Did Large Airliners Really Hit the Buildings on 9/11?

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Kaiju
Let's see, again. If I'm not mistaken, they test hurricane rated steel doors by shooting wooden two by fours at them. on weaker doors, the wood passes right through them like a hot knife through butter.

Was it a hollow piece of 2x4 with wood, or solid?

I have to point out apples and oranges where ever I see them.

It's a solid 2x4. I saw this done at Windoor 2009 Toronto. See link: www.glasscanadamag.com...

That's a good point about the board being hollow, but at the same time the outside walls of the towers were mostly glass and thin metal framework required to hold the glass and act as a basic wall. The heavy structural beams were at the center of the tower. So just about anything going a few hundred mph would easily penetrate the buildings. I also believe there are enough strong, rigid pieces in a large airliner, such as landing gear and engines, that at the speed the planes hit, could easily damage some of the steel structure of the building, weakening it for eventual collapse.

Did Large Airliners Really Hit the Buildings on 9/11?

In a word...yes.

WTC 1 = yes
WTC 2 = yes
WTC 7 = no
Pentagon = N/A (evidence not available)

Anything is "possible" but we need evidence to confirm.

reply to post by PookztA


Ummm, OP:

Are you aware the picture you posted of the bird strike clearly shows that softer material can in fact "cut" through stronger materials when VELOCITY is factored into the equation??

Are you sure you wanted to post that photo of a bird strike when you're trying to argue that softer materials cannot cut through stronger ones????

i think medium airliners may have struck on september 11th,

i dont know anything about 9/11 and im glad, all i know is i saw to planes hit a tower, and thats it

One thing I think you missed is the amount of kentic energy those planes had.

The skin might be aluminium but theres the fuel the structural parts glass,plastics ect ect.

You said that water can penetrate steal but copper cannot but that is exacty what happens in the missiles that are used to kill tanks. A shaped charge melts the copper that then burns through the METAL skin of the tank and kentic energy carries the copper ect inside making sure anyone inside is gonna have a bad day.

So I say the planes would have carried a lot of energy that energy cannot be lost it must be converted. My opinion is that the energy converted into heat which would have melted through the steel and concrete once passed that there was still enough heat an kinetic energy left to go through the building and out of the other side.

Now I will say I don't beleive in the OS but I pretty much beleive that there is no point in discussing what type of plane hit the tower as no mater how you cut it 2 airplanes did hit the towers

reply to post by PookztA




You really think so

www.break.com...

Originally posted by PookztA
...Aluminum CANNOT cut through steel, just like copper does not cut through diamond (FACT).

...but Steel CAN cut through Aluminum. (FACT).

In fact, BIRDS can even cut through Aluminum (see below).

This is a strawman argument.

You say that a soft flesh and blood bird can cut through a denser materail, and yet you are argue that a soft material can't cut through a denser one.

You discount the kinetic force of the impact, where the plane was flying at 300+ mph

A 767 weighs 80 tons when its empty. fully laden it weighs 157tons.

A mass of between 80 and 157tons hit the side of the towers, not single piece of aluminium.

OP,

Planes did hit the buildings. I saw them with my own eyes from right across the hudson.

I know what i saw.

What it boils down to is the planes didn't sever any perimeter columns. One of the main reasons why the "no planes at the WTC" exists is because some people think an aluminum plane shouldn't be able to go through steel like a hot knife through butter.

The outer columns were assembled at the factory in sections consisting of 3 columns, 3 stories high, welded together by spandrel plates. They were then put together on the towers in a staggered formation:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e157541a8ac2.jpg[/atsimg]


Each column section was then bolted together at each column with large bolts:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/abf05d48200e.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/320e3f023ef8.jpg[/atsimg]


In essence, the planes broke the welds and bolts on the perimeter columns. None of the perimeter columns actually failed or were severed from the impacts.

As an example, a fishing pole that can reel in a 50-pound fish can bend pretty far without breaking. If you take the fishing pole and cut it into three pieces, then glue and tape it back together, would it still be able to lift 50 pounds without breaking? I would guess probably not.

In other words, if the steel columns were continuous from top to bottom, we absolutely would have seen a totally different outcome. But since the columns were not continuous and only "glued and taped" from top to bottom, it was the "glue and tape" that failed and what the planes went through. The columns basically moved out of the way of the planes with only the resistance of the welds and bolts holding them in place.





[edit on 17-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

IMO it does not matter if planes,missles,or whatever hit the towers. The question is this.
If you believe explosives brought down the towers,like all truthers do, then can someone tell me why they needed the planes(projetiles)? It makes no sense.

Originally posted by ugie1028
OP,

Planes did hit the buildings. I saw them with my own eyes from right across the hudson.

I know what i saw.

I was going to bring up the fact of eyewitnesses when I read the title of the thread, but then decided to drop that and point out the OPs huge error when he posted pictures of a bird strike.

Originally posted by rick1
can someone tell me why they needed the planes(projetiles)? It makes no sense.

The plane strikes were the actual terrorist acts. The demolition of the WTC was the "shock-and-awe" part of the operation.

As SPreston likes to keep in his signature:

'Hindsight allows us to realize that
9/11 was the Bush Administration's
first shock and awe campaign.'

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by rick1
can someone tell me why they needed the planes(projetiles)? It makes no sense.

The plane strikes were the actual terrorist acts. The demolition of the WTC was the "shock-and-awe" part of the operation.

As SPreston likes to keep in his signature:

'Hindsight allows us to realize that
9/11 was the Bush Administration's
first shock and awe campaign.'

So what about the 40,000t + pile driver that brought down the South Tower which you can see on video of the collapse which is why although hit later than the north tower the south collapsed first!

all i know is i saw the plane on tv hit the tower but never really seen the pentagon plane except maybe 2 seconds of the security camera that looks to me a missile..hey what about the plane that hit tower 7..opps no plane hit that building could it be that the hologram didnt work on that building???hehehehehehehehehehehe

I believe the general rational is that the planes where assisted at the point of contact with demolitions. The planes certainly would not have disappeared into the building without assistance. I'm open to the no plane theory but really, it doesn't matter. The issue is more who and why and it's not the magic Muslims.

OP, I never write on 911 threads. The first and last one I started writing on I just started to cry. But anyway, here goes...
I am an artist and I know nothing about math or science, but what I DO know is I read a lot of ATS 911 threads, each one is a different perspective.
Remember how crazy it was when John Leer was writing about this here? He was talking about a lack of planes before he said "I'm outta here"

What he and others said about the hole not being even close to plane shaped was quite intriguing. (not that it HAD to be plane shaped, but it didn't even look like what it should have if it HAD been a plane shaped hole)

Leer was also talking about the holograms. People saw planes, yes, but Leer was asking "were they a hologram" I think.

The birds going through the aluminum shoots down your biggest point, with all due respect.

But your passionate about this and if there is anything to what Lear says then you might be someone who can understand it.

reply to post by wmd_2008


There was no "pile-drive" effect on either tower. Both towers had explosives being detonated as the towers were collapsing so as to remove the resistance from below:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6dab83d90c0f.jpg[/atsimg]


A few will theorize or give their opinions that the ejections are simply from compressed air escaping out of the windows. But what is not an opinion or a theory is that the concentrated ejections seen above have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions as they are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated. In no other collapse, be it from fire, earthquake or whatever, will you ever see these concentrated ejections except in controlled demolitions.

People can theorize and opinionate until they're blue in the face to explain away the ejections, but nobody can prove it. We do have proof, though, that these concentrated ejections can be seen over and over again in controlled demolitions.

Originally posted by ReelView
The planes certainly would not have disappeared into the building without assistance.

Could you please explain how a 300,000-pound object traveling circa 500mph needs assistance breaking bolts and welds, because I'm not quite grasping the idea?

My post above that explains this, in case you missed it :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Still

911research.wtc7.net...


Video

www.youtube.com...

Look from about the 2 second mark.


We all KNOW that for any demolition of a tall building takes a long time to prepare.

You cant prove the puffs of debris are due to charges but the collapse of the building due to 40,000 PLUS tons falling on the lower floors could bring the building down which could be due to impact damage , fire damage etc you cant deny that.
So lets be truly honest here the problem is NOTHING like this has happened before so JOE PUBLIC cannot believe what happened and out of all the structural engineers in the WORLD only 1100 think the way you do.
I live in the UK I dont know ONE single engineer here that thinks it was a dem job.
Any of them I have spoken to over the years since this event has yet to agree with dem theory.
We get all the false statements like no steel building has collapsed due to just fire which is WRONG.
What people seem to forget is the damage caused by the impact, the fire , thermal expansion etc it wasn't just a fire.