The Tale of the Tails on 9/11

[spooked911]

The tails of 757s and 767s are massive structures. The vertical stabilizer is twentyfive to forty feet tall on these planes.

The tail is also the part of the plane that survives the best in a head-on crash. The tail should has less momentum as the plane strikes the building or ground head-on, and the counteracting force slows down the speed of the plane-- thus the tail should not have been subject to the same forces as the from of the plane or the wings.

Of the four planes that crashed on 9/11, not one tail was ever seen by the public and certainly there are no photographs of any of the tail structures from flight 11, 175, 77 or 93.

Moreover, the holes that the planes went into (WTC, Pentagon, ground) are not even large enough for the vertical stabilizer to go into intact. So what happened to the tails? Why didn't one tail from one of the 9/11 planes break off from the crash and ensuing explosion, and then get found near the crash site?

How did every tail just disappear?

[spooked911]

1. It is also quite stunning to note that absolutely no proof has EVER been

put forward by the government showing that the "planes" that hit the WTC, Pentagon and ground in Pennsylvania were flight 11, flight 175, flight 77 and flight 93.

Not have they ever given any proof that the hijackers they say were on the planes were on any of the four planes that day.

[Kevin Fenton]

3. Proof

What sort of proof would you like to see and would you consider as providing reasonable certainty?

[spooked911]

5. The remaining pieces of each planed assembled and some

serial numbers would be nice. Pictures of the tails-- or any pictures of any plane pieces would be nice. And the pics of the pentagon pieces aren't enough.

[Kevin Fenton]

14. Would be nice?

Why couldn't pieces of a plane assembled together and serial numbers be faked? Why would you accept something that could be faked?

I don't really understand your argument. Are you saying you don't think the WTC was hit by 767s? What about all the videos of United 175?

[Kevin Fenton]

2. Tails

The tails of the two planes that hit the WTC were diced by the steel columns, as were the wingtips. Tails are lightweight structures made of aluminium and composites - it's no wonder they couldn't sever a steel column and it's no wonder that a fuselage, engine or wing section loaded with fuel could.

The hole in the Penatgon is large enough for the lower section of the tail. The hole ends at a concrete slab. It is not unsurprising that the tail could not break a large concrete slab.

The tail of United 93 is supposed to have broken up and gone into the ground along with other parts of the plane.

[spooked911]

4. Diced? I don't think they could have been broken into THAT many pieces

If the top of the tail broke off outside the Pentagon, where did it go? It wasn't seen by anyone, there are no pictures of it.

Flight 93 is the most amazing crash where the passengers were blown into tiny bits yet the rest of the plane went into the ground?

Aren't there other more likely explanations?

[philb]

6. There were plane parts all over the WTC area, both sides of buildings

Has anyone sorted out the sightings by locations the parts were seen, to see which parts didn't penetrate the building and which went through the buildings?
http://www.flcv.com/wtcplane.html

[spooked911]

11. I was hoping YOU could sort that out!

;)

[stickdog]

8. Flight 93: The world record for spreading metal debris and body parts

plus the world record for digging a hole and burying itself!

[Kevin Fenton]

15. Diced

There were no severed columns in the WTC where the wingtips or upper part of the tail hit. Whereas the fuselage severed perimeter columns, the tail and wingtips were cut into pieces by the columns. This is hardly surprising, as steel is simply harder than aluminium.

The top of the tail of American 77 was either (1) mashed when it broke off, or (2) if there were any large bits of it, they would have been near the impact hole, of which there are no close-up photos shortly after the impact. I don't see why the tail should have rebounded 100 feet onto the lawn.

There are other explanations, but IMHO they are much less likely.

[Old and In the Way]

7. The WTC crashes I can understand.

But did they ever pull 3 engines out of the debris? I don't recall any mention or any pics of plane parts...other than the engine on the street.

Pentagon- I find it odd that nothing was recoverable that one could say was a 757....like lots of seat frames. Soryy, I don't think the whole thing melted into a pool.

93 - I find it hard to believe that the ground swallowed the entire plane. I agree the tail, vertical stabilizer should have sheared off at point of impact.

[LARED]

9. Let me guess; your years as an aircraft crash investigator

lets you say with conviction

The tail is also the part of the plane that survives the best in a head-on crash.

Do you think perhaps there are other factors like speed, how it crashed, and into what, might be factors in what part of an aircraft remain identifiable?


Of the four planes that crashed on 9/11, not one tail was ever seen by the public and certainly there are no photographs of any of the tail structures from flight 11, 175, 77 or 93.

This translates to there have been no photograph published in official reports and on Google. You really have no clue as to what was seen in totality by investigators, first responders, and clean up people. Who are all part of the public.

[spooked911]

13. You are grasping here

"The tail is also the part of the plane that survives the best in a head-on crash."

This is common sense and has been written in articles on plane crashes as well.

"Of the four planes that crashed on 9/11, not one tail was ever seen by the public and certainly there are no photographs of any of the tail structures from flight 11, 175, 77 or 93.

This translates to there have been no photograph published in official reports and on Google. You really have no clue as to what was seen in totality by investigators, first responders, and clean up people. Who are all part of the public."

You know what I mean by the public. And if they had such pictures, I suspect we would have seen them by now.

[LARED]

16. While we're on the subject of grasping

exactly what does the lack of publicly available evidence of aircraft tails tell you?

Seriously, in three of the four crashes on 9/11 the aircraft went into a building. Exactly how many times has aircraft crashed in a way that they went completely into a building? Where is all your history to base your theory on?

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

17. Here is one such example.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/06/tampa.crash/

[LARED]

18. One small problem

That plane did not go all the way into the building.

Next!!!

[philb]

19. Did they at WTC? what were all the plane parts on ground?

Two survivors in WTC2 described what they saw of the plane that hit their floor. It ended up close to them.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

10. Found a video clip for you.

Watch this plane make a hard landing, notice that the tail snaps off.

http://skyrush.freeshell.org/airbozos/MD-80%20hard%20landing_1.mpg

[spooked911]

12. Wow! And that is just from too hard a landing! Thanks.