If A 707 Hit The World Trade Center?...

Originally posted by Yankee451
Why would you expect a wing root to survive long enough to drag the wing with it, and how can the flimsy aluminum foil of the wing tip make such pronounced dents in the much denser, thicker steel?

Not the entire wing is flimsy aluminum, there is a spar that runs through the wing that gives it its strength.

Originally posted by Yankee451
Didn't it lose its momentum when it hit the side of the building?

I am sure that it lost some momentum, but certainly not all of it. I fail to understand the point of this question.

Originally posted by Yankee451
According to the NIST, this is the damage caused. If the wing was dragged through the center hole, ala the folding wings of the Pentagon, how do they explain the damage below? They list the columns as severed, not dented as the wings dragged through...severed. They're not all severed, are they? How could the wings not sever that side, yet still wreak havoc inside the building?

Because you assume that:
1) An aircraft is going to break up in a perfectly symmetrical manner, which is incorrect as aircraft parts vary in quality (failure levels) even in the same aircraft.
2) The aircraft is going to continue on in the same attitude inside the building that it was last seen flying in. The truth is that the aircraft fuselage most like was breaking apart and twisting through those columns more so then the wings. Aircraft in a crash tend to shed one wing, then roll in the direction of the severed wing while simultaneously breaking up.

Originally posted by Yankee451
How did they miss this substantial damage to the East side?

That appears to be nothing more then smoke, most likely forced out the windows on that side by air pressure. Just because there is smoke in the picture does not mean there is substantial structural damage on that side. Even then the recreation is most likely only a computer based theoretic scenario as there was no way to survey the exact damage prior to the buildings collapse.

Originally posted by defcon5

Not the entire wing is flimsy aluminum, there is a spar that runs through the wing that gives it its strength.

None of the building was flimsy though, and the damage to the columns is on the left side. Even if a "spar" could do such a thing, the direction of the dents are clearly from the outside, in.

I am sure that it lost some momentum, but certainly not all of it. I fail to understand the point of this question.

Why do you say this? Have you seen the video of the first strike? It's difficult to describe what hit it at all, much less how fast the wings struck. I'm using the NIST reports which state the jet hit about center and straight. This requires the wings to strike the columns first at the engines, and then sequentially out, striking the other columns on the inside corners of the columns; yet the NIST photo shows damage on the outside corners of the columns.

Because you assume that: 1) An aircraft is going to break up in a perfectly symmetrical manner, which is incorrect as aircraft parts vary in quality (failure levels) even in the same aircraft.

I don't assume that at all; no more than I assume a damaged building will fall in a perfectly symmetrical manner. I assume the different parts of the plane will react differently as they encounter or miss parts of the building. I assume engines and landing gear have enough mass and density of material to punch cut through some columns, but I assume wings would be shredded according to whether spars or struts missed floors and exterior walls. I would certainly not expect there to be much left of the plane or the momentum by the time the tail section encountered the building, and yet that too punched through and nothing fell to the street below.

2) The aircraft is going to continue on in the same attitude inside the building that it was last seen flying in. The truth is that the aircraft fuselage most like was breaking apart and twisting through those columns more so then the wings. Aircraft in a crash tend to shed one wing, then roll in the direction of the severed wing while simultaneously breaking up.

The aircraft would bounce off the face of the building and rain serial-numbered down on the streets below, as described by some of the posters responding to the original piece back in 2000.

That appears to be nothing more then smoke, most likely forced out the windows on that side by air pressure. Just because there is smoke in the picture does not mean there is substantial structural damage on that side.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c7d0c157d46.jpg[/atsimg]

Even then the recreation is most likely only a computer based theoretic scenario as there was no way to survey the exact damage prior to the buildings collapse.

It is a white wash report designed to satisfy the none too curious.

Originally posted by Yankee451
Why would you expect a wing root to survive long enough to drag the wing with it, and how can the flimsy aluminum foil of the wing tip make such pronounced dents in the much denser, thicker steel? Didn't it lose its momentum when it hit the side of the building

Flimsy aluminum foil? Oh is that what they build aircraft out of these days?

The steel of the exterior column at that height wasn’t very dense at all. After all the exterior columns only provided lateral stiffness. They didn’t need to be huge because the weight of the structure was supported by the inner core. These exterior columns tamper smaller the higher you go up and the impact locations were near the top. The combined mass of wing on the zone of impact was focused on a narrow section of steel. Just because a one material isn’t as hard or as dense as another material DOES NOT mean that it can’t deform the other material. In the area of impact closer to the fuselage the wings were longer, hence more mass was impacting on a narrow section of each column and the kinetic energy was enough to sever the beam. The greatest extent of structural damage was caused by the fuselage and engines. The engines are of course composed of high strength alloys and are dense masses.
I don’t see the steel columns beyond 146 as being severed, which is consistent with a smaller amount of mass from the wing tips impacting upon them.

The only debate is on the columns located from the 145 to 138 section that were severed by the planes impact.
Essential, you being the resident expert that you are on such matters… have concluded that the central section of a 767’s wing, which would be 10-20ft long, reinforced by a spar, would not be able to severe the tampered exterior steel columns of the WTC at that height.
Instead you believe in the clearly more likely scenario … of these columns being severed by an internal explosive placed in advance of the incident… and that somehow a 767, not quite the most advanced plane of its time, managed to impact the building on PRECISELY the EXACT SAME AXIS as the internal explosives, while traveling at over 500mph, and that the explosives all managed to detonate at the precise time without any failure of detonation, because you know a column would not have been severed otherwise by the insufficient impact of the plane right… oh and the exact same thing was later repeated with the same 100% success rate on the south tower.
Does that about cover it all??

And people wonder why the public has a hard time believing conspiracies…

And you explain how engineers could create a wing tip that can slice from left to right, when it should be slicing from right to left, presuming it can slice at all?

So, you are the resident expect when it comes to plane-building collisions right? I see, because you claim to understand the precise dynamics of a 200 ton object composed of a multitude of materials, crashing into a building at speed greater than 500 miles per hour.
You do realize the absurdity of that don’t you?

How the components deformed/mushroomed upon impact is far beyond your computational abilities.

In any case it seems logical to me that the columns would bend towards the right. Because that is where the fuselage and engines penetrated the structure.
Why do you even think that just because a certain part of the wing hit the building first, that would have any correlation with the direction of the damage? Its direction of the lane and its wings which may have deformed and changed direction upon impact that matters, not what hit what first. From 145 to 150 where the thin tips of the wings hit I don’t see any real distortion. Only when you get closer to where the fuselage and engines impacted do you see this distortion. Obviously because most of the mass of the aircraft was traveling into the center of the impact zone – hence the distorted of the columns in the direction of the center of mass.

Is this really that difficult to comprehend?

How did they miss this substantial damage to the East side”

Because that wasn’t structural damage.
Clearly no columns were destroyed, that was debris(interior materials, dust, glass etc.) being blown out of the building from the force of the impact which easily shattered the exterior glass.

It is a white wash report designed to satisfy the none too curious.

Ah yes, because only conspiracy nuts like you want to understand what happened.

And what’s with the TeeVee? You really think that’s cool? Your not a 10 year old are you? So don't act like one.

I agree with the logic of the OP, I mean the titanic was an unsinkable ship but they told us a a freaking ice berg hit it!? Somethings fishy and they are not telling us the truth about this #, wake up! .......lol