Still image from a plane hitting a brick wall

[Flatulo]

This post is to address the contention that any plane that would have struck the WTC towers would not have simply disappeared into the building but would have displayed some sort of highly visible signs of damage to the structure *outside* of the contact region, ie, wings or verticle stabilizer flying off, fuselage crumpling etc.

This is a widely seen video of an F4 Phantom being launched into a solid brick wall. The plane absolutely disintegrates as the collison progresses.

Yet if you grab a frame of the fuselage after the nose has contacted the wall, you can see that the structure looks to be very much intact even as the nose section is 'disappearing' into the wall. The fuselage appears to be perfectly straight and the wings and verticle stabilizer aren't flying off or deforming. The airframe looks like it simply disappears into the wall.

As the plane just contacts the wall...



and another as the wall is well into the cockpit region...

[piobair]

1. Why do you wanna harsh the no planers buzz? n/t

[Parche]

2. Pic

But an F4 is not a 767-200 or a 757-200 :hi:

[Ghost in the Machine]

3. True...

and the tower walls weren't solid concrete, either...

This is comparing apples to oranges and trying to convince someone else you're talking about bananas..

[hack89]

4. So a small plane can penetrate a concrete wall

jet a large one won't penetrate a thin aluminum and steel one? OK

[Ghost in the Machine]

6. Would you like to try that again in english?

What I'm saying is that the planes would not act the same, because they are totally different in design, length, width, etc., and the objects they hit are totally different in composition, density, etc.

Think of it like this... you have a solid concrete wall and an aluminum can. If you can launch the can at the solid wall at 200 mph, the can is going to smash into itself, right?

Now, do the same experiment by launching that can at wall that is only some concrete columns, interspersed with some steel columns and lots of glass... unless the can hits solid in only the solid concrete area, it's not going to react or absorb the impact in the same way. The can also has the potential of being shredded by the glass, and by being cut into pieces by the smaller steel and concrete columns.

Do you grasp what I'm trying to say?

[greyl]

8. "Jet" should be "yet".

A letter might be wrong, but it's a much more sensible post than yours.

[hack89]

9. My point is that what happened to the WTC

is what you would expect to see - a heavier, faster object penetrating a less robust structure. I would expect it to penetrate intact - once the hole is made there is nothing to obstruct the remaining length of the plane.

[Ghost in the Machine]

10. Ok, I can buy into the hole and the "remaining *length* of the plane"..

But what about the wing span? What is it, 122 fett? 126 feet? How many support columns of concrete *and* steel were there in that amount of space on the building? You don't think that if the wing caught a column 15 to 20 feet from the tip it wouldn't have just sheared the tip of the wing off?

Oh, and please don't think I'm arguing for a no planes theory, that's absurd, imho... but I *am* a little amazed by the way the plane appears to slice through the building like a hot knife through soft butter.

Believe me, I've seen firsthand some wild stuff that can happen at high speeds during hurricane andrew. I had an orange that was penetrated through with a piece of straw from a broom. I saw grass embedded in concrete and wood. I saw a 2x4 stuck through a silver palm tree 25 to 30 feet in the air...

Bottom line though: An F4 Phantom hitting a solid brick wall is no comparison to a 757 or 767 hitting a glass, steel & concrete wall, right?

[Flatulo]

11. No concrete used in the perimeter columns, just 3/8" steel box

construction of around 14" deep.

[Ghost in the Machine]

12. Thanks for the correction...

so can we agree that an F4 Phantom smashing into a solid brick wall bears no relationship at all to a 757 or 767 smashing into a steel & glass building?

Someone also stated that the "small plane penetrated the solid wall", which is not true.. at least by the two pictures shown in the OP...

[AZCat]

13. It bears a significant relationship in this case.

The F-4 test validated software later used in the NIST investigation (and the results can be seen in the Purdue animations). The laws of physics were the same for both situations.

[Ghost in the Machine]

15. If the laws of physics were the same, wouldn't the plane that hit the tower

disintegrate against the glass without penetrating, as the F4 does with the concrete wall?

There is absolutely NOTHING of significance in comparing total disintegration upon impact with total penetration upon impact. The F4 pictures look like an experiment of "irresistable force meets immovable object", where the plane in the tower looks like "taking the path of least resistance"..

Again... apple, meet orange...

[AZCat]

16. It appears you misunderstand.

Perhaps you should read my fucking post first (the whole thing, not just the last line) next time before responding.

[Ghost in the Machine]

18. Maybe it's you who misunderstands...

BTW, I read your "fucking post first (the whole thing, not just the last line)" before responding, but didn't feel a need to express my happiness that this test validated some piece of software because it did what it was supposed to do.

YAY! The code was written right!! :party: :toast:

Feel better now? I hope so, because the F4 crashing into a solid brick retaining wall bears no resemblance to a 757 or 767 crashing into a glass and steel structure. That's just something you're gonna have to bite the bullet on and admit, or continue to make yourself look foolish.

It's your choice... but choose wisely

[AZCat]

19. And you fucked it up again.

Why don't you try reading up on FEA and how it was used in the investigation, particularly in regards to the impact of the aircraft on the structure? Maybe then you won't have these problems anymore.

[Ghost in the Machine]

21. Please tell me, in your own words...

the difference between "disintegration upon impact" and "penetration upon impact".

Which part are you having trouble with?

[AZCat]

22. You really don't understand, do you?

This is fucking pointless. Why don't you people ever go fucking educate yourselves before posting?

[Ghost in the Machine]

23. It's only pointless because you can't answer the question honestly

without having to confess that you're wrong or that you're deliberately pushing disinformation. Your argument simply does not hold up. Period.

How could anyone think that this F4 hitting solid, steel reinforced concrete and disintegrating upon impact, without penetrating, be exactly the same as a plane penetrating a glass and steel structure and slicing through it, 100% intact??

If you can't see the difference, I can't say anything to you any more that will help.

I'd say you need to educate yourself first, before you worry about anyone else. You obviously have no grasp on physics, logic, deduction or critical thinking. You've failed to answer a very simple question.. one that a 10th grader should be able to answer....

Again, what is the difference between "disintegration" and "penetration" upon impact, and how are the same laws of physics in effect?

Here's you a little exercise: Throw a hardboiled egg at a solid concrete wall and record the results. Now throw another hardboiled egg at a plate glass window and record those results.

Let's see what you got, Mr. Educated Man, since you seem to think you're sooooo educated... I'll bett it's more of the same as what you've *always* got... empty rhetoric, cursing diatribes.... and NOTHING of any substance...

Prove me wrong...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

24. You'll never get an honest answer from AZCat...

...but I'll guarantee you this, he always gets the last word -- and that means he wins the argument in case you didn't know.

[AZCat]

30. Says the same person...

who makes a career out of sidestepping my questions.

[AZCat]

29. It's not my job to educate you.

If you can't figure out what I'm saying then it's you who has problems, not me. Maybe it would help if you actually read and tried to understand my posts. For example - where the fuck did I say that I thought the two cases were "exactly the same"? Only a fucking idiot would say that. Go back and read my posts, then get back to me (I won't be holding my breath for an intelligent response).

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

37. Don't project your pathetic posting on to me. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

41. Thank Gawd! It shouldn't be your job to educate ANYONE, and hopefully it's not....

because you don't have a fucking clue as to what you're talking about. Your lame, pathetic attempt to backpedal isn't working either.

As I predicted, nothing of any substance in your reply. I can actually see the spittle flying from your lips as you angrily pound on your keyboard while typing your sanctimonius screed. Too bad it's total horse shit.

Are you now admitting to being an idiot? "For example - where the fuck did I say that I thought the two cases were "exactly the same"? Only a fucking idiot would say that." Wasn't it *you* who said "the same laws of physics apply"? Why yes...yes it *was* you... but you were wrong, weren't you?

I'll give you one more time to answer, then it's off to the irrelevant bin with you, too.

Please explain, in your own words, how a 63 foot plane with a 38.63 foot wingspan smashing into a solid concrete wall and disintegrating upon impact uses the same laws of physics as a 176 foot plane with a 156 foot wingspan smashing into a glass and steel structure and achieving total penetration without disintegrating.

Lets go, Mr. Educated Man... it's time to put up or shut up. Answer the question, and save your spittle inducing, anger filled screeds for whomever you *usually* try to impress or intimidate with them... it doesn't work on me. I'll even make it easier on you... just tell me which "same laws of physics apply" to both scenarios, ok?

[AZCat]

45. That's just fucking stupid.

You really need some help understanding this. Saying that the laws of physics are the same for both examples is not equivalent to saying that the two cases are the same. I don't know how else to put it in order to simplify it. If you can't understand the difference then you're pretty much fucked for understanding anything else about the impacts.

[Ghost in the Machine]

53. More bloviating nonsense...

is that all you've got?

WHAT SAME LAW OF PHYSICS APPLIES TO BOTH SCENARIOS???

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION AND STOP YOUR INCESSANT BACK PEDALING, WHINING AND BLOVIATING.

"I don't know how else to put it in order to simplify it."

You don't "know how" because you CAN'T. You CAN'T because you're WRONG, but you're too proud or stubborn to ADMIT that you are wrong.

Now.. back up your assertion that the same laws of physics apply to both scenarios or be a man and admit that you were wrong and made a mistake..

Try posting something intelligent, informative, or at least relevant, ok? Just once? For me? Please?

Thanks....

[AZCat]

54. I can't believe you wrote that.

You're asking me to prove "that the same laws of physics apply to both scenarios"? Are you really that oblivious?

[greyl]

55. Do you think he knows we're all communicating with the same alphabet? nt

[AZCat]

56. I'm not sure.

I'm genuinely shocked by his posts. That doesn't happen very often (anymore, at least).

[Ghost in the Machine]

58. Would *you* like to try to answer the question...

or do you prefer to just keep piping up with irrelevant asinine banter that you think is witty?

[Ghost in the Machine]

57. I can't believe you continue to try to hold on to your flawed thoughts or opinions..

Have you even *watched* the video that these stills were taken from?

Here, in case you haven't: http://youtube.com/watch?v=5r2rbhRY_ic

I'm still waiting on your words of wisdom that explain how the "same laws of physics apply" to total disintegration/atomization upon impact and total penetration without disintegration upon impact.

You *can* explain it, since you stated it... right?

Come on Mr Educated Man... I'm waiting on you. Show me what you've got.

[AZCat]

59. If you can't understand...

why the same laws of physics apply to both cases, then you're well beyond any help I could offer. You might want to check out books on rudimentary physics - there's this guy named "Newton" that you should probably be aware of. More importantly, do you really believe that there are different laws that apply to each scenario? That somehow the rules changed? Maybe conservation of energy is invalid, or have you decided that gravity doesn't work the same way? :eyes:

[Ghost in the Machine]

60. So, in other words, you have nothing.. right?

"If you can't understand...why the same laws of physics apply to both cases, then you're well beyond any help I could offer."

Yes, that sounds like "I can't back up my own bullshit" to me...


"More importantly, do you really believe that there are different laws that apply to each scenario? That somehow the rules changed?"

The important question is: Do *you* believe that total disintegration upon impact follows the same laws as total penetration upon impact?

You made the statement, it's up to you to back it up. Period. Once again, please show me how you came to this conclusion.

Here's a refresher for you of the facts:

We have two still pictures from a video showing a plane, traveling at 500mph, disintegrating upon impact with a solid concrete wall. If you watched the video I linked to, you will notice that the plane did NOT penetrate the wall. Period. You will also notice a large debris cloud surrounding the impact point, and a fireball.

Next we have video of a plane penetrating upon impact with a glass and steel structure. There was no glass debris flying upon impact, nor was there a fireball until the plane totally penetrated.

Again, please explain how the "same laws of physics apply" to both of these scenarios.

Thanks...

[greyl]

62. How many (basic) laws of science do you think there are? nt

[AZCat]

63. I am amazed...

that you think the laws of physics are different. This really blows my mind.

I'm sitting here at my desk. If I reach over, grab a quarter from my jar and flip it in the air, guess what? The behavior of the quarter is governed by the same laws of physics as the two aircraft and the object they impacted. If I grab a penny instead, it also is governed by the same laws. Dime? Same thing. The laws don't fucking change.

Yes, the two impacts are different. Why wouldn't they be? The objects involved in each collision are different, the behaviors highly chaotic, and the initial conditions different. This doesn't change the laws of physics, no matter how unbelievable you find the results of the impacts.

[Ghost in the Machine]

64. You're actually arguing with a "what goes up, must come down" theory??

What in the bloody hell does flipping a coin in the air have to do with planes impacting buildings?? My ribs hurt from laughing...

Let me be clear on something here... you *do* realize that I'm discussing the impacts themselves, NOT whether the plane crumpled or not... right?

[AZCat]

66. It has everything to do with it.

I'm not surprised you fail to understand my point.

[Ghost in the Machine]

75. It has nothing to do with it.

I'm not surprised you fail to answer my question again.

[AZCat]

77. I answered your fucking question a long time ago.

You just refuse to pay attention.

[Ghost in the Machine]

92. No you didn't, so stop your fucking lying and obfuscating

[AZCat]

96. Just because you either won't or can't understand my answer...

doesn't mean it didn't happen. Hopefully those with half a brain will go back and read this subthread, after which they will realize that you have no fucking clue.

[Ghost in the Machine]

97. Bloviating bullshit from a blowhard is NOT an answer, except maybe in your own mind..

Anyone who reads through this subthread will see that that's all you've done. You bloviate, you twist, you spin... but you DO NOT answer my question ANYWHERE. If you have, I DARE YOU to copy & paste it in your next bloviating reply...

Here's a clue for you, since you seem totally clueless: Repeatedly saying "I answered your question" IS NOT an answer to my question, nor is "you just don't understand", or any of your other lame attempts to make yourself look or feel superior. But in reality, that's all a blowhard has, isn't? Your bullshit doesn't fly with me, pal... answer the fucking question, Mr Educated Man... NOW!

Better yet... it's time to kick you to my "irrelevant bin", where you should be comfortable among a couple of your friends there.

One thing you should realize is that bloviating blowhards like you are just as bad for the OCTers side as the no-planers and directed energy beamers are to the Truthers side. You add NOTHING of any substance to a conversation. Period. You lie, spin, twist and make a lot of noise, but it gets you nowhere... kinda like a gerbil running on an exercise wheel.

Welcome to irrelevancy, AZCat. I'm sure you'll wallow in it proudly... I'm done with you, as I don't suffer fools lightly...

[Bolo Boffin]

98. In which example do you think the laws of physics were suspended, and why? n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

103. I never said I thought any laws were suspended, bolo..

AZCat made the claim that "the same laws of physics apply to both scenarios" regarding the plane impact(total disintegration/atomization) with a solid concrete wall in the video as they do with the plane that hit the tower(total penetration).

All I asked was "which laws of physics apply to both scenarios?"... and I asked because I DON'T KNOW, but want to understand. It seems AZCat cannot provide an answer.... unless you consider "I can grab a dime from a jar and flip it in the air, then do the same with a penny" to be an answer. To me, that looks like he's just trying to say "what goes up, must come down",... and that has absolutely NO relevance to this conversation, right?

As I have stated before, I am NOT a physics major, just so we have that out of the way again. You see, what I'm looking at is like this: the video of the test plane represents "irresistible force meets immovable object", the plane hitting the towers represents "mass in motion following the path of least resistance" and Mr AZCat wants to toss coins in the air to explain "what goes up, must come down"...

Maybe you can help clear this up for me? Please keep in mind, I'm talking about the impacts themselves, NOT whether the planes crumpled, deformed or broke apart. I can fully understand the point of the video, showing that a plane hitting a solid object didn't deform, crumple or break apart upon impact, so therefore *that* law should still be in effect with a much larger, much heavier plane hitting a structure that isn't solid...

During the impact in the test plane video, we see the plane totally disintegrating, but we also see concrete dust and disintegrated debris flying up in the air. The impact of the plane into the tower shows the plane totally penetrating, yet NO flying glass of debris until AFTER total penetration and the fireball explodes back out.

Again... what same laws of physics apply to both of these impacts?

Thanks in advance, bolo... I have to run to the store now, so I'll check for your answer when I get back. I know we haven't always agreed in the past, but as I've said before.. I have given you your props a few times, and you do at least TRY to give intelligent answers to get someone to see things from your point of view...

PEACE!

Ghost

[AZCat]

107. I was going to put you on ignore...

but I'm glad I read this last post before I did that. I now understand what you were asking me, and where the confusion arose. It appears that you think my statement "The laws of physics were the same for both situations" implies there are different sets of physical laws for different conditions. This is not true. All events are subject to the same set of laws, regardless what is happening. My example of flipping change (which failed to communicate my point) is that the behavior of objects involved in any system must still be governed the same, whether a penny or a dime (or an F-4 or a 767) is the object. So the answer to your question "what same laws of physics apply to both of these impacts?" is all of them.

If you look at my first response to you (Post #13) we can see that I am commenting on the connection between the two cases: the F-4 impact test and the WTC impacts on September 11th. The purpose of the impact test (and several others, like the CID) was to improve software used in modelling precisely this sort of system - the collision of an aircraft with another object. Simulation software is effective because it can test scenarios that would otherwise be impossible, impractical, expensive, or risky. The software engineers are able to take the data collected from these various tests and develop a system where they can simulate events beyond those which were tested (i.e. switching aircraft, changing initial parameters). The NIST used a variant of this software in their investigation (later animated by Purdue). It's really not any different from what hundreds of thousands of other engineers do in lots of different fields.

Are the planes supposed to behave the same in these two cases No, of course not - the systems are different (even if they weren't, nonlinear systems frequently have different results for multiple iterations when the initial conditions are changed slightly, at least in the chaotic region). But the lessons learned from one case can be applied to the simulation of behavior of the second (again, because the rules aren't any different).


I hope this is a more acceptable response than my other posts, but surely you can see why I was getting irritated.

[Ghost in the Machine]

116. Well thank you...

I guess this can serve as lesson on communication for both of us, huh?

It's hard to get to the same destination when you're reading different pages of a map..

:hi:

[AZCat]

99. The definition of insanity...

is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results. Either you have refused to go back and read this subthread or you are incapable of understanding my answer, which I shouldn't have to provide twice. I won't be responding to you again.

[Make7]

169. My ribs hurt from laughing too. ( n/t )

[Flatulo]

33. I may not have made my point sufficiently clear...

The point of the post was *not* to show similitude to a 767 hitting a steel-framed structure.

The point was to address certain claims that a 767 hitting a steel-framed structure would show visible signs of deformation (wings falling off, fuselage crumpling, tail detaching) as the crash progressed, upon hitting the WTC towers.

The point was that an airfame hitting a much more substantial barrier than the WTC perimeter can be shown to undergo none of the deformations that were claimed to be required in the case of the WTC impacts.

[Ghost in the Machine]

42. Ok, I can understand your point you're making there, Flatulo..

Thanks for clearing that up...

PEACE!

Ghost

[Flatulo]

46. My fault - the OP may not have been clear enough. But thanks

for being reasonable and trying to understand my position. Some posters here are giving me chest pains.

I will always make every effort to be patient and reasonable with anyone, but when people (not you) deliberately avoid reading the post, and then go into attack mode without understanding what was said, it really gets me frosted.

[Ghost in the Machine]

61. Hey, thank you too, Flatulo, for being reasonable..

Like I said, I understand the point you're making about the plane not deforming on impact. I'm looking more at the impacts themselves though, and trying to establish the difference between total disintegration vs total penetration upon impact.

I'm just trying to get at this statement by someone else that "the same laws of physics apply" in both scenarios.

What is your thoughts on this?

PEACE!

Ghost

[Flatulo]

70. It's a semantic issue. AZcat means that the universe we live in

is governed by a number of immutable laws that apply to every problem. The outcome is not always the same, but the governing equations are.

It is entirely possible that the F4 would have penetrated a thinner wall of the same material, or a thicker wall of a lesser material.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

20. Funny how you always conveniently...

...forget any sourcing when you make BS claims like these -- why is that Flatulo?


Perhaps you should take a look at how the WTC towers were constructed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=193176&mesg_id=193334

[Flatulo]

27. Link to perimeter column construction...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

I've seen you refer to the WTC towers as "Steel-reinforced concrete buildings". This is disingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading at worst. The WTC towers were "Steel-framed" construction. The only concrete used, other than in the footing, was a very thin layer poured into pans in the floor trusses.

The Empire State Building used 50% more concrete by ratio than the WTC towers. This is why their design was so innovative.

Have you read the NIST report?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

32. And this is a perfect example of why sources always have to be...

...pried out of you. Here you cite a book written after 9-11 by someone with an agenda -- the original source of this information is conveniently not cited -- why is that? You might as well just say "the shills at Popular Mechanics told me so," any time you're asked to provide support for your BS, it would be just as credible.


When steel is embedded inside concrete, that's steel reinforced concrete.

From Wiki: If a material with high strength in tension, such as steel, is placed in concrete, then the composite material, reinforced concrete, resists compression but also bending, and other direct tensile actions.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_concrete



Perhaps you should have yet another look at how the WTC towers were constructed, and this time actually look at the thickness of the outer wall sections being placed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=193176&mesg_id=193334

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

38. Wow.

Take heart, Flatulo. We've all gone through the same process.

Nice line about the stool, though. :)

[Flatulo]

39. No, no, no, this guy is a new strain of stupid. He's a new species.

First he completely mis-reads the OP and attacks the contents which he dod not understand.

Then he claims that the WTC perimeter is made out of reinforced concrete.

I dispute this notion.

Then he asks for citations, which I provide, from a CT site no less.

The he attacks the citation, without even understanding where it comes from.

This kind of stupidity should be flash frozen and preserved for future generations to study.

[AZCat]

40. It's pretty typical of the "truth movement".

A lot of them get banned fairly quickly so you might not have seen this type before, but it is not uncommon. If you ever want to see a good example, look at the threads started by ex-DUer Christophera (here's one for reference). He's a first-class nutjob.

[Flatulo]

49. Well, I respect a lot of posters here who would call themselves 'Truthers'.

JackRiddler, noise, CGOWEN, Bryan Sacks and others come to mind as being very thorough and thoughtful in their posts.

I have a hard time with no-planers though.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. Jack and Bryan wouldn't call themselves truthers.

Just so you know.

[Flatulo]

51. Ah, they may consider it derogatory, which is understandable.

I'll refer to them as skeptics henceforth.

[AZCat]

52. No, not all those who disagree with us are bad.

Just a small handful, but the bad ones are verrrrry bad.

[hack89]

26. The simple answer is that it has to be possible

simply because it actually happened. We see the wings penetrate without breaking off - if you are not arguing for no planes then what are you arguing about? Did they use explosives to carefully cut out a plane size hole just before impact?

Read this paper - it is from MIT and describes the aircraft impact. It goes into great detail on how both the building and plane were designed and how both responded to the impact. Very good description of the forces involved.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf

This is real science.

[Ghost in the Machine]

43. Simple answers are sometimes the best ones, too...

We know it happened because we *saw* it happen... but it's still one of those "WTF did I just see?!?!" moments.

Your link wouldn't open for me... I'll try it again later though...

"if you are not arguing for no planes then what are you arguing about?"

I'm not arguing *about* anything... I'm asking questions so I can resolve it in my own mind. Like I said, I know it happened because I *saw* it happen... I just don't understand *how* it happened....

[Bassman66]

172. Shredded ...

The plane was ripped and pulled through in places, 43% of the building offered nearly no resistance because it was glass, but also there was enough momentum to break through the 1/4" steel plate as well.

[leftofthedial]

14. I don't see anything *penetrating* anything

I see plenty of debris "outside" the wall to account for the small section of the plane's nose that has made impact.

[wildbilln864]

153. yeppers!

and it has no massive steel columns to cut through like the towers did so what's point. :shrug:

[Realityhack]

173. Missing the point

The entire point of the OP was that the plane did NOT penetrate the wall.

The idea is:
Some people claim that the airframe of the aircraft would have rippled, and the wings and stabilizer would have snapped off if it hit something like the towers.
The video demonstrates that even when hitting something much harder than the towers a plane does not experience these affects.

Thus while people argue that the 'melting' into the building is impossible, the video shows that even against a solid berm you would expect a 'melting' like effect.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

17. Are you serious?...

...You really think that jet is penetrating the concrete wall? Absolutely incredible how naive some of you OCTers are.

Here's the video of this crash test that Flatulo didn't want you to see:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5r2rbhRY_ic

The reason he didn't want you to see it is because it's a real world test (as opposed to a fake video cartoon) and shows what actually happens when planes hit reinforced concrete -- they crash AGAINST it, not disappear into it.

OCT is a fairytale.

[Sweet Pea]

25. Finally...

Jeff says something I can agree with!

shows what actually happens when planes hit reinforced concrete

Exactly!

And how much of that same type reinforced concrete was in the 3/8" steel/14" box beamed walls of the WTC?

Second question, for everyone:

Suppose it had been an F-4 or some other military tactical jet instead of a 767 that had hit the WTC? Would the wings/tail/etc broken off upon impact?

[Ghost in the Machine]

44. Second question, for everyone:

"Suppose it had been an F-4 or some other military tactical jet instead of a 767 that had hit the WTC? Would the wings/tail/etc broken off upon impact?"

For me personally, I would have expected an F4 to penetrate the way the 767 did because of its design and because of it being a much smaller plane.

F4 Phantom = Length - 63' - Wing Span - 38.62'

767 -A300 = Length - 176' - Wing Span - 156'





The F4 has a much more pointed nose, better for penetration than the more rounded nose of the 767...

[Flatulo]

47. Only numerical simulations can solve penetration problems...

(well, Viagra can help sometimes), but I would say that the things that are important are parameters like kinetic energy and frontal area. Materials and proportions are also obviously very important.

There really is no textbook solution for these highly complex collisions.

[AZCat]

48. No - they're usually highly nonlinear.

That's why NASA (in conjunction with several other organizations) performed validation tests throughout the eighties for the FEA code used to simulate aircraft impacts.

[Flatulo]

28. Get a grip...

You completely misunderstand the intent of the post.

The intent was not to show whether the plane penetrated or not. The plane did not penetrate.

The intent was to show that when the nose of the plane hits, the tail doesn't magically fly off, as Mr Jefferson has repeatedly suggested would happen.

[Flatulo]

31. Learn to read...

Here's a direct snip from my OP:

> This is a widely seen video of an F4 Phantom being launched into a solid brick wall. The plane
> absolutely disintegrates as the collison progresses.

Did you see the phrase "absolutely disintegrates"?

Do you see it now?

[liberal4truth]

102. Just more proof that the 911 liars will use any means necessary to "prove" their "points.

They will never accept the fact that aluminum planes don't bring down steel skyscrapers.

[Realityhack]

174. Actualy you are way off...

The entire POINT of the OP IS that the plane did NOT penetrate the barrier.

[seemslikeadream]

5. Can I see the next frame?

[AZCat]

7. The best place to go...

would be the Sandia National Laboratories page that has the video and some images (scroll down to the bottom of the page). The description of the test has some interesting information.


On Edit: It is important to note that the purpose of the test was validation of FEA code. This paper describes the numerical simulation that was compared to the crash test.

[nebula]

65. If the Boeing disintegrated upon impact

then how did it manage to punch several neat round holes
through the Pentagon's inner concrete ring structures,
holes that were located several hundred feet from the impact point?

How does a disintegrated airplane manage to pull off something like that?
Did the terrorists have some kind of Romulan Quantum Penetration device?

Please explain how it can be, or else the OP's comparison does not hold up to minimal scrutiny.

[AZCat]

67. It didn't exactly "disintegrate".

That might be part of the problem. It fragmented, but those fragments still had kinetic energy.

[Flatulo]

68. You beat me to it... I was just going to reply that the plane did

break up, but the pieces were still moving in the original direction, albeit with a reduction in kinetic energy and penetrating power.

It's like when a billet passes thru a target and then fragments - the fragments can still do a lot of damage to anyone standing behind the first obstacle.

[AZCat]

72. You know what they say about great minds...

Good example (I assume you meant "bullet"). Hopefully it will help some of the posters here visualize what happened (because they seem to be biased against simulations).

[nebula]

69. Fragments?

Fragments that make several neat round holes, that just happen to all line up,
and just happen to be in the shape of an intact Boeing 757 nose section?

That would be a pretty cool idea for a Star Trek episode, don't you think?

[Flatulo]

71. Why would the fragments not continue on in the direction of the plane

before the crash? I imagine that there would be some dispersion due to internal collisions, but I can imagine a substantial mass of debris moving through the structure until all its energy was dissipated.

[nebula]

73. Because fragmentation

produces very random destruction, like a grenade or a bomb.

[AZCat]

74. But remember that momentum must be conserved.

Two examples:

1. A grenade is sitting on the ground and explodes. Fragments fly everywhere. The vectorial sum of their momentums must be zero.

2. A grenade is thrown through the air and explodes. Fragments fly everywhere, but in this case the vector sum of their momentums must equal the momentum of the grenade prior to explosion, which means that the fragments will tend to fly in the direction that the grenade was travelling prior to explosion (some more than others).

[Flatulo]

76. Excellent example! nt

[nebula]

82. Can't have it both ways

1) Momentum is conserved as long as there is nothing to disturb that momentum.
When a pitcher throws a baseball, momentum is conserved until the batter hits the ball with his bat. When the bat makes contact with the ball, the ball is sent flying in another direction. The ball does not keep moving in the same direction after it is struck by the bat. Likewise, the airplane does not keep moving straight in the same direction after it slams into a steel-reinforced concrete building.

2) You can't have it both ways. Either the plane created several neat round holes in the walls
of the building, or it fragmented into pieces. When an object fragments, it is reduced to hundreds of smaller but visible pieces of random, varying sizes. As opposed to disintegrating into thin air. Where are all the pieces?

3) Is the 'fragmentation' theory backed up anywhere in the official report, or is it something you came up with on your own?

[Flatulo]

91. Momentum is still conserved in this example...

> 1) Momentum is conserved as long as there is nothing to disturb that momentum.

> When a pitcher throws a baseball, momentum is conserved until the batter hits the ball with his bat.
> When the bat makes contact with the ball, the ball is sent flying in another direction. The ball does
> not keep moving in the same direction after it is struck by the bat. Likewise, the airplane does not
> keep moving straight in the same direction after it slams into a steel-reinforced concrete building.

Momentum is a vector, not a scaler. In the case of the bat and ball, the bat imparts a force to the ball for some duration t that the two are in contact. This impulse changes the direction of the ball's travel, and also the momentum of the bat.

The ball stops travelling when it has transferred all its momentum to the air.

It all balances out in the end.

When the hitter swings the bat, the torque his torso applies to the bat is resisted by the earth underneath his feet. His swings alters the earth's rotation a teeny teeny amount.

And so on.

[Realityhack]

179. I beleive you have been corrected on the 'neat round holes'

a number of times.

An heavy dense jet engine or landing gear will react differently during the crash than lighter less dense objects.

As for 'where are all these pieces' you have also been shown a number of images etc. demonstrating that such pieces exist.

I am honestly starting to believe that you might actually be intentionally intellectually dishonest. You keep slipping these claims into posts even though entire threads have been devoted to explaining how flawed they are.

[nebula]

87. Don't forget to take into account

the force of explosion which occurred outside of the building.

The impact into the building wouldn't be the only force acting to disturb the momentum of the airplane. In addition to the impact, the force of the explosion would also act to totally disrupt the direction of momentum of the fragments. You can't expect fragments to keep traveling in the same direction after being disrupted by a massive explosion.

[AZCat]

90. Obviously it's a lot more complicated than my example.

I have read this post and the one above it, and while you have valid points this is why engineers typically use sophisticated simulation software to understand what happens in complex cases like this one, because developing an analytical solution (as opposed to a numerical one) is beyond our capabilities.

[nebula]

94. Come on

you don't need computer models to tell you this.

[AZCat]

95. To tell me what?

I'm not sure what you mean by "this".

[nebula]

100. Do you need a computer model

to tell you what will happen when a pitched baseball is hit with a bat?

Or to tell you what happens when a large explosion goes off?

[AZCat]

101. It depends on what you want to know.

If you're designing baseball bats, then yes - you do need a computer model. I read an interesting article a few years back on golf club head design (I think this is it - article) that showed how simulations are used to develop their designs. I think you would find it interesting reading.

[nebula]

117. Are you sure about that?

This isn't about designing baseball bats, and they certainly didn't
need no computer when they were making them in the 1920s.

[Realityhack]

178. Are you intentionaly missing the point?

the example of designing baseball bats (followed by golf club heads) indicated the detail you wanted about the interaction.
Certainly you can make baseball bats without a computer simulation. But if you want to find out (for example) exactly what forces act in what way to make a particular design perform the way it does... it's simulation time.

But you are correct that this is not about baseball bats.

An airplane crashing into a building with a specific structure at high speed, dispersing fuel that explodes and then trying to figure out why specific pieces went various ways is indeed a very complected problem.

[jberryhill]

79. Fire a shotgun at a piece of plywood

...and get back to us on how a collective body of fragments moving in the same direction can make a hole, k?

[nebula]

83. Shotgun pellets don't disintegrate into thin air

after penetrating through plywood.

Neither does a 200-ton airplane. So where are the pieces of the plane?

[nebula]

84. Read it again.

What it says in the OP:

"The plane absolutely disintegrates as the collision progresses."


So now you're saying the OP is wrong?

[Sweet Pea]

78. Several neat round holes?

Several? Several "neat round holes"? How many? Where?

And where are these "inner concrete ring structures" you wrote of? There weren't any "inner concrete ring structures" between the E ring and the C ring, which has been written about and commented on ad nauseum here. Once the aircraft breached the outer wall, there was nothing but sheetrock (heavy sheetrock, but sheetrock nonetheless) walls, doors, cubicles, hallways, rooms, concrete support pillars and such in the path of the fragmented aircraft. That was all the debris had in front of it before whatever was left smacked into the outside wall to the A-E drive, creating the hole.

[nebula]

86. See Post 65

Are you vision impaired?

You have to be blind to miss it.

[Sweet Pea]

88. Blind?

I think we may be miscommunicating here.

I am aware of only 1 "neat round hole" in the A-E drive in those photos you posted in Post 65.

You said there were "several". You also said "several" in post 82.

I'm asking you where these "several" holes are. There was 1 hole. In my book "1" does not equate "several".

If you were talking about "inner concrete ring structures", I say again - there weren't any. I worked in the building for nearly 2 years from late 2004 until mid 2006. I am very familiar with that area of the building.

[nebula]

93. There weren't any what?

Are you saying there were no holes beyond the initial impact or no concrete ring structures?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this "one hole" theory of yours, to no avail.

[leftofthedial]

89. as ALWAYS, we get nothing but disinformation,

handwaving and then an adolescent snit fit from the OCTers.

[Grateful for Hope]

80. Oh my

So many (people that just happen to post in this forum) posters that are soooo anxious to debunk this thread. Oh MY!

[AZCat]

81. Your post doesn't make sense to me.

Are you sure you posted in the right thread? How is the posting in this thread any different from the thousands of others in this subforum?

[greyl]

85. I think she approximately means...

that most truthers were never interested in furthering lies about no planes, hence the low count of forum regulars in this thread, and that those that are attempting to debunk Flatulo's OP are worthless trolls.
But, it's frequently difficult to know how to read the attitude behind Hope's posts, so I could be totally fucked on this.

[freeze]

104. How does this experiment relate to 9/11?

Seems very apples and oranges to me.

[AZCat]

105. You'd have to ask the author of the thread...

but as far as I can tell he is pointing out that impacts don't always behave as the "truth movement" seems to think they should.

[freeze]

106. I thought he was arguing for no-planes!

[AZCat]

108. No.

That is incorrect. Flatulo is a "plane-hugger".

[Flatulo]

109. A common claim among 'no-planers' is that a 767 could never

slice into the WTC tower without very visible signs of damage to the fuselage and structure (wings breaking off, verticle stabilizer breaking off) as the plane penetrated, ie, they would at the very least appear to crumple up as the crash progresses.

As the videos of the crashes clearly show, the planes seem to simply melt into the structures with no apparent damage to the fuselage as they enter. No planers claim that this is physically impossible.

I started this post to show that even if a plane is flown into a much more substantial barrier than the WTC outer walls, there is no visible deformation as the crash progresses. The plane simply disappears as though it were fed into a wood chipper (in this case, the plane virtually disintegrates due to the robustness of the barrier).

Some common claims of no-planers:

o The WTC walls were made from reinforced concrete - wrong, they were constructed from box columns fabricated from steel plate as thin as 1/4" at the upper floors. In fact, if the WTC was scaled down to the size of a can of beans, the walls would be only .015" thick, or five human hairs. The outer walls were a rather thin membrane when put into this context.

o Softer materials cannot penetrate harder materials - wrong; given sufficient velocity (kinetic energy) softer materials can and do penetrate harder materials all the time. Examples include water jets used to cut steel and bullets fired through 1/2" steel plates.

o The videos (all of them) of Flight 11 and the multiple ones of Flight 175 hitting the WTC towers are ALL fakes, cleverly inserted into the news feed of every media outlet in the world in real time.

o Every single witness to the crashes (possibly thousands of people) is a liar or a plant who is 'in on it' and sent to sow disinformation.

[freeze]

110. Which videos do they claim the planes couldn't slice through?

[Flatulo]

111. All of them. They claim that no planes ever struck the WTC towers.

[freeze]

113. What did you mean by "slicing" through then?

[freeze]

118. bump for answer

[freeze]

119. Found what you meant by slicing through. Very puzzling!

Well I don't know what to make of this. This video has that look of being doctored. Is this video supposed to be real, or was it doctored by internet pranksters?

[Sweet Pea]

120. Very Puzzling?

Methinks your little "Please explain to me!" charade is wearing thin.

If you "don't know what to make of" a video of a 150 ton aircraft made up of steel and titanium and aluminum and fuel impacting, at 750 feet per second, a wall that was constructed of 3/8" steel with 14" box beams made of of the same 3/8" steel, then you need to go off and do a little personal education on the issues at hand instead of marching in here, playing the little "What do you mean??" card and then feigning astonishment that a video that looks exactly like something of that sort should look like is faked.

[freeze]

132. Love your ingredients list

saying "steel and titanium and aluminum" as if a plane contains mostly steel and aluminum the least. All I'm saying is that I never focused on the rest of the plane in this video. I remember it from In Plane Site and remember that von Kliest had everyone focus on the pod and flash. I never noticed that the wings and tail do appears to "slice" through as you put it. I would have expected that the wings would have blown up against the wall.

[nebula]

121. Al Qaeda Quantum Penetration technology

Those hijackers are something else, aren't they?

[AZCat]

122. What, exactly, are you trying to point out with that photo?

Remember that the penetration was through only two exterior walls. Count the levels of windows for the rings and you will see that the bottom floor is common to those three rings.

[nebula]

123. We've been through this before

If the Boeing disintegrated upon impact, as the OP contends,

How did it manage to punch several neat round holes
through the Pentagon's inner concrete ring structures,
holes that were located several hundred feet from the impact point?

How does a disintegrated airplane accomplish such a feat?

Quantum Penetration device? Voodoo? Black magic?

[SDuderstadt]

126. It was one of the plane's engines...

No one ever claimed the plane totally disintegrated upon impact. Duh.

P.S. Omigod! This is my 911th post and it's about 9/11! This cannot be a coincidence! It has to mean something! I'm series!11!11!!!

[Sweet Pea]

127. Will You Stop Posting Bullshit?

There was only one hole punched through the C-Ring wall. I really wish you would either start getting some facts straight or stop regurgitating your bullshit here.

There was only one hole punched through the C-Ring wall into the A-E drive. This is patently and very, very clear from overhead photos, even the one you linked to. There are 2 other burned openings into the A-E drive from the impact of the aircraft, but both of those are doors (a roll-up door and a regular access door) that blew out.

As far as the other question I've had with this recurring bullshit post of yours, I've asked you before in this thread and you either couldn't not or would not respond, so I'll ask again in a more pointed way: What the fuck are you talking about when you say "inner concrete ring structures"?

Since you've had trouble reading that question in the past, I'll repeat it:

What the fuck are you talking about when you say "the Pentagon's inner concrete ring structure?"

Please explain what you mean by "inner concrete ring structure".

There. I asked politely.

[nebula]

128. David Copperfield?

There was only one hole punched through the C-Ring wall.--Sweet Pea

Wow, that's quite a feat, considering there were at least 4 steel-reinforced concrete walls
sitting between C and E. How does that happen? How does a plane punch a hole in C without making any in D or E? Is it by teleportation, or David Copperfield?

[Sweet Pea]

129. Why Am I Not Surprised

The first two floors of the building in the C, D and E rings are joined together. There *were* no "4 steel-reinforced concrete walls" separating the inner sections of the C/D/E rings. It was one big section, separated by hallways and offices and cubicle farms in military component areas.

I know you've read this before here. You're just playing ignorant for some reason.

This is a transverse view of the A-E ring elevation - notice how the first two floors are as one on the C/D/E drive. I.E. NO STEEL REINFORCED CONCRETE WALL.



Notice in this graphic the locations and spaces of the various service components. Is you will look at it, you will see there were NO STEEL REINFORCED CONCRETE WALL separating the C/D/E rings. The aircraft had nothing but heavy sheetrock and doors and desks and chairs and tables to go through.



Look at this graphic from the Building Report:



Again, and I could go on ad nauseum (and getting more nauseous as time goes on with you Troofers) with images and graphics that depict the first two floors and their relationship as one large space broken up only by standard office walls, albeit in many areas heavy walls as per space security requirements.

Perhaps YOU can go book David Copperfield and conjure up some steel reinforced concrete walls between the C and E rings in the first floor.

And as far as holes are concerned, there was only one hole punched out through into the A-E drive by the aircraft wreckage. The other exits were through doors access points into the drive and I don't consider a door being blown out as akin to the hole being punched out.

[nebula]

130. If there were only sheetrock and standard office walls

standing in the way, then how could the Boeing 'disintegrate' into thin air, as the OP contends? If the aircraft did did disintegrate, then how did it manage to punch out another round hole that was located 310 feet from (and lined up with) the initial impact point?

Again, you can't have it both ways.** Either the plane disintegrated or it remained largely intact---which it would have to be in order to produce that exit hole in C.










** unless of course, you have the benefit of this device.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sweet Pea]

133. We'll try this again.

But that sure felt good.

The aircraft impacted the below obstructions after it breached the outer wall:



This photograph shows the size and spacing of the columns in the first-floor interior space between the facade and the C-Ring.

I will grant you that these are STEEL REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS, but there are no STEEL REINFORCED CONCRETE WALLS, and you weren't talking about columns, now were you, Nebby?

You will notice there are no STEEL REINFORCED CONCRETE WALLS obstructing the path of the aircraft that it had to make NUMEROUS HOLES to go through. Those obstacles, however, ensured that whatever part of aircraft that made it through the outer wall did not stay in one piece very long.

So yes, once again it is proven that the aircraft, all 100-plus tons of it, traveling at 400 mph, broke apart upon breaching the outer wall, sent the now-decelerating 100 tons through a large space made up of sheetrock walls, desks, cubicles, book cases, doors, chairs, AND building support columns.

Your claims of "multiple holes through STEEL REINFORCED CONCRETE WALLS" is thus debunked - again.

[Flatulo]

134. You should re-read the OP. You completely misunderstand the post.

Please read it carefully. The intent should be clear.

[nebula]

135. Are you backpeddling again?

Did the plane disintegrate or not?

[Flatulo]

136. I think you still misunderstand.

My OP was to address the contention among some CTers that the videos of Flight 175 hitting WTC2 were faked. They make this claim based on the lack of appearance of any damage to the aircraft as it penetrates the tower. They claim that a plane hitting a building would, when viewed frame by frame, show massive damage to the structure upstream of the target as the collision progresses.

The point was to show that an airplane hitting a much more immovable barrier also appears to disappear into it, just as Flight 175 appears to disappear into the WCT2. There is no crumpling of the fuselage. Parts do not come flying off.

The plane appears to disappear as though it is being fed into a wood-chipper, just like Flight 175 appears.

Flight 175 did break into umpteen smaller pieces that still had forward momentum. I would not equate that to the video in my OP, where the F-4 looks to have completely turned into dust. We know for a fact that large-ish chunks of 175 rained down on Manhattan. Landing gear, engines and chunks of fuselage were found in the street.

[nebula]

137. Backpeddling again

No longer a fan of the term 'disintegration,' are we?

Flight 175 did break into umpteen smaller pieces that still had forward momentum.

Is this theory of yours mentioned in the report, or did you come up with it on your own?

[Flatulo]

138. Here's some help...

This is what I said in the OP:

> This is a widely seen video of an F4 Phantom being launched into a solid brick wall. The plane
> absolutely disintegrates as the collison progresses.

I did not use this phrase to describe Flight 175.

If you refuse to read my posts, and then refuse to read my clarifications, then I cannot help you. Please place me on ignore and save me a lot of work.

[nebula]

141. So why does this fascinating theory of yours

go unmentioned in the official report?

Just asking.

[Flatulo]

142. Which theory? I put forth no theory - just an observation.

Actually I have no idea what you're even talking about anymore.

[nebula]

143. Well, at least you admit you're wrong

that's a good start.


You presumably use the F4 crash to compare it to Flight 77, but now admit there's no comparison.

> This is a widely seen video of an F4 Phantom being launched into a solid brick wall. The plane
> absolutely disintegrates as the collision progresses.

I did not use this phrase to describe Flight 175.

(You mean 77 not 175. 175 was the south tower plane.)

[Flatulo]

144. No, I meant Flight 175, the South Tower Plane.

It's my thread, so I get to say what I meant. I made no comparisons to Flight 77.

If you re-read the OP, this should be clear. If not, I apologizze for not being more clear.

[nebula]

146. Then what is the point of the original post?

If you're not comparing the F4 crash to anything, your OP has no purpose.

[Flatulo]

147. I am comparing it to Flight 175, like I told you 13 seconds ago in my last post.

[nebula]

148. 'Observation'

Regardless of what you want to call your theory,
none of it is supported by the official report.

Hence, theory and speculation is exactly what it is.

[AZCat]

149. Maybe you should go back and reread the NIST report...

particularly NCSTAR 1-2, where you will find that, contrary to your post, Flatulo's assertions are indeed supported by the NIST report.

[nebula]

150. There's still nothing in the NIST that supports the OP

[Make7]

151. Have you learned to read yet?

 

Flatulo wrote in his OP:

This post is to address the contention that any plane that would have struck the WTC towers would not have simply disappeared into the building but would have displayed some sort of highly visible signs of damage to the structure *outside* of the contact region, ie, wings or verticle stabilizer flying off, fuselage crumpling etc.

This is a widely seen video of an F4 Phantom being launched into a solid brick wall. The plane absolutely disintegrates as the collison progresses.

Flatulo further clarified in Post #138:

This is what I said in the OP:

> This is a widely seen video of an F4 Phantom being launched into a solid brick wall.
> The plane absolutely disintegrates as the collison progresses.

I did not use this phrase to describe Flight 175.

If you refuse to read my posts, and then refuse to read my clarifications, then I cannot help you.

nebula wrote:

You presumably use the F4 crash to compare it to Flight 77, but now admit there's no comparison.

> This is a widely seen video of an F4 Phantom being launched into a solid brick wall.
> The plane absolutely disintegrates as the collision progresses.

I did not use this phrase to describe Flight 175.

(You mean 77 not 175. 175 was the south tower plane.)

You cannot even understand which plane Flatulo is referring to in the opening post even though he clearly explained it in his very first sentence.

And now you think people are going to believe your "reading" of the NIST report is accurate? (If you actually have read it.)

Priceless.

- Make7
what AA77 video?

[AZCat]

152. It would help our discussion...

if you would actually read the relevant sections before responding to my posts. Why don't you try that next time?

[nebula]

154. Sorry, I can't read your mind.

Why don't you post the part of what you consider to be relevant to the discussion?

I'm not a mind reader.

that is, if you can anything relevant.

[AZCat]

155. The NIST reports are available for free download...

at wtc.nist.gov

If you go back and read post #149 you'll see that I mentioned the relevant section. I'm sure that someone with your research skills shouldn't need any more hints to find the information you seek.

[Flatulo]

124. Did you just wake up from a seven year coma?

You are aware that someone flew jumbo jets into the WTC towers and the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, aren't you?

[freeze]

156. I was aware at the WTC, not the Pentagon since I don't see a plane there

If you can produce me one video or photo of a 757 flying into the Pentagon, I might change me mind.

[catnhatnh]

112. Okay....

you've got the before pictures (concrete wall and plane) and the during pictures (plane striking wall) do you have any after photos illustrating the amount of damage to the wall and/or the amount of debris left by the plane?

[Flatulo]

114. The 'after' pics are not relevant to the post... the point was

to show that the plane appears to have been fed into a wood chipper, just like the videos of flight 175 hitting WTC2 show. It simply disappears.

There is no crumpling of the fusealage, as some 'no-planers' claim, as the crash progresses.

[Ghost in the Machine]

139. ok, let me get this straight now...

flight 175 disintegrated against glass and 3/8" steel box beams, while flight 77 penetrated the steel reinforced concrete outer wall of the Pentagon, keeping an engine intact to penetrate out of another wall?

Ok, I gotta let my mind wrestle with that one for a bit...

[Flatulo]

145. No, I didn't say that Flight 175 disintegrated.

Sorry if I did not make this clear.

I was attempting to rebut the claim that Flight 175 would not 'simply diappear' into the WTC towers as the videos show. Flight 175 appears to have been fed into a wood chipper.

The F4 also appears to have been fed into a wood chipper, even though it hit a substantially more immovable object.

You see, the no-planers claim that if a plane had actually hit the WTC tower, it would have somehow crumpled up as the crash progressed. The videos do not show this, so they claim the videos are faked.

I attempted to show that even when a plane hits a nearly immovable object, let alone the relatively thin skin of the WTC tower, the plane does not crumple up or have parts come flying off.

I hope this is more clear.

[NutmegYankee]

115. More BS.

The wall is specially reinforced concrete designed to act as a rigid wall. It was 3.6 meters or ~ 11 feet thick!


Footage of 1988 rocket-sled test

F4 test videostream – The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom — including both engines — onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines. The test was performed by Sandia National Laboratories under terms of a contract with the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo. To view and download footage or still photos, click on the links or the images below.

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.html#rocketsled

On edit: Notice in the video that the block moves backward. That is one method of determining the energy from the impact. If the block was not free to move, you would essentially have reproduced crashing into a mountain.

[CGowen]

125. The Pentagon section which was hit on 911 was also reinforced and windows were blast proof n/t

[NutmegYankee]

140. reinforced doesn't compare to an 11 foot thick brick.

[freeze]

157. FYI, Sandia's test has been brought into question

Killtown seems to think the test might be a fake (though not sure how he thinks it was faked)...

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/139886/1/

I personally think it's real, however I would support a new test to confirm Sandia's just for the sole purpose of seeing something so large obliterate like that which was really cool!

[SDuderstadt]

158. Your source/catalyst is Killtown?

Well, that says a lot right there. I know I would take Killtown over Sandia Labs anyday. (Is the sarcasm smiley necessary here?)

[freeze]

159. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[Sweet Pea]

160. You don't?

I'm not surprised, really.

SDuderstadt, dude, you need to talk/type slowly. Its like when I have to converse with Jeff.

E x t r a s p a c e s h e l p a s w e l l.

[freeze]

162. No. I was merely pointing out someone has questioned the test

and thought you guys would like to know. Where was my crime?

[Sweet Pea]

161. fake???

Laugh my fucking ASS off!

They do those type of tests ALL the time - a jet on a high-speed test track to test canopy design, ejection seat design and functionality, aerodynamic tests, etc. How else are you going to simulate what a aircraft will do when it flies at high speed into another object?

Fake. Now That was funny!

[freeze]

163. Sweet Pea: They do those type of tests ALL the time

Can you post one?

[Sweet Pea]

164. Can you search?

Do a Yahoo search for "rocket sled testing". You'll get 833,000 hits. Go read up and educate yourself on these things yourself. Click on "images" for bunches of photos.

If you have google earth, find Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico or Lakehurst Naval Air Station in New Jersey and look at the rocket sled test tracks they have there.

Sandia's is there, as well, located southeast of Kirtland Air Force Base in southwest Albuquerque, NM.

They are all over the place and are still used often for various types of testing. Lakehurst's aren't used any more, but you can still see the test track in the sat photos.

What the hell....here's one link:

http://www.ejectionsite.com/safe_hmtt_04.htm

But really...you should learn to research things yourself. You are getting a reputation for being an intellectual lightweight around here with your rather silly questions and repeated "Why?" posts.

[victordrazen]

165. Why do people respond to such a ridiculous post?

wtc had steel columns, it wasn't brick, and
you can't see whether the buildings was damaged or not in the above "images". Plus, I doubt an airline could fly in level that low to the grand. What's the speed, etc?

[victordrazen]

166. So at the Pentagon, the plane "disintegrated", but

left a big round hole. I see....
Oh and the planes at the wtc "disintegrated", except for the "seat cushion" in those staged pictures. (among a few other strangely unblemished "parts".)
:rofl:

[vincent_vega_lives]

167. Yes

Absolutely. Lightweight aluminum structure, filled with very heavy jet fuel. It would certainly have the mass and velocity (momentum) to punch through a rigid by relatively thin facade and not have the structural robustness to remain intact.

Yes it ii]dis-integrated, it did not vaporize. Seat cushions are less dense, have little momentum when dis-integrated from their fixed structure and would be easily ejected at an angle to the crash vector by air resistance and the low speed expanding jet fuel conflagration.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

168. Not only disintergrated creating a big hole, but penetrated through several internal rings of the

building?

:rofl:

[vincent_vega_lives]

177. Not all of it.

Just the dense stuff. Like landing gear and the engines.

Keep laughing.

[Diane_nyc]

170. Pentagon no-757 theories: debunkings from within the 9/11 Truth movement

You might find the links listed in the following blog post of mine informative:

http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/pentagon-no-757-theories-debunkings-from-within-the-911-truth-movement/">Pentagon no-757 theories: debunkings from within the 9/11 Truth movement

[vincent_vega_lives]

176. Thanks for posting this

It is what I have been saying all along about the 757 and the Pentagon damage to little effect here.

[Bassman66]

171. The WTC facade was 43% glass, not even a brick wall.

I did the maths once.

[vincent_vega_lives]

175. And?

what's yer point. Mass with accelleration still have equal and opposite effects on matter.

The faster the plane goes the more it will render itself into parts. But also more momentum does its mass have. A slower aircraft, say like a B-25 going 200 mph Would still penetrate the facade (mass) but would not disintergrate itself to such an extent.