crumble upon impact and should have never entered the buildings.


My debunk defenses is the planes are 100,000 tons object traveling at over 500 mph into steel exoskeleton structure that are about a forearm length in thickness and that there was large open office spaces in between. That it would be like saying a wooden pencil is weaker than a raw harden potato and that with enough momentum and force, the pencil can and will penetrate the tough potato.

They still refuses to listen to the logic of physic and I don't know what else can I say at a scientific level. I am no physic, but I have enough common sense, logic and a general knowledge of physics to understand what happened on 9/11.

[beachnut]

This is one argument I was not able to defend, no matter what. The CT folks brings a good but stupid question and I don't know how to answer to that other than to say that there is nothing in between the core and the outer steel shell other than office spaces.

How many planes are made of steel? Why do they use Al? When is the last time you saw a high-rise going 600 mph; is it because they would fall apart?

The WTC can handle a hurricane, a 767/757 can fly three times faster than a hurricane.

But you are right a moving mass has a great deal to do with cutting through the building. When you are moving at 700 feet per second, where will you try to be in the next one second.

[rwguinn]

This is one argument I was not able to defend, no matter what. The CT folks brings a good but stupid question and I don't know how to answer to that other than to say that there is nothing in between the core and the outer steel shell other than office spaces.

The CT folks' argument is a plane is aluminum, no matter what. The outer face of the WTC are steel, therefore the plane should have crumble upon impact and should have never entered the buildings.


My debunk defenses is the planes are 100,000 tons object traveling at over 500 mph into steel exoskeleton structure that are about a forearm length in thickness and that there was large open office spaces in between. That it would be like saying a wooden pencil is weaker than a raw harden potato and that with enough momentum and force, the pencil can and will penetrate the tough potato.

They still refuses to listen to the logic of physic and I don't know what else can I say at a scientific level. I am no physic, but I have enough common sense, logic and a general knowledge of physics to understand what happened on 9/11.

How does a soft object (say, a bird) put a hole in an airplane (aluminum) or tear the be=jeesus out of a Jet engine (Titanium blades).
How does a lead bullet (very soft metal) put a hole in 1/2 inch thick steel?
How does a chunk of foam (The generally accepted term--it ain't foam) hitting a space shuttle wing cause the whole craft to destroy itself?
How does air (very, very soft) cause windows to blow out and buildings to fall (made of wood, metal, and composites) during a tornado or hurricane force winds?
You have the right answer. Kinetic Energy, and Energy concentration.

[Drudgewire]

The engines weren't made of aluminum. The landing gear wasn't made of aluminum.

Holy crap, I misread and thought this was about the Pentagon. Not thinking it would have penetrated the towers is quite retarded. :boggled:

[16.5]

How can water cut metal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_jet_cutter

[TMiguel]

That is a very folkloric understanding of material mechanics, and it is not correct.
Technically you could throw a donut trough and trough a building if it has enough speed.
A plane weights several tons, and travels at a very modest racing car speed, all that mass couldn’t stop in a fraction of a second whiteout expecting extremely high applied forces that would simply hit the max tension point allowed for a steel framing (those breaking everything apart has it fly’s in).
The judgement on either it should break or not is not down to which thing is made of, but ratter a more complete analysis of stress and how much a material can handle, basically when it is down to just numbers.

[WildCat]

Not thinking it would have penetrated the towers is quite retarded. :boggled:
Of course, these are truthers we're talking about.

[Hokulele]

You can show them various tornado images (scroll down to see one with the vinyl record lodged in a telephone pole (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadosafety.html)) as more examples of the forces at work. If they do not trust the NOAA site, I believe Judy Wood has a bunch of hurricane/tornado images on her site that show similar things.

[T.A.M.]

or you can laugh at them, imply they are retarded morons (which many are, or appear to be), and move on to a reasonable discussion about a reasonable topic wrt 9/11.

TAM:)

[defaultdotxbe]

How does a lead bullet (very soft metal) put a hole in 1/2 inch thick steel?

psy-ops and TV fakery :D
http://xbehome.com/jref/rifles-into-8mm-steel-front.jpg
http://consumermaven.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/rifles-into-8mm-steel-top.jpg

[cludgie]

This reminds me of an incident when I was a kid. Two mates of mine were messing around and one shot the other in the leg at close range with an air rifle loaded with nothing other than two daisies stuffed in the barrel. They actually broke the skin on the lads leg.

Anyway, based on this latest bit of troofer logic then if the troofers ever go to war then we'll have the tactical edge in land warfare as they'll be coming in tanks with armour thats made of a dense metal but is only about 1mm thick.

[Minadin]

How can a dam break wash away a town?

How can overpressure from a nuclear blast blow a building to smithereens?

Ask them what they think would happen to the building they're in right now if a 10,000 gallon water balloon slammed into it at 500 mph.

[PhantomWolf]

My debunk defenses is the planes are 100,000 tons object traveling at over 500 mph

I suggest you might mean kg.

[AJM8125]

You're dealing with no-planers. You have bigger problems than trying to prove that airliners can punch through steel. No-planers reject just about every other aspect of the attacks because if no aircraft hit the towers it "logically" follows that everything else is a lie. You've got lots of research to do. This forum is a great place to start.

[cludgie]

Ask them what they think would happen to the building they're in right now if a 10,000 gallon water balloon slammed into it at 500 mph.

This gives me an idea. Perhaps someone can arrange for a troofer to put his faith on the line versus a chicken cannon?

[ktesibios]

How can a dam break wash away a town?

Some reading about the Johnstown flood might be helpful. The flood wave carried objects as dense and heavy as railroad locomotives away and deposited them considerable distances from their original location.


Ask them what they think would happen to the building they're in right now if a 10,000 gallon water balloon slammed into it at 500 mph.Some experiments with water balloons might be instructive, for example, get your troofer to stand still while someone with a good pitching arm flings one the size of a softball as hard as he can right at troofer. Or try the same thing but with a glass window as the target. If the window breaks and the water gets inside, ask how it's possible when the glass is much harder and stronger than either the rubber membrane or the water.

[WildCat]

When I was a kid we did an experiment at school to demonstrate air pressure. Take a 3' length of wood lathe and lay it on a table so slightly less than half of it sticks off the edge. Then lay a single sheet of newspaper over the end that's on the table, and smack down hard on the length sticking out. The lathe will break in half from the resistance of air pressure alone.

Truthers will probably claim it's done with holograms.

[Minadin]

When I was a kid we did an experiment at school to demonstrate air pressure. Take a 3' length of wood lathe and lay it on a table so slightly less than half of it sticks off the edge. Then lay a single sheet of newspaper over the end that's on the table, and smack down hard on the length sticking out. The lathe will break in half from the resistance of air pressure alone.

Truthers will probably claim it's done with holograms.


When I think of lathe, I think of a machine used to spin wood that usually weighs several hundred pounds and costs a thousand dollars or more.

Do you mean a dowel rod? (I'm confused) :confused:

[David Wong]

Probably meant lath, the thin strips of wood they make lattice out of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lath

[X]

Rulers/yardsticks work too.

And the lathe confused me aswell, until he mentioen the newspaper. I've done that trick.

[WildCat]

When I think of lathe, I think of a machine used to spin wood that usually weighs several hundred pounds and costs a thousand dollars or more.

Do you mean a dowel rod? (I'm confused) :confused:

Probably meant lath, the thin strips of wood they make lattice out of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lath
Yeah, I meant lath not lathe. :blush:

Brain cramp...

[Beerina]

;4061683']Rulers/yardsticks work too.

And the lathe confused me aswell, until he mentioen the newspaper. I've done that trick.


Now I'm really confused, as I don't know what aswel or mentioen mean.

The first might have something to do with JLo (hence the need for the yardsticks) but the of latter I have no clue.

[rwguinn]

Now I'm really confused, as I don't know what aswel or mentioen mean.

The first might have something to do with JLo (hence the need for the yardsticks) but the of latter I have no clue.


It appearz to be spanglish.
Men--males
tio-- uncle
en--becomes or becoming
Men are becoming uncles... Where is the conspiracy?

[njslim]

Point out that while the aircraft skin is light gauge aluminium what is under is heavy
structural elements (jet engines, landing gear, wing spars, keel beam). These elements
are very heavy, strong and built of high strength exotic alloys including titanium. The
keel beam (and some of our aircraft mavens can back me up) runs length of fuselage
and is the strongest piece on the aircraft. It provides support to the cabin floors
(passenger and cargo ). The jet engines weigh several tons and are built of heavy
duty heat resistant alloys (including titanium). The wing box (area between engines
where attachs to fuselage) has heavy duty wing spars to support the wings. Then
there the landing gear - massive steel struts to support a 350,000 lb aircraft hitting the
runway at 180mph.

Add to that plane traveling at over 500 mph - speed of pistol bullet

One simple analogy is wrapping an aluminium baseball bat in tin foil - while tin foil can
be easily torn the bat is heavy and will resist impacts. Ask if like to have you wrap the
bat in foil then beat their stupid ass with it to prove point...

[SallyBoy]

You're dealing with no-planers. You have bigger problems than trying to prove that airliners can punch through steel. No-planers reject just about every other aspect of the attacks because if no aircraft hit the towers it "logically" follows that everything else is a lie. You've got lots of research to do. This forum is a great place to start.


Yep. These are the people who claims that it was a missile instead. I asked them how can a missile can penetrate the steel. They tell me it was bunker buster missiles. Surely the towers would have fallen right away if a bunker buster were to be use.

I think the record embedded in a wooden log and the bullet holes on the steel piece would help me a lot.

Oh and I should mention that the individual I've gotten into the argument with about this whole issue, managed to manipulated what I said, just like his heroes who created Loose Change. The things I said about the potato and pencil argument, I said to use raw hard potato. The lad replied back to me that a pencil is stronger than "SOFT" potato.

[SallyBoy]

Point out that while the aircraft skin is light gauge aluminium what is under is heavy
structural elements (jet engines, landing gear, wing spars, keel beam). These elements
are very heavy, strong and built of high strength exotic alloys including titanium. The
keel beam (and some of our aircraft mavens can back me up) runs length of fuselage
and is the strongest piece on the aircraft. It provides support to the cabin floors
(passenger and cargo ). The jet engines weigh several tons and are built of heavy
duty heat resistant alloys (including titanium). The wing box (area between engines
where attachs to fuselage) has heavy duty wing spars to support the wings. Then
there the landing gear - massive steel struts to support a 350,000 lb aircraft hitting the
runway at 180mph.

Add to that plane traveling at over 500 mph - speed of pistol bullet

One simple analogy is wrapping an aluminium baseball bat in tin foil - while tin foil can
be easily torn the bat is heavy and will resist impacts. Ask if like to have you wrap the
bat in foil then beat their stupid ass with it to prove point...

Not to mention that aircrafts are designed to be able to withstand such extreme amount of force and pressure when going over 500 MPH at high altitude. I think the troofer no planeners are confusing Aluminum as light but durable metal with light and easily breakable like aluminum paper. Kind of like newer designs of bulletproof vests are getting lighter and more durable. Light does not always means easily breakable like the troofers probably thinking of.

[cyclonic]

sections of outer columns were pushed inside by the airplane as the connecting bolts broke.
this video made for a truther explains it well.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nbuEQpSNxiE

[leftysergeant]

sections of outer columns were pushed inside by the airplane as the connecting bolts broke.
this video made for a truther explains it well.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nbuEQpSNxiE

So they didn't have to cut the steel. They just had to shear the rivets in the joints.

Still, an aircraft CAN penetrate steel, as the Betty that hit the USS Hinsdale shows.

[SallyBoy]

sections of outer columns were pushed inside by the airplane as the connecting bolts broke.
this video made for a truther explains it well.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nbuEQpSNxiE


That was by far the best debunking video I have seen and thank you. I've been to the WTC twice in my life, at the top floors and the observation deck. I knew by experiences being in the building and by common sense and facts, that a boeing would be able to penetrate the exoskeleton structure of the twin towers.What I didn't know was how those outer structures were assembled and then logic hit me. how else can you bolt down a "solid steel" structure without getting inside the structure itself?

So while the steel structures were able to withstand the impact of the plane and even the collapse of the towers, it was the bolts holding these steel faces in place that ultimately failed and gave way.

And that's another thing. The WTC was designed to withstand a plane's impact and so if it designed to withstand a plane's accidental crash, then chances are that a plane can and will crash into the towers. See how there's a conflict with the troofers?

[SallyBoy]

So they didn't have to cut the steel. They just had to shear the rivets in the joints.

Still, an aircraft CAN penetrate steel, as the Betty that hit the USS Hinsdale shows.


Careful there. The troofers will not accept that argument. A WW 2 plane crashing into a battleship? Not on their watch!;)

[cyclonic]

Careful there. The troofers will not accept that argument. A WW 2 plane crashing into a battleship? Not on their watch!;)

Show the twoofers this pic
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3e/Hinsdale_APA-120_-_kamikaze.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3e/Hinsdale_APA-120_-_kamikaze.jpg

[SallyBoy]

Show the twoofers this pic
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3e/Hinsdale_APA-120_-_kamikaze.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3e/Hinsdale_APA-120_-_kamikaze.jpg

They'll probably try to sound smart and knowledgeable about World war 2 by saying that "ALL" kamikaze planes were packed with explosives and that the explosive armor piercing bomb made that hole, not the plane, despites the fact that the impression mark left by the wings of the planes suggests that a plane did indeed penetrated the battleship's hull.

[X]

It appearz to be spanglish.
Men--males
tio-- uncle
en--becomes or becoming
Men are becoming uncles... Where is the conspiracy?


Wrong translation.

Try Latlish.

[fezzic]

Careful there. The troofers will not accept that argument. A WW 2 plane crashing into a battleship? Not on their watch!;)

Show the twoofers this pic
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3e/Hinsdale_APA-120_-_kamikaze.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3e/Hinsdale_APA-120_-_kamikaze.jpg


Before this goes for too long, I'd thought I'd point out that the Hinsdale is not a battleship (BB) but an amphibious attack? transport (APA). :)

[beachnut]

Not to mention that aircrafts are designed to be able to withstand such extreme amount of force and pressure when going over 500 MPH at high altitude. I think the troofer no planeners are confusing Aluminum as light but durable metal with light and easily breakable like aluminum paper. Kind of like newer designs of bulletproof vests are getting lighter and more durable. Light does not always means easily breakable like the troofers probably thinking of.

The kinetic energy at impact for the two planes equal to 1,300 and 2,093 pounds of TNT.

That is enough energy to enter the shell, and destroy 6 and 11 core columns.

If they say the WTC was designed for an airliner impact, they are right. Robertson did the work and used a 707 landing, low on fuel, lost in the fog. This impact was equal to 187 pounds of TNT.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/impactenergywtc.jpg

Have them present data showing the shell can with stand this energy and stop the planes. Numbers, math, physics, and engineering.

[Minadin]

Doesn't the high speed Rail gun prototype use aluminum rounds with no warhead whatsoever to destroy targets with kinetic energy alone?

[gumboot]

The best reminder, I find, is the Kamikaze aircraft that hit the USS Enterprise on May 14, 1945. The aircraft, a lightweight A6M Zero, penetrated the Enterprise's steel flight deck, armoured steel hanger deck, and a further four decks below this before the 500lb bomb it carried exploded.

[PhantomWolf]

Someone might correct me if I'm wrong here, but I have a feeling that the wooden flightdecks actually held up better to the Kamakazie strikes than the steel ones did.

[gumboot]

Someone might correct me if I'm wrong here, but I have a feeling that the wooden flightdecks actually held up better to the Kamakazie strikes than the steel ones did.


It was more a case of ship design. The British ships had armour decks and the deck was considered part of the structure. American carriers had armour at the hangar level, and the hangar and flight deck were considered part of the superstructure. Many (but not all) American carriers also had wooden decks (easy to repair).

The advantage of the American approach was it allowed you to carry many more fighters, and the events of WW2 demonstrated that fighters proved vastly more effective protection against kamikazes than armour did.

Ironically, the primary reasons British ships fared better against Kamikazes was because the low number of fighters made them less of a threat and thus less important targets, and because of smaller numbers of aircraft they also carried less fuel and ammunition.

However this worked against the British in the end because the Kamikaze strikes tended to cause more damage to the overall ship structure due to twisting and distortion, and did not survive long post-war whereas the American ships that suffered Kamikaze strikes suffered deck and hangar damage, but the main structure remained unharmed.

[Pinch]

Sallyboy,

Start throwing out these facts and watch them start to sputter and stutter and go into an apoplectic fit.

A loaded 767-200 traveling at 500 MPH packs 2.83*10^9 Joules of energy. The definition of a “joule” varies, but an easy one to remember is it is the work done to produce power of one watt continuously for one second. So, think about the number that results when you take 2.83 times 10 to the 9th power. That’s a whole lot of energy! 2 billion, 830 million joules.

The Boeing 787, the latest state-of-the-art aircraft these days has 15% of its unloaded weight (approx. 240,000 lbs total, so 15% would be 36,000 lbs) made up of titanium and 10% (24,000 lbs) made up of steel. That is 30 tons of dense, heavy and extremely strong material right there Accelerate that to 750 feet per second and I challenge any piece of steel to withstand the impact.

Anytime someone brings up the old “aluminum airplane” canard and throw that and this at them:

Titanium Metals Corporation's Annual Report of 2004 estimates titanium content of modern airliners to be 58, 43, and 18 tonnes for the Boeing 777, 747 and 737 respectively. While for the Airbus, 24, 17 and 12 tonnes of titanium are used for the A340, A330 and A320 respectively. Generally, newer models use more and widebodies use the most. For the newest models, the 787 might use 91 tonnes and the A380 77 tonnes. The engines account for 10-11 tonnes of those totals.

Link here (http://www.gemdreamz.com/jewelry_learn_titanium_about.php)

Wing spars, engines, engine mounts, firewalls, mounting brackets, bulkheads, etc are all made of heavy dense materials.

Challenge them to still say a titanium and steel mass weighing however many tonnes (58 or 43 or 18 or 24 or 17 or 12 or 91 or 77 - take your pick, since I'm sure the "no plane" argument would apply even if it were a Boeing 777 or 747 or 737 or an Airbus had hit the towers) traveling at 475 knots would bounce off a steel-framed building.

Then stand back and laugh.

Laugh a bit more when you point out the steel at the heights where the planes impacted was made up of 3/8" steel plating with a 14" box beam providing the support immediately behind it. THEN ask what is going to win - a 100 ton jet flying at 500 mph or a latticework of 3/8" steel?

It all has to do with mass and speed and acceleration as well as the make-up of the objects, in this case a 200,000 lb aircraft with between 12% and 25% of it dense, incredibly strong titanium and steel (meaning there was upwards of 25,000-50,000 pounds of dense, strong materials, NOT just aluminum, traveling at 725 feet per second) on the one end and a mostly-open air building with comparatively narrow steel beam construction framework tied together with rivets on the other. The speed and mass of the aircraft will hit the wall, tear through that narrow construction beams, break most of them (with the exception of some of the outermost beams), be torn into a million pieces with much of the wreckage gradually slowing down from the initial 490 mph as it piles up against the central core and the opposite wall with some pieces making all the way through the obstacles on the floor(s) and exiting out the other side.

[CurtC]

So they didn't have to cut the steel. They just had to shear the rivets in the joints.
Even in that video, when they show the hole that flight 11 made in the North Tower, you see clearly where the wings sliced through the perimeter columns instead of taking out whole sections. The video concentrates on where the fuselage hit, and I agree that the whole sections were taken out, but the wings clearly sliced through. Note that the shiny cladding was missing in longer sections, but that's just facade - the dull steel columns were definitely sliced through.

[MRC_Hans]

This is one argument I was not able to defend, no matter what. The CT folks brings a good but stupid question and I don't know how to answer to that other than to say that there is nothing in between the core and the outer steel shell other than office spaces.

The CT folks' argument is a plane is aluminum, no matter what. The outer face of the WTC are steel, therefore the plane should have crumble upon impact and should have never entered the buildings.


My debunk defenses is the planes are 100,000 tons object traveling at over 500 mph into steel exoskeleton structure that are about a forearm length in thickness and that there was large open office spaces in between. That it would be like saying a wooden pencil is weaker than a raw harden potato and that with enough momentum and force, the pencil can and will penetrate the tough potato.

They still refuses to listen to the logic of physic and I don't know what else can I say at a scientific level. I am no physic, but I have enough common sense, logic and a general knowledge of physics to understand what happened on 9/11.

Excuse me for going back the answering the OP. There are a lot of very good answers here already, but I think things need to be kept wewy wewy simple when dealing with truthers, so:

1) The alloys of aluminum used in aircraft construction are, pund for pound, considerably stronger than steel. (Otherwise they would make planes out of the much cheaper steel)

2) A baseball is much softer than glass, but you can still bat it through a window pane, leaving a nice round hole.

Hans

[NobbyNobbs]

Yep. These are the people who claims that it was a missile instead. I asked them how can a missile can penetrate the steel. They tell me it was bunker buster missiles. Surely the towers would have fallen right away if a bunker buster were to be use.

I think the record embedded in a wooden log and the bullet holes on the steel piece would help me a lot.

Oh and I should mention that the individual I've gotten into the argument with about this whole issue, managed to manipulated what I said, just like his heroes who created Loose Change. The things I said about the potato and pencil argument, I said to use raw hard potato. The lad replied back to me that a pencil is stronger than "SOFT" potato.

Even better than a pencil is using a soda straw. Place your finger over the one end, to close it off, and puncture the raw potato with the other end.

Even someone who thinks a pencil is stronger than a potato can't really refute the demonstration of a flimsy tube of plastic filled with air going through it.

And now that I think about it, that's a pretty accurate analogy. An airplane is basically a tube of flimsy material filled with (mostly) air.

[funk de fino]

Show them a video of someone being thrown through the widnscreen of a car during a smash.

[GregoryUrich]

This is a difficult phenomena to explain if the person doesn't understand physics. How about the karate guys breaking cinder-blocks with their bare hands?

I they do understand physics...did anyone mention momentum transfer yet? I'm too lazy to check.

[cyclonic]

Even in that video, when they show the hole that flight 11 made in the North Tower, you see clearly where the wings sliced through the perimeter columns instead of taking out whole sections. The video concentrates on where the fuselage hit, and I agree that the whole sections were taken out, but the wings clearly sliced through. Note that the shiny cladding was missing in longer sections, but that's just facade - the dull steel columns were definitely sliced through.

Yes you are correct,
the aircraft fuselage punching out sectoins of columns and although the engines hit the floor slabs (both engines appear to emit a cloud of concrete dust) they seem to be pushed back or are breaking off the wings, allowing the wings to keep their momentum and slice through the steel.
this is why the aircraft doesn't appear to slow down as it enters the tower,
the wing fixed leading-edges of the 767 were supplied by boeing military aircraft, what they are made from is classified.
, http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jawa/boeing_767.shtml

[chillzero]

Even better than a pencil is using a soda straw. Place your finger over the one end, to close it off, and puncture the raw potato with the other end.

Even someone who thinks a pencil is stronger than a potato can't really refute the demonstration of a flimsy tube of plastic filled with air going through it.

And now that I think about it, that's a pretty accurate analogy. An airplane is basically a tube of flimsy material filled with (mostly) air.

I like the idea of getting them to hold up a finger, and slicing the top off with a single sheet of paper.

[leftysergeant]

I like the idea of getting them to hold up a finger, and slicing the top off with a single sheet of paper.

Watch it now. you don't want some twoofer suing you for personal injury because you suggested that experiment.

One of these days, perhaps I should put together a video of how I once threw a condom through a glass window to introduced an incendiary device into a room without entering the building.

Or do I want twoofers learning how to commit arson without being caught?

[Mince]

F=MA

KE=1/2*mass*velocity^2


Oh wait, truthers won't get that. Tell them the magical physics fairy made it happen.

[Zipster]

sections of outer columns were pushed inside by the airplane as the connecting bolts broke.
this video made for a truther explains it well.


That is an excellent video! I was wondering how they got those outer column pieces attached to each other. Never thought about the bolts shearing before...

Excuse me for going back the answering the OP. There are a lot of very good answers here already, but I think things need to be kept wewy wewy simple when dealing with truthers, so:

1) The alloys of aluminum used in aircraft construction are, pund for pound, considerably stronger than steel. (Otherwise they would make planes out of the much cheaper steel)

2) A baseball is much softer than glass, but you can still bat it through a window pane, leaving a nice round hole.

Hans

Exactly! Most aircraft are made out of 7075 aluminum. If it's numbers they're looking for, look up the yield strength of 7075 and compare it to the steel used in the impact area. There are lots of metals handbooks out there (ASME, ANSI, etc.). You'll find that the 7075 will have a higher yield strength than the steel.

Also, steel is brittle, meaning that once it reaches its yield strength, it just snaps. It doesn't plastically deform that much before breaking. Aluminum, on the other hand, will plastically deform a lot before it breaks (and thus absorb more energy). So as the aluminum airframe hits the steel columns, it'll deform and pile up (whatever survives the thermal reaction of a high-speed impact) in front of the steel and continue exerting force onto it until the steel breaks.

[ULTIMA1]

You'll find that the 7075 will have a higher yield strength than the steel.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage.

[Zipster]

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage.

Haha, this article again. Are you just posting it or have you got some actual numbers to back that up?

Do you have the layout of the Boeings with all their frames' structural loads analysis?

So you're telling me that the intricate loading paths that aerospace engineers create by the way all the beams and frames are attached have no bearing whatsoever? That the mass of the aircraft as a whole has nothing to do with it whatsoever?

Have you seen an earlier post where a member showed a picture of a 1/4" steel plate that was penetrated by lead bullets? Lead is softer than steel. In your apparent infinite metallurgy wisdom, explain that to me.

[ULTIMA1]

Haha, this article again. Are you just posting it or have you got some actual numbers to back that up?

Do you have evidence that these engineers are wrong? If not then the article stands.

[Corsair 115]

Considering that water, if accelerated to a high enough speed, can easily slice through steel, I fail to see why a fast-moving and relatively massive aircraft would have any difficulty in penetrating steel beams.

Heck, you can find examples of WWII piston-engined aircraft (Japanese kamikazes to be precise) piercing the steel hulls of various U.S. Navy ships.

[Zipster]

Do you have evidence that these engineers are wrong? If not then the article stands.

Which is why most of the aircraft ended up getting destroyed. But clearly there is a giant, gapping hole in the side of the building where a 757 just moments before flew into.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? What will it take before you accept that an airplane can do that kind of damage to a building? Do I need to have one flown into a mock replica of a floor or two before you'll accept it? Some might take a bit more time than others to get. Like the loads analysis. It'll require me to get employment at Boeing first. Even then I'll be going to jail for posting proprietary information on a public forum.

Also, I'm going to use this precident and hold you to it as well. If I come up with an article that states something and you cannot provide evidence against it, then my article stands as well. Deal?

[ULTIMA1]

Heck, you can find examples of WWII piston-engined aircraft (Japanese kamikazes to be precise) piercing the steel hulls of various U.S. Navy ships.


Actaully you are only partially correct, only the engine of the plane was strong enough to pierce the hull. I can also show photos.

[ULTIMA1]

Also, I'm going to use this precident and hold you to it as well. If I come up with an article that states something and you cannot provide evidence against it, then my article stands as well. Deal?

Sure thats how adult discussions are done.

[Corsair 115]

Actaully you are only partially correct, only the engine of the plane was strong enough to pierce the hull. I can also show photos.The aircraft still penetrated, didn't it? That's what counts.

Also, compare the relative mass and speed of a typical Japanese aircraft to that of a commerical jetliner, then plug in those values into the equation for kinetic energy (KE=½mv²). What's the difference in energy?

[Zipster]

I want to point something out to you ULTIMA, and get your thoughts. Now, in the article, they state the the "individual metal component that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage".

This is generally true. The keel beams are the biggest individual components that hold all of the frames together.

But did those engineers consider how the load of the impact was channeled through the 757 airframe as a whole? The sum of its parts are a lot stronger than an individual component.

Also, the engineers also agree with me and others here that the aluminum still did break through the steel structure. It's in the sentence following the one you posted:

"While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall..."

So the question of whether or not aluminum can destroy steel has been answered. Yes, if the aluminum object is massive enough and traveling at a high enough rate of speed.

[ULTIMA1]

The aircraft still penetrated, didn't it? That's what counts.


No only the engine did. Now try to compare somthing more close to what happened on 9/11.

[ULTIMA1]

"While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall..."

Why don't you finish that sentence.

...the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.

[Zipster]

Why don't you finish that sentence.

...the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.

Yes, but that's not the point of this thread. The OP wanted to know how the planes were able to enter the towers.

"How do I explains to the CT folks why planes were able to enter the towers?"

Does the engineer(s) who wrote the article you linked to state that the 757 destroyed a number of the outer columns and thus, logically, were able to enter the towers. YES or NO?

[Caustic Logic]

The engines weren't made of aluminum. The landing gear wasn't made of aluminum.

Holy crap, I misread and thought this was about the Pentagon. Not thinking it would have penetrated the towers is quite retarded. :boggled:

Best answer yet.

[ULTIMA1]

Yes, but that's not the point of this thread. The OP wanted to know how the planes were able to enter the towers.
?

The point is you just quoted what you wanted becasue it agreed with you, but the rest of the sentence disagreed.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by Drudgewire
The engines weren't made of aluminum. The landing gear wasn't made of aluminum.

But the landing gear were up inside the plane at the towers and only 1 witness stated they were lowered at the Pentagon.

[Travis]

Yes, but that's not the point of this thread. The OP wanted to know how the planes were able to enter the towers.

"How do I explains to the CT folks why planes were able to enter the towers?"

Does the engineer(s) who wrote the article you linked to state that the 757 destroyed a number of the outer columns and thus, logically, were able to enter the towers. YES or NO?

Minor quibble, flights AA11 and U175 were 767's.

[Caustic Logic]

But the landing gear were up inside the plane at the towers and only 1 witness stated they were lowered at the Pentagon.

Alright, one nibble. This is a funny argument. Or if not an argument, a funny leading non-sequitur.

Here's the concept in metaphor, broken down simple: Pillow case. Bowling ball inside it. Swung at your head. Does it matter much whether the ball is sticking out of the cloth or fully encased?

Call the metaphor as flawed as you like, it's actually pretty good if not perfect. I win, the end. Peace.

[CptColumbo]

An experiment I always mention, when this comes up, is to take two soda (or beer if you are of legal age) cans. Empty one and throw it as hard as you can at your front window, then (and you need to do it in this order) take the full one and throw it with equal velocity at the same window. Note the differences.

[Zipster]

The point is you just quoted what you wanted becasue it agreed with you, but the rest of the sentence disagreed.

Yes, the first part agrees with me. The second half is irrelevant to the OP's question. Never did he ask if the towers remained standing directly after the impact.

Again, his question was: "How do I explains to the CT folk why planes were able to enter the towers?", not "How do I explains to the CT folk why the towers didn't fall right after the impact". I will use one of your favorite lines: "Please learn to read before you post".

So in your eyes, the engineers are disagreeing in the same paper and even the same sentence?

Minor quibble, flights AA11 and U175 were 767's.

Ah yes, my mistake. It was 3 am when I posted that...

[ULTIMA1]

Alright, one nibble. This is a funny argument. Or if not an argument, a funny leading non-sequitur.


Well then you should be able to explain how the landing gear casued damage when they were inside the plane.

[ULTIMA1]

Yes, the first part agrees with me. .


Just be adult enough to admit the second part proved you wrong., we can all see it.

[Zipster]

Just be adult enough to admit the second part proved you wrong., we can all see it.

How does the second part prove me wrong? The engineers openly stated that the aircraft destroyed sections of the outer perimeter columns, thus allowing the airplane to enter the towers.

Show me how the second part of that sentence shows that the airplane didn't enter the towers. All it says is that after entering the towers, the impact dissipated in energy. Which is to be expected.

I once again point you to the earlier post of a lead bullet going through 1/4" steel plate. Please tell me how you think that should be impossible.

[ULTIMA1]

I once again point you to the earlier post of a lead bullet going through 1/4" steel plate.


That is so funny, since when is a airliner like a bullet?

I can show photos of aircraft thin aluminum being destroyed by hitting obsticles.

[Zipster]

That is so funny, since when is a airliner like a bullet?

Please tell me you're joking...

Airplanes and bullets are alike in that:

1. The same laws of aerodynamics apply to each of them (can't get around this one no matter what you argue)
2. They are both objects of mass traveling at high velocity
3. The both have a streamlined shape to lower drag, thus at high velocities, increases the amount of kinetic energy in the even of an impact
4. Are both usually made of metal
5. Both require a source of energy to propel them to a certain velocity
6. If said source of energy is depleted, both will start to drop towards the ground
7. Like a bullet, an aircraft's mass and material strength must be balanced to achieve the desired outcome (i.e. flight over a distance)
8. Upon impact with an object, both will transfer kinetic energy into said object
9. Both will deform during the impact

Should I go on?

And I can show you pictures of steel beams being wrapped around trees by nothing more than the force of wind moving at velocities much lower than that of the aircraft.

[ULTIMA1]

And I can show you pictures of steel beams being wrapped around trees by nothing more than the force of wind moving at velocities much lower than that of the aircraft.

And i can show photos of holes in planes casued by small birds at low speeds.
Showing how fragile the aluminum airframe is. It would not go thtough steel or all the sectiosn of the Pentsagon as we are told.

[1337m4n]

And i can show photos of holes in planes casued by small birds at low speeds.
Showing how fragile the aluminum airframe is. It would not go thtough steel or all the sectiosn of the Pentsagon as we are told.

By your "logic", since air is weaker than stone, wood, or steel, hurricanes shouldn't be capable of damaging anything.

This is stupid.

[Zipster]

And i can show photos of holes in planes casued by small birds at low speeds.
Showing how fragile the aluminum airframe is. It would not go thtough steel or all the sectiosn of the Pentsagon as we are told.

Let me correct you there. The skin of the airplane. Not the airframe as a whole.

[ULTIMA1]

Let me correct you there. The skin of the airplane. Not the airframe as a whole.

No these birds when through areas in the airframe.

[Zipster]

http://christopherjburns.com/Bird%20strike%2008OCT06%20(1).jpg
http://christopherjburns.com/Bird%20strike%2008OCT06%20(2).jpg
http://birdslap.com/bird%2520strike%25202.jpg

Pictures from Iraq of what appears to be one of my company's toughly built BLACK HAWKS (if no one minds the shameless company plug :D Go Sikorsky!) surviving a bird strike.

Strike of PHL on Saturday Sept. 29 2007 with Boeing 737-700 of AirTran Tail # N149AT:
http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v105/124/99/37612620/n37612620_32575860_4935.jpg

Clean up (looks like the airframe is completely intact):
http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v105/124/99/37612620/n37612620_32575863_5622.jpg

Good as new!
http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v105/124/99/37612620/n37612620_32575859_4610.jpg

So as shown, aircraft can clearly survive bird strikes. We build them tough!

Here's a good one of a bird against the canopy of an F-16. Cracked, but didn't go through! Bet the pilot created his own mess!
http://www.lacobla.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/f16_after_bird_strike.jpg

Here's a close-up of the nose cone (most likely composite) after a strike. Looks like the airframe behind it's intact:
http://www.dontdumponwilliston.org/images/bird-v-plane.jpg

[ULTIMA1]

So as shown, aircraft can clearly survive bird strikes. We build them tough!

Well i never stated they could not survive a birdstrike. I stated small birds can put holes in the thin aluminum airframe at even slow speeds, as these photos show of a 767.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird3.jpg?t=1223137278

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird1.jpg?t=1223137409

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird4.jpg?t=1223137459

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird5.jpg?t=1223137489

[beachnut]

Well i never stated they could not survive a birdstrike. I stated small birds can put holes in the thin aluminum airframe at even slow speeds, as these photos show of a 767.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird3.jpg?t=1223137278

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird1.jpg?t=1223137409

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird4.jpg?t=1223137459

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird5.jpg?t=1223137489You never do include the facts, speeds please.
Please present the speed in each incident. Go ahead. But this means what for 9/11. Can't explain that?

The impact energy of the planes on 9/11 can do what we saw to say otherwise is pure junk science and lies.

So if you want to ignore physics and make up stories about impact energy without calculating said energy; do it; expose your ignorance on physics, math, and engineering. After all it is what you do, make up false conclusions based on your ignorance of the topic.

[Zipster]

[EDIT:] Removed because of a server hiccup in the posting. See comments below.

[Zipster]

1. Nope, only see skin damage. No photographic evidence of airframe damage underneath.

2. Still skin only damage.

3. I can see what might be a rib, but it looks like it's still intact.

4. Still skin only damage.

Yep, ULTIMA, that airplane sure as hell looks like it's taken quite the beating and will fall apart at any moment. Haha!

I will admit that bird strikes can poke holes in the skin of an aircraft, but that's one of the thinnest pieces of metal. It can be as thin as .010" in some non-critical places. You would need quite a large bird to start damaging the actual airframe itself (or a lucky strike).

But out of those 4 pictures, I haven't seen proof that the airframe itself was damaged under the skin. As you may have noticed, the punctures only occur in the areas where there is no airframe riveted to the other side of the skin. Maybe you can highlight the damaged frames?

I'm sure the repair facility just logged the strike, removed the skin panels, cleaned up and inspected the inside and then placed a new panel in its place. Most likely up and flying as we're posting!

[rwguinn]

Those have to be all faked!
A bird is much softer than aluminum, therefore it could not POSSIBLY penetrate aluminum at any speed.
[/troofer]

[beachnut]

Well then you should be able to explain how the landing gear casued damage when they were inside the plane.
That is the dumbest statement yet.

Do you want to retract this statement? Very dumb statement.

[X]

Well i never stated they could not survive a birdstrike. I stated small birds can put holes in the thin aluminum airframe at even slow speeds, as these photos show of a 767.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird3.jpg?t=1223137278

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird1.jpg?t=1223137409

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird4.jpg?t=1223137459

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/aircraft/767-bird5.jpg?t=1223137489



That's the skin, not the airframe.

[beachnut]

Those have to be all faked!
A bird is much softer than aluminum, therefore it could not POSSIBLY penetrate aluminum at any speed.
[/troofer]

That is true he is arguing the Al can't do it. So a bird can't do it.

He is an NSA analyst, so he is using the "talk is everything" mode of winning arguments and spreading woo.

[ULTIMA1]

You never do include the facts,

Gee talk about the pot calling the kettle

speeds please.

Speed for this 767 was normal takeoff speed of about 180 MPH.

But this means what for 9/11. Can't explain that?

It shows that the thin aluminum airframe could not have made its way through the heavy steel of the towers or all the sections of the Pentagon.

[ULTIMA1]

;4097781']That's the skin, not the airframe.


You might want to look cloaser at some of the photos.

[Grizzly Bear]

It shows that the thin aluminum airframe could not have made its way through the heavy steel of the towers or all the sections of the Pentagon.

Momentum (P=mv)

You might want to study that

[ULTIMA1]

I will admit that bird strikes can poke holes in the skin of an aircraft, but that's one of the thinnest pieces of metal.


You mean like the thin aluminum skin of the wings and the thin wings that were supposed to have made it through the heavey steel of the towers, and the reinforced wall of the Pentagon?

Also you do know that the nose is composite and would have been destroyed on impact at the towers and the Pentagon, not making a hole?

[Zipster]

Those have to be all faked!
A bird is much softer than aluminum, therefore it could not POSSIBLY penetrate aluminum at any speed.
[/troofer]

That's the ironic part. The more he posts pictures like these, the more he's just proving that with kinetic energy, a softer material can penetrate a harder one with no problems.

Good to see that others here with common sense have pick up on this.

You mean like the thin aluminum skin of the wings and the thin wings that were supposed to have made it through the heavey steel of the towers, and the reinforced wall of the Pentagon?

Also you do know that the nose is composite and would have been destroyed on impact at the towers and the Pentagon, not making a hole?

Where to begin... The wings have fuel in them, correct? We all know what an unstoppable force liquids are. And if you have taken any fluids course in your life, you would know that a liquid is generally considered incompressible. Proof of this is any hydraulic system like a car lift. There really isn't that much oil in the cylinder under the car, but pump some more into it and a 2 ton car easily lifts up into the air. I digress...

Up until the point of the skin and the tanks finally giving away (and even a bit after), the momentum of the fluid imparted onto the wall / steel beam is essentially like having a solid mass (what's the weight of 10,000+ gallons of Jet A?) strike the wall / steel beam.

Why do you think some of those big round construction tanks (for a lack of a better term) are filled with water? A few of those can easily stop a car dead in its tracks but then dissipates the energy.


As for the nose cone, sure, I believe that it would have crumpled during the impact. The nose cone is only a fairing meant to reduce aerodynamic effects (I would go off on this, but I'm sure I would make your head explode with my explanation). The bulkhead that it's attached to usually is a fairly hefty solid component. Not to mention that the keel beams are directly attached to this bulkhead as well. As you've stated, it's equivalent to structural steel (even though it's still aluminum). I'm sure you obviously know that it's laid down parallel to the direction of the airplane's travel. It's designed to take loads going forward and aft and will take a considerably stronger force to buckle (compress) it than if the load was applied perpendicular to the beam (college Statics 101).

The load is acting against what is essentially the entire length of the airplane. What do you think will win? A steel beam a few inches thick, or an equivalent aluminum beam about 100' "thick"?

An easy example. Take a paper clip and apply the force perpendicular to the length and it easily bends, yes? Now try to bend a new one by compressing it. Chances are, it'll require much more pressure to get it to bend.

What you essentially have is a 350,000 pound ramming rod that's reinforced at the head and in the direction of the impact, traveling at a high rate of speed. The forward bulkhead and the (usually two) keel beams act as knives to puncture whatever's ahead of them.

[ULTIMA1]

Momentum (P=mv)

You might want to study that

You might want to study the hardness and density of the materials, like thin aluminum vs. heavy steel.

[ULTIMA1]

Good to see that others here with common sense have pick up on this.

Thats ironic, sense most people on here do not have the basic common sense to see the things that were wrong on 9/11.

[Grizzly Bear]

You might want to study the hardness and density of the materials, like thin aluminum vs. heavy steel.

I'm well aware of it. See below

You mean like the thin aluminum skin of the wings and the thin wings that were supposed to have made it through the heavey steel of the towers, and the reinforced wall of the Pentagon?

Also you do know that the nose is composite and would have been destroyed on impact at the towers and the Pentagon, not making a hole?

A bird that hits a plane at 400 mph doesn't survive, let alone remain recognizable, yet due to the net momentum on impact the bird can punch through the skin of the plane. In a few cases bird collisions have damaged the engines. The same is true for the plane, the plane was destroyed as it impacted the tower, however there was sufficient momentum to overcome the strength of the perimeter column welds. You don't seem familiar with the concept

[beachnut]

Speed for this 767 was normal takeoff speed of about 180 MPH.

It shows that the thin aluminum airframe could not have made its way through the heavy steel of the towers or all the sections of the Pentagon.
Prove the speed was 180 mph. Source for the photo.

What is your end goal. Two 767s did impact the WTC and entered the building and did the damage. Your quibbling is not producing much.

[twinstead]

Oh great. ULTIMA1 is an aviation and building expert now.

[twinstead]

Thats ironic, sense most people on here do not have the basic common sense to see the things that were wrong on 9/11.

BS. It's not most people here; it's MOST PEOPLE period. You're looking at the event through huge coke bottle personal incredulity glasses, and anybody who dares to come to a different conclusion than you on an issue is just lacking in common sense.

It's almost as if you think we haven't had dozens of folks just like that come on this forum and announce how they are brilliant investigators and how we are just mindless sheep and how once they release their rock-solid evidence that is coming any day now we'll all bow down to the truth movement.

I don't think so.

[ULTIMA1]

What is your end goal. Two 767s did impact the WTC and entered the building and did the damage. Your quibbling is not producing much.

But the planes would not have caused much damge, as several reports and articles state due to the fact that the thin aluminum airframe would have been shredded by the heavy steel.

[ULTIMA1]

You're looking at the event through huge coke bottle personal incredulity glasses, and anybody who dares to come to a different conclusion than you on an issue is just lacking in common sense.
.

I am looking at the event through research, facts and evidence. Something you and others fail at.

[Tomblvd]

I am looking at the event through research, facts and evidence. Something you and others fail at.

Could you describe in detail the structure of the forward wing section of the 767?

[Zipster]

Please see my explanation to all this in Post #92.

Guys, let me know if this makes sense. I will gladly add to it.

And ULTIMA, I did study the hardness and density of aluminums to steels in college and at work. In the modern aviation age, most aluminums win. I believe the 7075 and 7085 series and above aluminums are just as hard as steel, but are much lighter.

[Grizzly Bear]

I am looking at the event through research, facts and evidence. Something you and others fail at.

Your claims indicate otherwise...

[beachnut]

But the planes would not have caused much damge, as several reports and articles state due to the fact that the thin aluminum airframe would have been shredded by the heavy steel.
You are wrong. You have no clue, stop before you expose more ignorance on this topic.

11 severed the exterior column inward, not outward like you CD lies want! Your ideas are indicative of a bad investigator and someone who has zero physics.

11 damaged the exterior, and 6 core column destroyed.

175 damage the exterior and 10 core column destroyed.

If you knew physics you would see that 11 had 1300 pounds of TNT KE, and 175 had 2093 pounds of TNT energy. This is 7 and 11 times more energy than Robertson designed impact, and is proportional to the core columns and exterior damage sustained.

You know you want to use RDX to do 9/11, but it is just a GAS, how can a gas damage a steel column? How can it do it? You are so full of bs I have to call 48 hrs to expose the NSA for hiring people who can't figure out simple physics.

Why do you have problems with physics and engineering.

This one statement prove you have no grasp of physics and your post of bird strikes is ironic, as you have flesh and blood beating aluminum, killing engines, and damaging structures in planes.

I flew jet in the USAF and bird strikes at high speed do major damage to the structure of planes. But planes have also cut cables for cable cars and kill people. The wing cut a cable holing a cable car and the planes landed safely .

So you lack skills in critical thinking and physics. You could use some work on connecting the dots too.



You should have done some math to figure out you have no clue.

[ULTIMA1]

You are wrong. You have no clue, stop before you expose more ignorance on this topic. ]

Proving you wrong with evidence from engineers.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.

[beachnut]

You might want to study the hardness and density of the materials, like thin aluminum vs. heavy steel.

An aluminum plane entered a steel building. You better check your lack of physics low level light. You are an analyst at the NSA? Which gate do you work at?

[Zipster]

Proving you wrong with evidence from engineers.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.

Your highlighted passage still states that columns were lost.

[Grizzly Bear]

Proving you wrong with evidence from engineers.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.

The redundancy of the structure is why the building remained standing despite the impact, however it looks like n bring that obvious matter up, you just debunked yourself... see bold :rolleyes:

[Tomblvd]

Proving you wrong with evidence from engineers.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.

What, exactly, caused those columns to be lost?

[beachnut]

Proving you wrong with evidence from engineers.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.

You can't read.
11 damaged the exterior, and 6 core column destroyed.

175 damage the exterior and 10 core column destroyed.


You said 11 and 175 did not do the damage they did. You are still wrong.

6 of 47 and 10 of 47 are not a lot, and the paper is right you are just wrong thinking the planes did little damage.

If you are trying to say the destruction of the WTC took explosives or more energy than fire alone you are wrong and just exposing your ignorance. You are now supporting me by presenting papers that support my position, you are not good at this you are not an engineer.


Thanks for proving me right, keep up the massive research non-understanding as your own sources refute your conclusions, you fail to make.

[njslim]

But the planes would not have caused much damge, as several reports and articles state due to the fact that the thin aluminum airframe would have been shredded by the heavy steel.

Been over this before in another forum - while skin of aircraft is light gauge aluminium
what is underneath is not. Keel beam, the heaviest and strongest part of an aircraft,
jet engines, landing gear, wing spars and ribs are very massive and built of high
strenght alloys. Analogy is wrapping baseball bat in tin foil (quite appropriate) and then
whacking something with it. While tin foil is easily damaged the bat will inflict
considerable damage to what it hits. Now if you want can arrange a demonstration
after I beat your silly butt with tin foil wrapped bat can render opinion on matter....

[Zipster]

Been over this before in another forum - while skin of aircraft is light gauge aluminium
what is underneath is not. Keel beam, the heaviest and strongest part of an aircraft,
jet engines, landing gear, wing spars and ribs are very massive and built of high
strenght alloys. Analogy is wrapping baseball bat in tin foil (quite appropriate) and then
whacking something with it. While tin foil is easily damaged the bat will inflict
considerable damage to what it hits. Now if you want can arrange a demonstration
after I beat your silly butt with tin foil wrapped bat can render opinion on matter....

I think it would be a more appropriate demonstration if we shot that aluminum-wrapped bat out of an air cannon at him and see how much devastation "only a few" broken bones can cause. If he's right, then only 15 (a small fraction of the 200+ adult bones) broken bones in his chest should not cause major destruction.

Maybe he'll get it then... But probably not.

[ULTIMA1]

You can't read.

Been over this before in another forum - while skin of aircraft is light gauge aluminium
....

You have failed again to post evidence from a source to debate the evidence i have posted.

WHY IS THAT?

[Tomblvd]

You have failed again to post evidence from a source to debate the evidence i have posted.

WHY IS THAT?

Your own source says this:

the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.

It admits that the impact of the planes did take out a number of columns.

So what are you arguing?

[ULTIMA1]

your own source says this:
It admits that the impact of the planes did take out a number of columns.

Exterior collumns but not as many as the official story would have you believe, or enough to cause the collapse.

[Tomblvd]

Exterior collumns but not as many as the official story would have you believe, or enough to cause the collapse.


We aren't discussing collapse. The OP wants to know how the plane could have entered the towers.

You said the plane would not have gone through the perimeter columns, and, as evidence, you give us a link that states categorically that a number of columns were indeed lost on impact with the plane.

So what are you saying?

[funk de fino]

You might want to study the hardness and density of the materials, like thin aluminum vs. heavy steel.

This is another pointer to the fact that you are not and never have been a crewchief in the USAF. You know jack about aircraft.

Does dad know you are placing his papers all over the net and pretending to be him?

[ULTIMA1]

You said the plane would not have gone through the perimeter columns, and, as evidence, you give us a link that states categorically that a number of columns were indeed lost on impact with the plane. ?


But not that many columns. Meaning the plane was shreded by the collumns and did not go through the collumns.

[ULTIMA1]

Does dad know you are placing his papers all over the net and pretending to be him?


Does mom and dad know you are playing on the internet?

I mean we know you are too immature to prove my documents i posted worng.

[beachnut]

Exterior collumns but not as many as the official story would have you believe, or enough to cause the collapse.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/11realdumbstuffagain.jpg
You are wrong again, by simple research. How can you make such giant research errors. Look, see, the posts are pushed in! Due to an impact of a jet, going 470 mph with the Kinetic Energy of 1300 pounds of TNT! Bet you wish you understood physics now. Did you make fun of nerds in school carrying those physics and chemistry books? - Got physics?

[Tomblvd]

But not that many columns. Meaning the plane was shreded by the collumns and did not go through the collumns.

You were just saying how much stronger steel was than aluminum, so the plane couldn't have cut any columns.

Now you move the goalposts back and say there weren't "that many".

As I said, the OP is regarding how the plane could have appeared to disappear into the building. Your admission essentially confirms what everyone else is saying, that there was enough kinetic energy in the impact to cut through a number of columns, allowing the plane to completely enter the building.

[funk de fino]

Does mom and dad know you are playing on the internet?

I mean we know you are too immature to prove my documents i posted worng.

You arguments, your attitude, your terrible spelling, your lack of comprehension of simple posts, your lack of judgment and logic all prove that the claims you have made of who and what you are, are impossible.

There is no way someone who was a crewchief in the USAF and who then was a police officer for 12 years, and then got a job in the NSA, would act like you. It looks like you are Roger and Kathy's young son.

[JohnG]

ULTIMA1: Why are you ignoring the perfectly valid point that several people here have brought up, namely that your 'bird vs. plane' analogy does nothing to support your problems regarding 'plane vs. building'...unless you are somehow trying to suggest that aluminum is the weakest, flimsiest substance on earth?

Are you just ignoring this point out of stubbornness and embarrassment, or do you truly not see the disconnect?

[ULTIMA1]

You were just saying how much stronger steel was than aluminum, so the plane couldn't have cut any columns.



Are you kidding? i have posted facts and evidence. Why can't you accept or understand it

[ULTIMA1]

ULTIMA1: unless you are somehow trying to suggest that aluminum is the weakest, flimsiest substance on earth?
?


Well aluminum is weak, specailly thin aluminum going against heavy steel beams.

Is it really that hard to understand?

[JohnG]

Well aluminum is weak, specailly thin aluminum going against heavy steel beams.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Weaker than the skin of a bird??

[ULTIMA1]

Weaker than the skin of a bird??

I guess you do not undertand about size and impact area. I thought you beleivers were supposed to be up on all the physics stuff?

I mean which do you think would penatrate a building more, a airliner or a fighter?

[Tomblvd]

Are you kidding? i have posted facts and evidence. Why can't you accept or understand it

And your evidence specifically states:

the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.

That means that the flimsy aluminum plane cut those nearly indestructible steel beams, which you said couldn't happen.

You own "proof" disproves your point.

[ULTIMA1]

That means that the flimsy aluminum plane cut those nearly indestructible steel beams, which you said couldn't happen.


I never stated it cound not happen, i stated again and agian and have proven, if you would read post that the damage was not as much as the official story states.

[Zipster]

If aluminum is as flimsy as you say it is, ULTIMA, then why does the aviation industry continue to soar ahead (pun intented?) by using different tempers of the metal?

Surely this data sheet from one of the largest producers of aluminum and other metals will give you some insight into its strength.

http://www.alcoa.com/mill_products/catalog/pdf/alloy7075techsheet.pdf

See the T651 temper there? Up to 538 ksi tensile strength!

I guess you'll be giving up all forms of air travel huh?

[Tomblvd]

I never stated it cound not happen, i stated again and agian and have proven, if you would read post that the damage was not as much as the official story states.


Heh. You should invest in wheels for that goalpost.

The OP is clairfying why the plane could be seen to enter the building, thanks for supporting the point that it had enough kinetic energy to sever the columns enough to allow the plane to disappear into the building.

[ULTIMA1]

If aluminum is as flimsy as you say it is, ULTIMA, then why does the aviation industry continue to soar ahead (pun intented?) by using different tempers of the metal?
?


Becasue of it properties, why else?

Was that really that hard to figure out?

[Zipster]

Becasue of it properties, why else?

Was that really that hard to figure out?

Then I will take that as your admission that aluminum can be superior to steel in the aviation world.

[JohnG]

I guess you do not undertand about size and impact area. I thought you beleivers were supposed to be up on all the physics stuff?

Actually everything I know about physics could fit quite comfortably on the back of a cocktail napkin, with room to spare for my knowledge of engineering, but I know a logical inconsistency when I see one.

I can sort of sympathize with you, though. There was a time when I fancied myself an expert on all sorts of things. For instance I considered myself a fully trained Paramedic because I faithfully watched the show EMERGENCY! Then again I was six years old at the time, so such shameless arrogance is perhaps forgivable.

What's your excuse?

[funk de fino]

Well aluminum is weak, specailly thin aluminum going against heavy steel beams.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Not all parts of an aircraft are aluminium though are they?

How about you tell all the good folks here about all the titanium parts and steel parts that are used in the construction of an aircraft and just how strong the wing spars actually are?

[Zipster]

Not all parts of an aircraft are aluminium though are they?

How about you tell all the good folks here about all the titanium parts and steel parts that are used in the construction of an aircraft and just how strong the wing spars actually are?

You beat me to it! Don't get your hopes up too high. ULTIMA seems to hold steel and titanium as exclusive to military aircraft.

Of course, he's never designed or built an aircraft before.

[Tomblvd]

You beat me to it! Don't get your hopes up too high. ULTIMA seems to hold steel and titanium as exclusive to military aircraft.

Of course, he's never designed or built an aircraft before..

Indeed.

You notice he studiously avoided answering my question regarding the structure of the forward wing section of the 767.

He hasn't a clue how tremendously well-built and reinforced that part of the plane is.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Heh. You should invest in wheels for that goalpost.

The OP is clairfying why the plane could be seen to enter the building, thanks for supporting the point that it had enough kinetic energy to sever the columns enough to allow the plane to disappear into the building.


Then at what point did the plane get shredded into little tiny bits as to remove the sprayed on fireproofing like NIST tried to recreate with a shotgun blast?

Did the outer columns shred the plane?

Or did the plane rip thorough the outer columns?

And what was left to damage the center columns?

[Mr. Skinny]

Then at what point did the plane get shredded into little tiny bits as to remove the sprayed on fireproofing like NIST tried to recreate with a shotgun blast?
Well, I'm not much of a researcher, but off the top of my head, you have a great amount of force impacting the towers, and every piece of the aircraft is interacting with every part of the tower it comes in contact with in a somewhat chaotic way.

Did the outer columns shred the plane?
In part. I imagine some larger pieces of the fuselage broke throught the outer cladding and the wings severed some columns, destroying the wing partially or fully in the process. I'd imagine that every piece of the airplane and every piece of wallboard, electrical wire, plumbing, office furniture, etc. interacted such that there were lots of bits and pieces of everything being destroyed as the energy was absorbed.
Or did the plane rip thorough the outer columns?
Both. The plane ripped through the outer columns, as evidenced by the hole it left. The columns also undoubtly ripped into the plane.

And what was left to damage the center columns?
Perhaps larger portions of the fuselage, but I can only speculate. I guess "remaining force" is the only real answer I could offer without looking at what the experts said. Isn't there a Purdue University study speculating on this?

You also need to recall that a huge jet fuel explosion occured at the moment of the crash, imparting another energy input other than the F=MA equation.

Bottom line is, I can't answer your question from memory but needless to say, a lot of energy hit those buildings in a short amount causing a chaotic situation that can't be perfectly modeled.

I'll let some of my betters in structural engineering an physics correct me if I'm wrong.

[bje]

I never stated it cound not happen,...

300 posts in 14 hours from Ultima1 on JREF.

Even I would say that cound not (sic) happen. Must be that damn :spam2 again.

[Seymour Butz]

There is no way someone who was a crewchief in the USAF and who then was a police officer for 12 years, and then got a job in the NSA, would act like you. It looks like you are Roger and Kathy's young son.

Oh, it's worse than you think.

He claims to have been a crew chief for an F-4 recon bird. And he also has claimed that the F-4 is mostly made of steel. He has no source or proof of this ludicrous claim, but in his delusional world, he believes that he has proven his point by showing that there was "some" steel in the F-4, a point that is not in question.

IOW, you're correct about his mommy and daddy.....

[Hokulele]

Well, I'm not much of a researcher, but off the top of my head, you have a great amount of force impacting the towers, and every piece of the aircraft is interacting with every part of the tower it comes in contact with in a somewhat chaotic way.


The SFRM was not the only material relied upon for fire protection. The ceiling tiles were also a part of the fire protection system, and NIST performed the shaking table studies to determine what the impacts could have/should have done to these, based on eyewitness testimony.

[pomeroo]

No these birds when through areas in the airframe.


Morgan Reynolds, the fraud guru of the deranged no-planers, ran away, tail between his legs, when I asked him to explain how a bird can damage a titanium fan blade. Care to try? If that one is too hard, you can always tell us how a karateka manages to break a brick with his hand.

Has it occurred to you that the best efforts of the no-planers will always crash (you should pardon the expression) against the reality that planes did hit the Twin Towers?

[Mr. Skinny]

The SFRM was not the only material relied upon for fire protection. The ceiling tiles were also a part of the fire protection system, and NIST performed the shaking table studies to determine what the impacts could have/should have done to these, based on eyewitness testimony.
Yeah, it's a very complex situation. With much of the passive fire protection compromised, and the active fire protection (sprinkler system) destroyed or compromised, it's no suprise to me that there was sufficient fuel for the fires to weaken the steel.

I often get tired of hearing the "ordinary office fire" comment as a dismissive hand-wave. Ordinary offices can have a pretty high load of combustibles.

[Hokulele]

Yeah, it's a very complex situation. With much of the passive fire protection compromised, and the active fire protection (sprinkler system) destroyed or compromised, it's no suprise to me that there was sufficient fuel for the fires to weaken the steel.

I often get tired of hearing the "ordinary office fire" comment as a dismissive hand-wave. Ordinary offices can have a pretty high load of combustibles.


True, for WTC 1 & 2 as well as WTC7.

[Gavron]

same here...

Ordinary office fire, with temps so high...people jumped to their deaths. Yeah, they never seem to explain that little part. If the fires were dying out or not that big, why were people still jumping to their deaths right up until the collapses.

[AJM8125]

Yeah, it's a very complex situation. With much of the passive fire protection compromised, and the active fire protection (sprinkler system) destroyed or compromised, it's no suprise to me that there was sufficient fuel for the fires to weaken the steel.

I often get tired of hearing the "ordinary office fire" comment as a dismissive hand-wave. Ordinary offices can have a pretty high load of combustibles.

Something else people don't realize is how much toxic and flammable chemicals and petroleum products are found in a typical high rise. My building purchases enough of these products to fill a 900 square foot storage room, twice weekly. I can only imagine what a WTC tower kept in stock.

Might be why some people got sick at ground zero too.

[Corsair 115]

No only the engine did. Last I checked, the engine is part of the aircraft. Unless there are engines flying around the skies all by themselves.

Now try to compare somthing more close to what happened on 9/11.Have you plugged in the relative mass and velocity figures into the kinetic energy equation yet?

[ULTIMA1]

Then I will take that as your admission that aluminum can be superior to steel in the aviation world.

NO you cannot take it as an admission. I have shown evidence (that you have not been able to debate) of the plane not causing much damage to the steel.

[ULTIMA1]

How about you tell all the good folks here about all the titanium parts and steel parts that are used in the construction of an aircraft and just how strong the wing spars actually are?

How about you admit that a airliner is about 90% aluminum and did not casue that much damage to the towers as proven.

And that the wings are not able to withstand hitting obsticels and usually shear off.

[ULTIMA1]

Oh, it's worse than you think.

He claims to have been a crew chief for an F-4 recon bird. ....

Please grow up and stop telling lies.

I have proven with documents my background and education, sorry if you are not mature or intelligent enough to figure that out.

I have also proven with facts and evidence that you cannot debate that the F-4 with engines is mostly made of steel.

STOP THE LIES.

[ULTIMA1]

Last I checked, the engine is part of the aircraft.
?

Yes it is part of the aircraft but not the whole aircraft.

Last time i checked an aircraft is made of more then just an engine.

[Zipster]

This is a sub-contractor that does machining work for Boeing showing off a piece that they make for the 767 (first one on the page):

http://www.roberts-eng.com/products_2

As proof and evidence shown, the rib assembly is made of 7075-T7351 temper aluminum alloy plate.

The following is the data sheet from Alcoa, a leading manufacturer of aluminum alloys on the 7075 series aluminum sheet and plate:

http://www.alcoa.com/mill_products/catalog/pdf/alloy7075techsheet.pdf

As you can see it has a tensile strength of 72 ksi, which easily rivals structural steel.

Enough evidence from my research there? And the company's contact information is right on the page, so you can go ahead and call them if you don't believe what's posted on their page.


Even more research:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2005)131:10(1066)

In this research paper (which looks like you have to pay to get it, but the abstract and quick results are shown), it states that "The minimum impact velocity of the aircraft to just penetrate the exterior columns would be 130 m/s (291 mph)". How fast was the 767 going when it impacted the WTC towers? Oh yes, that's right, much faster than 291 mph.

I also states that (what I will go out on a limb and assume) the thickness of the WTC beams have to be greater than 20 mm (.787 in) before the 767 fails to break through. Can anyone dredge up the specifications of the outer perimeter beams?

[ULTIMA1]

I also states that (what I will go out on a limb and assume)

Gee, more assumptions. Just like you assume the official story is correct ?

[Tomblvd]

Ultima, since you are ignoring my posts I'll post them again:

"The OP is clairfying why the plane could be seen to enter the building, thanks for supporting the point that it had enough kinetic energy to sever the columns enough to allow the plane to disappear into the building. "

After all, that is the essence of the OP, isn't it?

And have you got that description of the wing of the 767 yet? It's very enlightening.

[Tomblvd]

Then at what point did the plane get shredded into little tiny bits as to remove the sprayed on fireproofing like NIST tried to recreate with a shotgun blast?

The "shredding" began as it hit the face of the building. Certain parts of the plane, esp. the wing section, were torn apart as they tore through the metal curtain wall, while other parts broke through the rest of the largely glass face to impact further inside the building.

Did the outer columns shred the plane?

You do realize this isn't an either/or thing, don't you?

Or did the plane rip thorough the outer columns?

IBID

And what was left to damage the center columns?

Everything that remained once the plane crashed through the face of the building.

[ULTIMA1]

thanks for supporting the point that it had enough kinetic energy to sever the columns enough to allow the plane to disappear into the building. "


The planes did not sever the collumns enough to allow the plane to disappear. As stated and proven the planes did not casue much damage to the collumns.

The plane disappeared becasue it was basically shredded by the steel columns.

And have you got that description of the wing of the 767 yet?

Funny i know what the wing is made of and can show reports and photos of wings being sheared off by hitting obsticles, like a simple light pole.

[Tomblvd]

The planes did not sever the collumns enough to allow the plane to disappear. As stated and proven the planes did not casue much damage to the collumns.

The plane disappeared becasue it was basically shredded by the steel columns.

So the planes didn't disappear, but they disappeared? Nobody is claiming the wings were intact after hitting the columns, but as pictures clearly show, the impact of the plane was enough to shear bolts and otherwise push the wall in.

That is all that the OP is saying.

What, exactly, are you trying to say?



Funny i know what the wing is made of and can show reports and photos of wings being sheared off by hitting obsticles, like a simple light pole.

All I want is a description of the wing.

[Grizzly Bear]

The planes did not sever the columns enough to allow the plane to disappear.
The only part you got correct is that the planes did not "sever" the columns. Instead the weld connections were sheared apart. So not only is the plane smashing through the building's interior, the force is taking some of the columns that were taken out completely with it. I don't know what the jibberish you added to the end means but the plane was destroyed by the impact and would have been damaged beyond any kind of recognition.

[ULTIMA1]

What, exactly, are you trying to say?

I am stating the planes disappeared becasue they were shredded by the steel beams.

All I want is a description of the wing.

Gee, seems like you guys need me to do all the research for you.

[ULTIMA1]

. I don't know what the jibberish you added to the end means but the plane was destroyed by the impact and would have been damaged beyond any kind of recognition.

Well you agree with me. Maybe you should tell that to others on here that beleive the planes went all the way into the buildings.

[Zipster]

Gee, more assumptions. Just like you assume the official story is correct ?

I'm glad to see you're ignoring the facts and evidence I posted as usual. I assumed the thickness to be 20 mm because the that is the only logical explanation for it.

Would you like me to purchase the report (which is conducted by a grad student and professor at a reputable college)?

But take a look at this video. It's been posted towards the beginning of this thread (you know, the part you don't read before jumping into one):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbuEQpSNxiE

It includes undeniable footage of the construction of the towers and close-up pictures of the debris.

I'll repeat the explanation just for you (since everyone else here who's rational knows about it). The outer columns are not solid steel beams, but hollow "H" structures that have plate caps welded onto the tops. They are stacked in an offset pattern on top of each other and are bolted to the tops and bottoms of the "H"s above and below them (very important).

Against normal, everyday loads, this is fine. However, the fact that they are bolted like this creates a weak point at...you guessed it!...the bolt locations!

Since you're not an degreed engineer, ULTIMA, I'll try to explain it as simply as possible. The 767 did not have to cut the steel "H"s completely through. All it had to do was exert more force on the "H"s than the bolts can hold. It's called bolt shearing and is well known in the engineering world.

Since the 767 impact obviously exerted more force than the bolts could hold, it essentially bowled the "H"s over. As expected, the weak points in the interconnected "H" network failed. The bolts were never rated to hold out against an aircraft impact. The tower as a whole assembly can (and obviously did), but the fact is that the bolts could never hold against the impact.

The video will yield plenty of evidence of bolts that were sheared and bolts that failed from a tensile load. All consistant with the "H"s being toppled over and "yanking" the bolts out of their sockets.

As the video will show, the infamous picture of where the 767 entered had neat break lines around it. Why is that? It's because those are where one "H" was bolted to another "H".

Face it, the bolts failed and the 767 entered. I urge everyone to notice that ULTIMA will most likely not read my post, nor watch the video at all. He will just pick some part of my post that he can reply to with one of his many canned statements from his script or change the subject entirely. This is because he has no argument and cannot put up against mine.

[Tomblvd]

Well you agree with me. Maybe you should tell that to others on here that beleive the planes went all the way into the buildings.

All we are saying it that the sight of the plane "disappearing" into the building is to be expected, as stated in the original post. Your posts do nothing to disagree with that.

In addition, the evidence you pointed to (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html) states categorically that the impact and subsequent fires caused the collapse. Since you refer to this site as authoritative, can we safely say that you agree that the planes were responsible for the collapse?

[ULTIMA1]

states categorically that the impact and subsequent fires caused the collapse. ?

Why do you have to twist posts? You guys are really good at trying to do anythign you can to keep from accepting the facts.

I think you better read it again, It states the planes impacts did not casue that much damage and the fire was the prime reason for the collaspe.

[Grizzly Bear]

Well you agree with me. Maybe you should tell that to others on here that beleive the planes went all the way into the buildings.

The planes did end up "all the way inside the buildings," But they were also destroyed beyond recognition in the process... the planes obviously didn't survive but that didn't stop them from reaping havoc all over the interior

[Grizzly Bear]

Why do you have to twist posts? You guys are really good at trying to do anythign you can to keep from accepting the facts.

I think you better read it again, It states the planes impacts did not casue that much damage and the fire was the prime reason for the collaspe.

Still not seeing where it supports you... If the impacts alone were enough to initiate collapse then allot more than 3,000 people would have been killed. So no, the impacts didn't initiate collapse but they did serve as a contributor by damaging or destroying structural members both on the exterior and the interior. The fires only exasperated the problem by weakening structural members even further

[Zipster]

This is proof positive that ULTIMA only sees what he wants to see. He'll go into a whole article, mine the quotes that support him, and then use that as his "proof". Even though the article itself as a whole comes to a conclusion that doesn't support his view.

What he's going after is the source of the articles to try and make his "argument" (rather than debate, since that's all he's doing) seem legitimate (I'm sure all of you guys have noticed this by now). That mined quote from a reputable source agrees with him, so voila, he's got his "evidence".

Even if we point out that the article concludes something different than what he's already made up in his mind, he'll cite the mined quote again and refuse to listen.

[Tomblvd]

Why do you have to twist posts? You guys are really good at trying to do anythign you can to keep from accepting the facts.

Oh dear God.

I think you better read it again, It states the planes impacts did not casue that much damage and the fire was the prime reason for the collaspe.


Here is exactly what I wrote:


In addition, the evidence you pointed to (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html) states categorically that the impact and subsequent fires caused the collapse.

I can't believe that your reading comprehension is that bad, you must be trolling.

But I'll ask again. Since you have given us a link that you claim (by quoting as evidence) to be authoritative, and since the link clearly states the impact of the planes were responsible for the fires that caused the collapes, do you acknowledge that planes crashing into the towers were responsible for their collapse?

[ULTIMA1]

Still not seeing where it supports you... If the impacts alone were enough to initiate collapse then allot more than 3,000 people would have been killed. So no, the impacts didn't initiate collapse but they did serve as a contributor by damaging or destroying structural members both on the exterior and the interior. The fires only exasperated the problem by weakening structural members even further


Well you might want to research just a little more.

Since the second plane hit the South tower at an angle through the side of the building it casued little damage to the interior of the building.

Here is some more information for you.

http://jnocook.net/texts/wtcfire.htm
Using CAD simulations Tony Fitzpatric of Arup America determined that it took a direct hit by the engines shaft at 200 mph to punch through one steel H column and box columns are stronger than H columns and the interior core columns were stronger than the exterior perimeter columns. The planes would have been shredded passing through the perimeter columns, possibly taking out a few, and the number of interior core columns destroyed would have been much less. When the B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945 the fire damaged several steel beams but the impact did not take out one steel column.

[ULTIMA1]

do you acknowledge that planes crashing into the towers were responsible for their collapse?


NO I DO NOT.

The source clearly states that the fire was the prime cause of the collapse.

Please read the post above with more information on the beam damage.

[Tomblvd]

NO I DO NOT.

The source clearly states that the fire was the prime cause of the collapse.

Please read the post above with more information on the beam damage.

OK, let's try again:

"But I'll ask again. Since you have given us a link that you claim (by quoting as evidence) to be authoritative, and since the link clearly states the impact of the planes were responsible for the fires that caused the collapes, do you acknowledge that planes crashing into the towers and causing the subsequent fires were responsible for their collapse? "

[Grizzly Bear]

Well you might want to research just a little more.

Since the second plane hit the South tower at an angle through the side of the building it casued little damage to the interior of the building.

Nah it only hit 15 floors lower than the one in the north tower, and the damaged region had to support double the loads. Damage similar to the north tower, but much worse as location goes. The lower impact location is also the reason for the south tower collapsing first. I do however believe your source says it best:

I believe the intensity of the fire (as it relates to building collapse) was comparable to a heavy ordinary combustible fire after the explosion dissipated much of the jet fuel. According to Francis Brannigan author of "Building Construction for the Fire Service", temperatures in excess of 2000 degrees are the rule in severe fires. The average person has no idea of the temperatures which can be reached in a quite ordinary fire.(Brannigan 1971, p245). The heat output of an interior fire is limited, by the amount of air reaching the combustibles and the smoke produced. In the standard furnace tests used to determine the collapse-resistance of building components, authorities switched from oil fires to natural gas since; The smoke emitted by the fire at times seriously interferes with the transfer of heat by radiant energy within the fire building. Test fires use smokeless natural gas, so radiant heat transfer is important in tests.(Brannigan p206). A jet fuel fire would produce great quantities of smoke, which would reduce the radiant heat energy entering structural components. According to G. Charles Clifton HERA structural engineer, speaking of the fires in the Towers; In my opinion, based on available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-story fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be.(Elaboration..., p5)

My point is that given the inadequate partial sprinkler system, the use of lightweight long-span steel bar joists, deficient fireproofing on the steel, and large open areas undivided by fire walls, any uncontrolled large area fire would have eventually produced the same total collapse. The importance of early fire control, to save lives by prevention of collapse in most ordinary constructed buildings is generally not appreciated even by engineers. Many years ago hard experience had taught the Fire Dept. that when the fire was beyond their control in the old brick and joist, first generation high-rise buildings the fire forces were withdrawn and the fire fought from the outside in anticipation of collapse and preparations begun to limit fire spread to exposures. The whole concept of the second generation fireproof buildings was that fires could be fought from the inside without the danger of collapse until all the occupants could be removed and the fire extinguished. Heavy reliance (was placed) on the integrity of the building, its design and its systems. (OHagan p 145, 149). Consideration of collapse in fire proof resistive buildings has not been of critical importance, until now.

Instead of the columns failing first, I believe the weakest link was the long-span, open web, steel bar joists. The position of these joists, over the fire and the small-diameter steel elements of these joists would allow them to heat up to the failure temperature, (approximately 1100 degrees F.), much more rapidly than the massive columns which would act as a heat sink and conduct some heat away.




When the B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945 the fire damaged several steel beams but the impact did not take out one steel column.

Your source does mention this but there's plenty to keep in mind trying to compare the ESB to the twin towers, size of the plane, severity of the fires, speed of the plane, and reiforced concrete construction all come to mind with that one.

[Zipster]

http://jnocook.net/texts/wtcfire.htm
Using CAD simulations Tony Fitzpatric of Arup America determined that it took a direct hit by the engines shaft at 200 mph to punch through one steel H column ...

Weren't the 767s traveling much faster than that?

... and box columns are stronger than H columns and the interior core columns were stronger than the exterior perimeter columns. The planes would have been shredded passing through the perimeter columns, possibly taking out a few, and the number of interior core columns destroyed would have been much less.

So your article agrees that perimeter and a few interior core columns would have been destroyed. Nowhere does it state that no columns were destroyed. Thanks for continuing to provide evidence that the 767s were indeed able to penetrate into the towers!

When the B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945 the fire damaged several steel beams but the impact did not take out one steel column.

See Grizzly Bear's comment above.

[Travis]

There is no way the plane would have folded up like an accordion. Even if Ultima1 was correct, and he is not, in that the steel columns couldn't be severed the plane would have just squeezed through the openings in between them and would have still entered the building with a lot of force and fires would have still started on multiple floors with no water to fight them and the buildings would still have collapsed.

A plane hitting that building at 600mph is going to get inside it one way or another and the end results would be the same.

[Tomblvd]

Perhaps we can call this thread closed?

The OP asked this:

This is one argument I was not able to defend, no matter what. The CT folks brings a good but stupid question and I don't know how to answer to that other than to say that there is nothing in between the core and the outer steel shell other than office spaces.

The CT folks' argument is a plane is aluminum, no matter what. The outer face of the WTC are steel, therefore the plane should have crumble upon impact and should have never entered the buildings.

It seems to me that everyone in the thread, including Ultima, agrees that the planes would have passed through the face of the building, crashing into the interior. While there is disagreement as to how much of the plane remained and how much damage it could have done after the initial impact, there seems to be complete agreement that the planes did enter the building as seen.

[Corsair 115]

When the B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945 the fire damaged several steel beams but the impact did not take out one steel column.And what are the specification differences between a B-25 Mitchell bomber and a Boeing 767?

[Gavron]

The differences are staggering: size, weight, fuel capacity, speed, everything.

Migt as well be comparing apples to chainsaws.

[Zipster]

Haha! I like how you put that Gavron!

But yes, everyone in this thread agrees through a variety of methods that a 767 can and will easily make it through.

I second the vote to close this thread. I think we've completely overkilled the topic.

[Travis]

Haha! I like how you put that Gavron!

But yes, everyone in this thread agrees through a variety of methods that a 767 can and will easily make it through.

I second the vote to close this thread. I think we've completely overkilled the topic.

I don't know. I think Ultima1 is trying to lead this down the path to hologram trickery or something. Why else make such a fuss over aluminum vs steel?

[Minadin]

Ultima - what do you think would happen to the building you're in RIGHT NOW if a 10,000 gallo water balloon slammed into it at 500 mph?

[Dave Rogers]

I never stated it cound not happen, i stated again and agian and have proven, if you would read post that the damage was not as much as the official story states.

This is a very dishonest claim. How many columns does "the official story" claim were severed, and what is your source from "the official story" that gives this number? Since your source only states that the number of columns severed "was not large", please state what is a large number and what a not-large number in this context, quoting your sources. Having done this, we can evaluate whether there is any difference in the two damage estimates. Otherwise we'll all be forced to conclude that your presentation of evidence is solely for the purpose of misrepresentation.

Dave

[MRC_Hans]

And i can show photos of holes in planes casued by small birds at low speeds.
Showing how fragile the aluminum airframe is. It would not go thtough steel or all the sectiosn of the Pentsagon as we are told.This has probably already been mopped up, but still:

First of all, please produce evidence of an airframe seriously damaged by a birdstrike.

Then make up your mind: Can an object with high relative velocity penetrate into another object, in spite being of inferiour structural strenght?

Or do you want to claim that a bird is structurally stronger than an airliner?

If you want to claim that a bird can penetrate into a metal aircraft (and we all know they can), then how can you claim that an aircraft cannot penetrate into a building?

Hans