Holes shaped like planes?

I want to put this here in an attempt to keep the bits on-topic.

In another thread, somebody insisted that once initial penetration
had been done, there was then already a hole in the wall so the
rest of the fuselage ( at lest up to the wings ) would simply slide
into the building with little resistance, however, the fuselage of the
alleged Boeing 757/767 aircraft that allegedly hit the tower, is larger
than the spacing between floors and also would have had to shred
the aircraft on the way in, or at least seriously damage the aircraft
as it entered the building, this takes energy and translates into resistance.
so there would have been significant resistance from the moment of impact all the way to the tail of said aircraft. If you check the photos of the holes in the sides of the towers, and draw a circle representative of the size of the big Boeing fuselage, you will see that the hole is not shaped such to simply allow the aircraft to simply slide right in, the aircraft would have to be cut by the sides of the hole as it entered the building.

The idea that it would "just happen like that" in that having two airliners make two separate strikes to two towers and penetrate as was alleged and completely disappear inside as was alleged without losing a tail or stabilizer or jet engine on the entry hole side. The odds against are astronomical.

 

Not astronomical at all quite normal in fact

 

Yes, the plane was destroyed.

 

Characteristic of your answers, lacks detail and makes assumptions.

Both "FLT11" & "FLT175" alleged to have penetrated a wall
without breaking off a jet engine or wing or anything on the
way into the building. There are very serious logical reasons
for having a wing break off before penetration could be achieved
or for that matter having the aircraft break up before even getting
to the wings at all.

 

It's an 'assumption' that the plane was destroyed after entering the tower?

If you LOOK at the entry holes in the towers,you'll see part of the wings DID fold backalong with the vertical stabilizer

And they went in with the plane...

 

No there are really not any logical reasons for the impact to happen as you describe.

It happened in quite logical fashion

 

and you can supply a foundation for that "quite normal" bit?

 

Yes it is what happened

 

Do you understand that the configuration of the jet engines
would have had the engine striking the wall before the leading
edge of the wing, therefore producing asymmetrical forces on
the wing where the engine mount was, and so in order to keep
the wing intact, the breaking strength of the WTC wall would
have had to have been considerably less than the breaking strength
of the wing..... now do you get it?

 

Do you understand that the planes hit as they did and nothing abnormal or mysterious happened when they did?

Do you understand you know nothing about physics and are leaving out many facts which alter the silly hypothetical scenario you are attempting to paint?

 

It would just shear the mount.

 

Your attitude is showing, thank you very much.

I only ask that the lurkers do their own reading
on this subject and reach their own conclusions.

Have a nice day

: )

 

I stated fact not attitude.

You stated hypotheticals and opinions with no evidence.

 

and you believe that the wings simply folded and followed
the airliner into the building? and the vertical stabilizer also?

So why is it that the video record, doesn't show any of this
radical movement, that is the wings folding up and going
in with the rest of the airliner?

 

Given the engines were 2 tons of steel and titanium,I wonder what Bob thinks should have happened to them?

Considering their forward momentum and mass,that is

 

The IMPACT record shows nothing else COULD have happened

 

so you make the "educated guess" that the breaking strength
of the WTC wall was considerably less than the strength of the
wing/engine mount on the aircraft ( or may I add, alleged aircraft )

Now for all 4 of the engines (that is two per aircraft and two airliners)
the hit to the wall would have to be such that the engine did not hit
right at a point that is supported from behind with a concrete & steel
deck, because that would add more resistance to penetration and be
much more certain of breaking off a wing in the process of attempting
to penetrate the wall, so in the case of "FLT11" and "FLT175" all 4
engines beat the odds and made a perfect entry into the building.

 

what impact record? you mean the pattern of damage left behind
by the alleged airliner crash? to use the term "nothing else could have happened" indicates clearly that your mind is closed to INFORMATION.
I leave it to the random reader(s) of this forum to make up their own minds as to what may or may not have happened, however the evidence is slim to none in support of hijacked airliners used as weapons.

 

You mean closed to ridiculous fantasy. That I will agree to.

 

I'll post this again so some can witness physics at work and possibly understand why the plane wouldn't just crumple and fall to the ground.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg

 

People are still engaging in attitude here.

& Thank you so much for presenting this video, note that
in the case of the projectiles, they are solid lead and have
metal jackets, whereas in the case of the alleged "FLT11"
and "FLT175" the aircraft were aluminum shells, hollow inside.
also notice the violence of the collision between the projectile
and the target, and the huge plume of ejected material back
in the opposite direction of the projectile motion.

where in either case "FLT11" or "FLT175" can be seen a
comparable plume?

 

Your welcome
Keep in mind both copper and lead are softer than even aluminum.
I believe some of those projectiles were actually solid aluminum which is a poor choice for a bullet but this video was more about the science of impact than ballistics. Also some of the steel plate is armor as opposed to normal soft steel.

Scientifically, mathematically there is no specific correlation between a bullet striking a solid steel plate and a plane hitting a building.
But it's interesting to bserve the tail of the bullet does not deform upon the nose impact. From about 6 minutes on in the film you can clearly watch projectiles not penetrating the steel and watch the tails maintain perfect shape until the very end.

Yes there is much back splash from a bullet hitting a steel plate and boring a smaller than caliber hole through it. The WTC was not a solid plate. If it were enough backsplash might have been noticeable at 1000 feet as opposed to ome millionth slow motion at mere inches. Thanks for watching, now digest the knowledge contained within.

 

I still must add that a solid metal ( what ever metal/alloy that may be )
will not be the same as a hollow aircraft.

Close enough, the windows of the tower were quite substantial,
skyscraper windows need to be strong enough to handle bird
strikes & stormy weather. The bits of the WTC tower that
were composed of steel structure ( box columns etc .... )
would have offered up sufficient resistance to cause plenty
of blow-back from the impact.

May I also include in this discussion, the fact that at the
multiple g force deceleration upon impact, the luggage
in the cargo compartment would shift forward and either
breach one or more bulkheads or pack up against a bulkhead
and thereby stress the aircraft from the inside splitting the
fuselage open. Given that the aircraft "FLT11" & "FLT175"
could not possibly have impacted the tower wall perfectly
perpendicular to the plane of the wall, there would be asymmetrical
forces to account for. The video of "FLT175" impacting the wall of
the south tower is totally unrealistic to what should be expected of
such an impact.

I cite the fact that in the calculations of the impact forces,
the entire mass of the aircraft is taken into account, so
why then not include the entire aircraft in the bit that is
to be stressed to the breaking point, when it comes to the
expression of the forces that must have been present at
the point of impact when the nose of "FLT175" first touched
the wall of the tower.

May I also include, Bullets do not have wings.
makes a difference.

 

Just to additionally address this,
note that the minimum g force for the nose of the aircraft
impacting the wall would be 12 g, now given an aircraft
engine that at rest weighs 6,000 lbs, and under the influence
of 12 g deceleration now weighs 72,000 lbs, and this weigh
is expressed forward, pulling away from the wing/engine mount
of the airliner. and this would have been expressed asymmetrically.
Note that the 12 g figure is a absolute minimum, the real forces
were most probably much greater. If indeed "FLT11" or "FLT175"
were real aircraft and not simply images inserted into video to
create the effect, either to cover for a missile hitting the tower,
or?
Given the magnitude & the direction of the forces involved,
why shouldn't the wings break off?