Flight 11 vs. 175 -- Impact Study & Fakery Anomalies

reply to post by ATH911


Oh yea !

Here is picture of an exterior panel from WTC 1 with piece of airplane
landing gear embedded in it




Of course you will find some reason to ignore it.....

reply to post by thedman


What the??? THat looks like a Car tire rather than landing gear.... Thedman are you sure you got the right caption to go with this photo?

You know what else is amazing? You see that car in the backround on fire...for some reason or another.. But that tire in the column survived the initial fireball explosion and did not melt or burn in fact I would say its in good condition considering the event it went through...

I mean It is intact while inside a column that got so hot it melted or bowed out of the building... yet their that tire is in all its glory... not melted.... not on fire...just there..

An anomaly of contradiction not unlike the fireball proof passports.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by titorite]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ATH911

 

I do find it interesting that no plane debris remains in either of the two WTC gashes.

Nothing.

That assessment is based on what, exactly?

It's based on I looked at photos of the plane gashes in the North and South Towers and I don't see any plane debris. Do you see any plane debris in the two gashes?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ATH911

 

Oh yea !

Here is picture of an exterior panel from WTC 1 with piece of airplane
landing gear embedded in it

Of course you will find some reason to ignore it.....

Holy Cow! Are you kidding me? That's supposed to be a tire from Flight 11?!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's the funniest thing I've seen related to 9/11!

reply to post by titorite

Now you say a DcDonnell Douglas F4 is constructed in the same way that a Boeing 757/767.

That is so far from the truth. One is designed to withstand 50 millimeter rounds and avoid radar detection.

I am very sorry, but you are wrong. The F4 is a 1960s era jet....it has no 'stealth' ability to avoid radar detection. It does not "withstand" 50mm rounds, either. Plenty of F4s were shot down in Vietnam!

en.wikipedia.org...

Among fixed-wing aircraft, more F-4 Phantoms were lost than any other type in service with any nation.

!!!!!

F-4 Phantom II-- --445 total, 382 in combat
-First loss was operational (non-combat), F-4C 64-0674 (45TH TFS, 15th TFW) which ran out of fuel after strike in SVN on June 9, 1965; first combat loss F-4C 64-0685 (45th TFS, 15th TFW) shot down Ta Chan, NW NVN on June 20, 1965. 9 of the losses were parked aircraft struck by rockets.
-Final loss 1973

Also, I found this excerpt online:

From a book titled "Vietnam Air Losses" by Chris Hobson

Alarmed by the losses, the Air Force conducted a study in 1966 and found that the assumption of airframe failure from hits was erroneous. What the investigating team found was the majority (40%) of fixed wing aircraft losses were caused by cascading failure from fuel system damage. Next was cascading failure from hydraulic system damage which, in most designs, meant a loss of aircraft control along with fire.

The investigators found that reducing the Suceptability(SR) of combat aircraft with changes in tactics, better countermeasures, and threat suppression, was of vital importance in reducing losses, but this would be sucessful only up to a point. Aircraft would still take hits regardless. What was also required was redesigning critical systems to better withstand damage(with armor for instance), and if unable to achieve that, better tolerate any damage(by separating critical components for instance). In the engineering discipline of Aircraft Survivability this is called Vulnerability Reduction (VR) .

VR efforts on the F-4 not only saved lives, but a bunch of money as well. A redesign of the aileron hydraulic subsystem. When applied to in theater aircraft, this design change cost $9M in 1967 dollars. howeverit saved tehe potential loss of 24 aircrews(or 48 pilots)and saved $51M in aircraft not lost to this particular "kill mode"

The other one respectively has trouble if a flock of birds get in the way.

Flocks of birds will bring down military jets, too.

en.wikipedia.org...

On 22 September 1995, a U.S. Air Force E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft (Callsign Yukla 27, serial number 77-0354), crashed shortly after take off from Elmendorf AFB, AK. The plane lost power to both port side engines after these engines ingested several Canada Geese during takeoff. The aircraft went down in a heavily wooded area about two miles northeast of the runway, killing all 24 crew members on board.[25]

The Space Shuttle Discovery also hit a bird (a vulture) during the take-off of STS-114 on July 26, 2005, although the collision occurred early during take off and at low speeds, with no obvious damage to the shuttle.[26]

NASA also lost an astronaut, Theodore Freeman, to a bird strike. He was killed when a goose shattered the plexiglass cockpit of his T-38 Talon, resulting in shards being ingested by the engines, leading to a fatal crash.[citation needed]

Aircraft continue to be lost on a routine basis to birdstrikes. In the fall of 2006 the USAF lost a twin engine T-38 trainer to a bird strike (ducks) and in the October 2007 the US Navy lost a T-45 jet trainer in a collision with a bird.

Commercial air buses are also painted with radar reflective paint to make them easier to keep track of by ground control as opposed to the F4.

Why do you keep refering to them as 'air buses'? No matter, because NO!! You know, someone asked me that the other day, knowing I've been a pilot for over 30 years. SO, it seems that's another one of those lies floating around the 'truther' community. A commercial airliner provides a sufficiently large target to Radar just by virtue of its size. "Reflective" paint is not used because, A) There is no reason to, B) It would be far more expensive and C) It would weigh more than regular paint. Consider, for a moment, when you look at an AAL paint scheme. It is mostly bare aluminum!!!

Final point: Military jets and commercial air buses are constructed nothing alike beyond the concept of "lift".

And you base that statement on what, exactly? Remember, you're talking to a pilot here. In the case of certain very, very advance military aircraft then they do use very exotic and expensive and (classified) materials in their construction -- but the basics are the same, regardless.

Airbus wing construction:


Lockheed F35 Assembly line:


Boeing 787 Assembly:
www.talkingproud.us...

B2 Assembly line:


Boeing 747 Assembly, World's Largest Building:


BlackBird Assembly line:


B25 Final Assembly, 1945:


Basically, all airplanes are hollow structures. Modern designs are virtually unchanged for decades, just enhanced with new and exotic materials.

The principles in building all-metal airframes is known as the semi-monocoque design.

en.wikipedia.org...

Semi-monocoque

Sectioned fuselage showing frames, stringers and skin all made out of aluminium. (Picture doesn't copy/paste) This is the preferred method of constructing an all-aluminum fuselage. First, a series of frames in the shape of the fuselage cross sections are held in position on a rigid fixture, or jig. These frames are then joined with lightweight longitudinal elements called stringers. These are in turn covered with a skin of sheet aluminum, attached by riveting or by bonding with special adhesives. The fixture is then disassembled and removed from the completed fuselage shell, which is then fitted out with wiring, controls, and interior equipment such as seats and luggage bins. Most modern large aircraft are built using this technique, but use several large sections constructed in this fashion which are then joined with fasteners to form the complete fuselage. As the accuracy of the final product is determined largely by the costly fixture, this form is suitable for series production, where a large number of identical aircraft are to be produced. Early examples of this type include the Douglas Aircraft DC-2 and DC-3 civil aircraft and the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. Most metal light aircraft are constructed using this process.

Both monocoque and semi-monocoque are referred to as "stressed skin" structures as all or a portion of the external load (i.e. from wings and empennage, and from discrete masses such as the engine) is taken by the surface covering. In addition, all the load from internal pressurization is carried (as skin tension) by the external skin.

Modern fighter jets may differ in that there is a strong keel to enhance structural strength and rigidity.

Wings are generally the same from airplane design to airplane design, main strength component is the spar, with ribs to form the airfoil, and provide a place for the skin to attach.

Of COURSE there are differences specific to each make and model, but in general ALL airplanes are just hollow shells, with the necessary goodies installed as needed. Weight, and the compromise with shedding weight while keeping structural strenght and integrity is always an issue in aircraft design.

[edit on 6/23/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by titorite
Just look at those wings _bonez_
Look at them.. Look at how the behave differently at each incident.

You've got 3 separate objects the wings are hitting:

1.) Steel stucture
2.) Concrete structure
3.) The ground

Don't you think the wings would behave differently as all three objects are different?

reply to post by ATH911


Another shot of scene




St Nicholas church in background was destroyed in collapse of South
Tower which means was taken before 10AM

I suppose the NYPD is in on it too.....

Like I said - since doesn't play into your conspiracy fantasies will find some
reason to ignore it.

reply to post by titorite

You know what else is amazing? You see that car in the backround on fire...for some reason or another.. But that tire in the column survived the initial fireball explosion and did not melt or burn in fact I would say its in good condition considering the event it went through...

I mean It is intact while inside a column that got so hot it melted or bowed out of the building... yet their that tire is in all its glory... not melted.... not on fire...just there..

An anomaly of contradiction not unlike the fireball proof passports.

Aircraft tires are constructed of heavy gauge rubber designed to survive
numerous takeoffs/landings. They are designed to resist heat from friction
on landing. Simply passing through the fireball would not ignite it or
cause any damage to the rubber

The section pictured is from the south side of Tower 1 (WTC 1) the first building hit. It was on the opposite side of building from the impact point and blown out by the debris stream as exited the building.

As BONEZ has reapeatedly stated the exterior skeleton of WTC was made
of lattice work of thin steel sections bolted togather . The bolts were
sheared as the debris from the AA 11 struck it . It was not exposed to fires because was in street only few seconds after impact.

Picture was taken before 10AM - before South Tower collapsed and buried
the area under tons of debris

Originally posted by Orion7911
Simon Shack, Killtown

You just had to invoke the names of two of the biggest disinfo artists to have ever walked this earth, didn't you?

You gotta ask yourself why those two clowns keep getting themselves banned from everywhere. And banned over and over and over under their countless socks. You'd think they'd give it up after so long, but I guess the satisfaction of putting out disinformation and disturbing the real truth movement motivates them.

Originally posted by Orion7911
EXCEPT advanced military THERMATE cutter charges wouldn't necessarily BLOW ANYTHING IN OR OUT in the way you're eluding.thermate/mite doesn't have the same properties or react as regular demolition c4 etc cutter charges do.they MELT STEEL.

You've already contradicted yourself in this one single quote. Firstly, if there were thermite/mate cutter charges, they would have been visible either inside the offices or outside on the facade. There was no way to hide them. Secondly, since thermite/mate isn't an explosive and cuts steel slower than an explosive, we would see the plane cut-outs being formed in real-time. Third, that wouldn't explain the large hole and massive chunks of building being pushed inward.

Originally posted by Orion7911
As for your argument about BENDING INWARD... its already been answered, addressed and debunked.

Well, your answer would be a missle and I would say that missiles don't travel as slow as jetliners and find us all a missile that is as large as a jetliner. We'll be awaiting your reply to back your claims up.

Originally posted by Orion7911
PEOPLE *DID* NOTICE AND MENTION SEEING A CRUISE MISSLE.

Disinformation. People said they "thought" they saw a missile. You're twisting their words which = disinfo.

Originally posted by ATH911
I do find it interesting that no plane debris remains in either of the two WTC gashes.

I find it interesting that people think a 300,000 pound object travelling at circa 500mph is going to stop on a dime and leave parts sticking out the impact hole.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I posted several pictures of an exterior section of WTC 1 with piece of
aircraft landing gear embedded in it. Unfortunately these clowns
refuse to believe anything except their own fantasies

reply to post by ATH911

...photos of the plane gashes in the North and South Towers and I don't see any plane debris.

I read your original post too quickly, and mentally put the word "debris" at the end of your sentence, instead of "gashes", as you wrote it.

SO, now that that's clear, of course one would not expect to see airplane debris in the 'gashes'!!! Not big pieces, anyway...hanging around as they come to a dead stop from several hundreds of miles per hour. Some ejecta traveled through, and out the side opposite the impacts, you know.

Again, with the forces involved, the physics is one of utter chaos, and each and every little itty bit of wreckage finds its own way, and there is no way to predict the outcome.

For an example, not off-topic: A crash in Detroit in 1987...not very high speed, even, because it was a take-off accident. Full airplane, everyone died except a little four-year-old girl. How could that be? Because of the random chance of the chaos during the event.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ATH911

 

Another shot of scene

Oh my Lord!!!!!! I gets better! Is that tire missing its rim?!!!

St Nicholas church in background was destroyed in collapse of South
Tower which means was taken before 10AM

I suppose the NYPD is in on it too.....

Why did you pick them? Because it says they took the photo? Nice suspicious looking white van park next to the embedded tire that stayed embedded after a 90 story fall!

Like I said - since doesn't play into your conspiracy fantasies will find some reason to ignore it.

Just like I ignored the other one? Stay immature though. I wouldn't want to think the skeptics have grown up.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by ATH911
I do find it interesting that no plane debris remains in either of the two WTC gashes.

I find it interesting that people think a 300,000 pound object travelling at circa 500mph is going to stop on a dime and leave parts sticking out the impact hole.

I find it interesting that you are that stupid to believe that's what I think should have happened.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ATH911

 

I read your original post too quickly, and mentally put the word "debris" at the end of your sentence, instead of "gashes", as you wrote it.

SO, now that that's clear, of course one would not expect to see airplane debris in the 'gashes'!!! Not big pieces, anyway...

Show me a small piece then.

reply to post by ATH911

Show me a small piece then.

Well now I know you're just pulling our legs. Having fun?

Or, why not tell the audience how you would go about detecting a small fragment from the photos that were taken from many yards away.

You can get a sense of scale when you see the people in the openings..yeah, ghoulish, isn't it? BUT, you brought it up. SO, now, it's up to you to examine all the photos in minute detail to show us what really happened.

I'll bring the popcorn while we wait.

reply to post by ATH911

Nice suspicious looking white van park next to the embedded tire that stayed embedded after a 90 story fall!

"suspicious white van"? Oh, yeah....that's the same one that had the "mural" on the side. Yup!! That's the one......um.....ah, darn it!! Well, from now on, every time I see a white van, ahhm gunna be serspisious!!

Who says the tire is embedded? Oh, the caption on the picture. Does it say that the tire embedded 90 stories up, and they fell together as one?? Did the person who posted that photo imply this?? To throw such an obvious innuendo bomb makes it look more and more as if you're just playing games.

VERY poor form.

p.s. What was your previous sock???

p.p.s. Extra credit: Tell us why the tire is NOT 'embedded' in the piece of the building. Because, actually, I doubt that it is (or was).

[edit on 6/24/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Orion7911

 

your attempt to change PEOPLE into ONE person contradicts the actual evidence from media reports and isn't true, so please retract your assertion.

Well, here's the real truth:

newsmine.org.../flight77-aa-pentagon

An American Airlines flight from Washington to Los Angeles crashed into the Pentagon with 64 passengers and crew aboard. The fuel-laden jet, which had just taken off from Washington's Dulles Airport...

The Pentagon suffered widespread damage on the building's fourth, fifth and sixth corridors, and the impact tore a gaping hole in one side of the building. Firefighters continued to battle the blaze on the building's west side Tuesday night, describing it as "contained" but not yet under control.

Note the part I bolded.

Continuing:

...The jet struck a section of the Pentagon that housed U.S. Army offices about 9:40 a.m. Tuesday. Among those aboard the jet was Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator who appeared frequently on CNN and the wife of U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson.

WHY would it be an intentional Government act, if it were to kill the wife of the U.S. Solicitor General???

But, here's what 'no-planers' eat up:

"It was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon," Mike Walter, an eyewitness, told CNN. "Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out...*snip*

You see, a little research blows the CT people out of the water.

and not one shred of your so-called research remotely blows away anything you're claiming. In fact I don't see any coherent point or evidence disproving or proving whats at issue or anything at all.

whats even more strange is why you're even bringing Theodore Olsen into your "research" and response.

did you not assert that reports about people seeing a missle, was really from ONE person?

Its a FACT there are msm reports that contradict what you claim.

So please get your facts straight. thanx

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Orion7911]

reply to post by ATH911


So explain how something that weighs at least several hundred pounds
if not tons suddenly shows up on crowded Manhattan street in broad
daylight?

Did the conspiracy fairy plant it in front of everybody?

As for time it is matter of knowing sequence of events - 8:46 AM
WTC 1 (North) was struck, 9:56AM - South Tower (WTC 2) collapses,
St Nicholas church in background is buried and destroyed

So have window of about 1 hr 15 min for picture to be taken, now
explain how the piece of exterior skeleton got there....

reply to post by Orion7911

did you not assert that reports about people seeing a missle, was really from ONE person?

Its a FACT there are msm reports that contradict what you claim.

I'm not sure what your fascination is with cruise missiles, really I don't.

However, when I looked for references to 'cruise missile' I saw the one related to the Pentagon...and since this thread is attempting to focus on NYC, I will let my previous post stand, since discussing it any more deflects the topic.

In NYC we have plenty of film evidence of the Boeing 767s hitting the Towers. Have any of the eyewitnesses to those impacts reported to the MSM anything about 'cruise missiles'?

Seems more likely that the "notion" was implanted as soon as someone 'theorized' it, and off to the races we go!! As far as the WTC, the "missile theory" seems to be made up by the CT crowd.

Here are some actual cruise missiles:


And here is UAL175 impacting:


See any differences?

Adding:

And here's an actual jet crash and resulting explosion. Unless you think this was faked by a 'cruise missile' as well?



[edit on 6/24/0909 by weedwhacker]