Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Well what do you get from this NAM ?


How can I say this ? The structure of any aircraft as opposed to the structure
of any high rise. Is akin to the structure of a bug as opposed to your windshield.
The results leave no one puzzled. We may as well be watching a paper airplane fly
into a paper shreadder. The structure of any plane is not even comparable to
the structure of a commercial buiding. Not even close.

When I watch one of the vids, I see a plane hit a building,

plane gone

not building.

reply to post by randyvs


Have you ever looked at the tensile strength of aircraft aluminum? Obviously not. It's stronger than steel.

A36 steel, which made up at least part of the WTC structure.

Mechanical Properties
Mechanical Properties Metric Imperial
Tensile Strength, Ultimate 400 - 550 MPa 58000 - 79800 psi
Tensile Strength, Yield 250 MPa 36300 psi
Elongation at Break (in 200 mm) 20.0 % 20.0 %
Elongation at Break (in 50 mm) 23.0 % 23.0 %
Modulus of Elasticity 200 GPa 29000 ksi
Bulk Modulus (typical for steel) 140 GPa 20300 ksi
Poissons Ratio 0.260 0.260
Shear Modulus 79.3 GPa 11500 ksi

www.azom.com...

7075 aluminum, which is used in aircraft.

Ultimate Tensile Strength 572 MPa 83000 psi AA; Typical
Tensile Yield Strength 503 MPa 73000 psi AA; Typical
Elongation at Break 11 % 11 % AA; Typical; 1/16 in. (1.6 mm) Thickness
Elongation at Break 11 % 11 % AA; Typical; 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) Diameter
Modulus of Elasticity 71.7 GPa 10400 ksi AA; Typical; Average of tension and compression. Compression modulus is about 2% greater than tensile modulus.
Shear Modulus 26.9 GPa 3900 ksi
Shear Strength 331 MPa 48000 psi AA; Typical

asm.matweb.com...

The ultimate tensile strength of the aluminum is almost 4000 psi higher than the steel.

I'm still waiting to hear how a B-25, a full 4 1/2 times LIGHTER than an EMPTY 767 when fully loaded, went all the way through a building, but a fully loaded 767 couldn't. Please. Explain that to me.

reply to post by randyvs


Really? I have no idea? Then explain how much lighter aircraft cause significant damage to buildings, but the WTC was somehow going to magically make it bounce off.

Piper Dakota vs IRS building

Cessna vs Building

And of course the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building that I linked earlier that you totally ignored.

randyvs
Do they make airplanes to with stand the impact of a building ?
Do they make buildings to with stand the impact of a plane ?
How much do blimps weigh Zaph ?
I can't believe you would even try to argue the point.

The only one of these that has anything to do with anything is the second one. And yes, they made the WTC capable of withstanding a low speed impact with a 707, which had a much narrower footprint than the 767 does.

And you're a fine one to try to call me out for not answering questions when you ignore the one that I asked of you.

reply to post by Zaphod58


You're strong ass alum doesn't make a big appearance on any of the vids does it ?
Looks like the best way to describe it to me is Shredded.

I know you must have a mental image for the effects of flying your plane into a building.

THAT.

As I recall the plane was no longer a plane. But the building was still there
till they demoed it.

reply to post by randyvs


And where have I ever said that it wouldn't shred on impact? Of course it's going to shred, and it's going to be destroyed. But it's going to go through that steel and barely slow down as it's being destroyed.

Oh look, aluminum that survived.

AA 11 window frame

Aircraft debris found outside WTC

More aircraft debris

reply to post by Zaphod58


No the steel is going to shred the plane. The concrete floors and gigantic iron verticals,
risers are what is doing the shredding pal. One day on the iron with me. You will know.
I promise.

reply to post by randyvs


I'm still waiting for an explanation how a much lighter plane, going much slower, is going to somehow be able to go all the way through a concrete building, yet a much heavier plane, going much faster can't penetrate steel.

And it didn't go through the beams, which you would understand if you'd actually look at the damage pattern. It sheared them at the joins, exactly where you would expect it to. It bent the beams as they sheared. But please, prove to me that a plane travelling that fast can't penetrate a steel wall. I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions that you're totally ignoring.

I really wish folks would stop trying to prove facts regarding
9/11. Post as many innitial reports and witness testimony
as you can. Any speculation leads to dismissal. You cannot
dismiss eyewitness accounts in the initial reports. They can be
scrutinized but not dismissed.

A proper investigation is all thay is needed. The NYPD or
FBI should have been the ones investigating it and releasing
the reports.

If the 9/11 Commission report turns out to be a proven falacy...
Who is to blame? My guess is nobody.

reply to post by Zaphod58

I'm still waiting for an explanation how a much lighter plane, going much slower, is going to somehow be able to go all the way through a concrete building, yet a much heavier plane, going much faster can't penetrate steel.

Zaph, have you even thought how you might answer that ? I mean look at it ?

You're try'in to tell me the beams sheared off at the joints. What beams are you talk'in
about. Beams run horizontal ok ? Columns and risers run vertical. Trusses and joists
run horizontal.

reply to post by randyvs


Please, tell me. Small planes can go through buildings, but larger heavier planes can't. That's amazing.

Tell me all about how those joins are strong enough not to fail in the WTC, and cause the planes to just bounce off and not do any damage. I'm still waiting to hear that.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Please, tell me. Small planes can go through buildings, but larger heavier planes can't. That's amazing.

Why ? I'm serious why should I tell you that ?

reply to post by randyvs


Because you claim that there's no way that a plane the size of a 767 can possibly have gone through the WTC. But yet we've seen much smaller lighter planes, going much slower, go into, and through buildings. So why couldn't the 767 do it, when they could?

reply to post by Zaphod58

Because you claim that there's no way that a plane the size of a 767 can possibly have gone through the WTC. But yet we've seen much smaller lighter planes, going much slower, go into, and through buildings. So why couldn't the 767 do it, when they could?

What was left of those planes ? I rest my case.

The US had to create an event that would shake even the deepest cave in Afgan an event that big that not only put the will to carry on the fight back into the battle tired US population but an event that would have Bin Laden reaching for his sat or cell phone. The usual methods of informers and torture just was not having the desired results after all there is no nation better at EW other than the US. Remote flight of such a big aircraft is possible indeed.

Zaphod58
reply to post by randyvs

 

Because you claim that there's no way that a plane the size of a 767 can possibly have gone through the WTC. But yet we've seen much smaller lighter planes, going much slower, go into, and through buildings. So why couldn't the 767 do it, when they could?

Where did I make such a claim ? I can fly a paper airplane thru a building, just open the windows.

leostokes

wmd_2008

leostokes

wmd_2008

leostokes

wmd_2008
reply to post by leostokes

 

Sure approx 96,000 tons of steel and about 80-90,000 tons of concrete for the floor slabs in each tower add in services ie pipework, cables, h&v, glazing and cladding it works out at about 220-235,000 tons in each tower.

Thanks for your reply. This link says 1,500,000 is the weight (of the two?) towers. Others say 500,000 tons each. Morgan Reynolds says 1,000,000.

WTC stats

Most of the 1,000,000 plus guesstimates are based on info regarding the cubic mtrs of concrete delivered to the site BUT that included things like the BATHTUB which is not part of the buildings also the floorslabs had a less dense mix of concrete than say would be used for a structural mix so the 220-235,000 ton estimates will be more accurate.

Ok. Next question is what did the structure weigh when it fell? Including all of the furnishings of the tenants?

WHY? it would be a LOW percentage of the total weight!

So that we can compare the twin towers with a known controlled demolition.

The Seattle King dome was 125,000 tons. When it collapsed due to controlled demolition it registered like a 2.3 earth quake. Compare this with the twin towers. If theirs was a controlled demolition one would expect a larger seismic number. It did not happen.

Furthermore, the twin towers produced only a single surface (seismic) wave unlike the King dome that produced the usual family of waves we see in an earth quake.

Also, the King dome collapse lasted 16.8 seconds. The wtc towers (seismic) wave lasted 8 or 9 seconds. One would expect the towers to last longer as they fell from a much greater height.

The King dome produced a dust cloud that was gone after 20 minutes.

The King dome produced a pile of rubble about 12% of the original height. The WTC rubble was about 4%. The volume of the towers was many times that of the King dome. Where is the rubble?

edit on 3-12-2013 by leostokes because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-12-2013 by leostokes because: (no reason given)

Apples with Apples as the saying goes you CAN'T compare totally different structures as the same as for things like dust many on here claim steel was turned to dust BS, think of all the materials in the structure that could produce dust do you want that listed as well ?

reply to post by Zaphod58

This damage was caused by a B-25 hitting the Empire State Building. It was traveling at low speed, as it was trying to land. One engine went completely through the building and out the other side.

The picture in the link tells the story.

(We naturally assume the story is authentic. Like in the good ole days. These days we are more skeptical. None the less, it is a good example from an earlier age.)

reply to post by wmd_2008

Apples with Apples as the saying goes you CAN'T compare totally different structures as the same as for things like dust many on here claim steel was turned to dust BS, think of all the materials in the structure that could produce dust do you want that listed as well ?

We are comparing dust from two supposed controlled demolitions, WTC and Kingdome. Because that is all the data we have. Not because they are ideal examples. We could do a comparison by rebuilding the WTC and doing an experiment. That would be better. Until then let us use the data we have.

The Kingdome was like other controlled demolitions. They produce dust as a byproduct and a liability. The Kingdome dust lasted about 20 minutes. It was not much dust.

The dust from the WTC blocked out the sun at times. It lasted for days. Its quantity was huge.

Where have we seen this type of occurrence before? In controlled demolitions or volcanic eruptions?

I do not like your tone or your language (BS).

reply to post by randyvs


And where has anyone said that they wouldn't be destroyed, and would go through intact? They would do exactly what they did on that day, and punch very large holes in the building while being destroyed in the process.