Quote:

 

Concerning the "penetration" of the WTC towers by the planes, you are under the constant misconception that the planes had to cut through anything else that the perimeter columns. The nose and wings had a fair chance against the columns, but the concrete slabs between the floors are a much more serious obstacle, which effectively shredded the plane and halted it. So, again, the plane does NOT cut through the whole building. It breaks through the perimeter and encounters the floors, and then it's shredded, foot by foot, right as the intact rear part keeps coming in. This is the quickest way that I can possibly address the question.

Quote:

 

No, it's not odd. It may seem counter-intuitive - all the more so if you ignore the shredding and imply that the plane stays intact and "cuts" not only through the perimeter but also through the concrete slabs - but you'd be wrong to think of it that way. As far as I can tell, the sections of the plane undergo tremendous destruction and deceleration, once they cross the building's perimeter.

Quote:

 

No. The real resistance and destruction occurs INSIDE the building. The plane is shredded by the concrete slabs, the debris plow through the office floors and come to a quick halt. That destruction and deceleration is something that you can simply not see on the videos, but it doesn't mean that it isn't there, or that the plane doesn't meet any resistance at all.

Quote:

 

Are you referring to that still frame in your attachment? Here is my interpretation, for what it's worth. Have a look at the closeups of these holes that were taken later, and look at the actual damage to perimeter columns. The ones that were cut are a little bent inwards,but the actual cut has about the same thickness as the wing - such a thin mark can not be resolved on the impact videos at least not consistently so. Why then were the wing marks so obvious later on? Because of the aluminium cladding that fell off the columns shortly after the impact, creating this characteristic jagged shape, which is often misinterpreted as a big "hole". My point is that the damage to the columns was quite subtle (except the area where the fuselage went through, of course), and there's no wonder that the videos show the wings "disappearing" into the building. After a while the cladding falls off, revealing what looks like an impressive hole left by the wings - at a casual glance, that is. Please take some time to analyze this, and tell me if you think I'm not making sense.

broken sticks

Oct 6 2009, 11:42 PM

ace's arguments about the plane rely on every single home recording from 911 being planted by conspirators.
i just don't believe it.


one for geeky people like me:
the "dangle a plane and smash it with a tower" analogy forgets an interesting part:
if the videos are real (which i believe), a plane hits a steel lattice structure at 500mph
and pretty much most of it stays inside and STOPS
BUT
if you swing a tower in ace's analogy, to match the plane stopping (in a correct analogy)
you'd have to start decelerating the tower right at the point of impact, and then
decelerate it greatly until the tower stops.
if think it shows that the "swing a tower at a plane" analogy misrepresents momentum.


the collision in four lines:

weaker plane parts that hit steel disintegrated, causing accumulative damage to the steel
columns.
dismembered plane pieces between the columns begun entering.
stronger plane pieces caused fatal damage to the inter-connected steel sections they
impacted, and severe damage to the surrounding steel sections, in effect ripping holes
through the wall.
in the case of the fuselage, the above three interactions occured for the whole length of the
plane, also causing localised severe damage to the floor slabs impacted in this area.

any good?




i liked it when ace talked about steven jones: "we don't know where this dust came from - its frikkin dust!!" hehe, wicked
ace also has a really good point for why people might keep 911 to themselves. anarchy.

DrBabs

Oct 7 2009, 12:21 AM

broken sticks

Oct 6 2009, 11:42 PM

ace's arguments about the plane rely on every single home recording from 911 being planted by conspirators.
i just don't believe it.


one for geeky people like me:
the "dangle a plane and smash it with a tower" analogy forgets an interesting part:
if the videos are real (which i believe), a plane hits a steel lattice structure at 500mph
and pretty much most of it stays inside and STOPS
BUT
if you swing a tower in ace's analogy, to match the plane stopping (in a correct analogy)
you'd have to start decelerating the tower right at the point of impact, and then
decelerate it greatly until the tower stops.
if think it shows that the "swing a tower at a plane" analogy misrepresents momentum.


the collision in four lines:

weaker plane parts that hit steel disintegrated, causing accumulative damage to the steel
columns.
dismembered plane pieces between the columns begun entering.
stronger plane pieces caused fatal damage to the inter-connected steel sections they
impacted, and severe damage to the surrounding steel sections, in effect ripping holes
through the wall.
in the case of the fuselage, the above three interactions occured for the whole length of the
plane, also causing localised severe damage to the floor slabs impacted in this area.

any good?




i liked it when ace talked about steven jones: "we don't know where this dust came from - its frikkin dust!!" hehe, wicked
ace also has a really good point for why people might keep 911 to themselves. anarchy.

Maybe some of that would make sense if we didn't
ALREADY have many examples of planes that hit
buildings. They didn't slice into the buildings.
They largely bounced off the buildings.

TV Fakery being false doesn't make planes true.

broken sticks

Oct 7 2009, 12:48 AM

DrBabs

Oct 7 2009, 12:21 AM

broken sticks

Oct 6 2009, 11:42 PM

ace's arguments about the plane rely on every single home recording from 911 being planted by conspirators.
i just don't believe it.


one for geeky people like me:
the "dangle a plane and smash it with a tower" analogy forgets an interesting part:
if the videos are real (which i believe), a plane hits a steel lattice structure at 500mph
and pretty much most of it stays inside and STOPS
BUT
if you swing a tower in ace's analogy, to match the plane stopping (in a correct analogy)
you'd have to start decelerating the tower right at the point of impact, and then
decelerate it greatly until the tower stops.
if think it shows that the "swing a tower at a plane" analogy misrepresents momentum.


the collision in four lines:

weaker plane parts that hit steel disintegrated, causing accumulative damage to the steel
columns.
dismembered plane pieces between the columns begun entering.
stronger plane pieces caused fatal damage to the inter-connected steel sections they
impacted, and severe damage to the surrounding steel sections, in effect ripping holes
through the wall.
in the case of the fuselage, the above three interactions occured for the whole length of the
plane, also causing localised severe damage to the floor slabs impacted in this area.

any good?




i liked it when ace talked about steven jones: "we don't know where this dust came from - its frikkin dust!!" hehe, wicked
ace also has a really good point for why people might keep 911 to themselves. anarchy.

Maybe some of that would make sense if we didn't
ALREADY have many examples of planes that hit
buildings. They didn't slice into the buildings.
They largely bounced off the buildings.

TV Fakery being false doesn't make planes true.

Many examples of planes hitting buildings at 500+mph? where exactly? i can think of one, and it
doesn't contradict the 911 videos.

DrBabs

Oct 7 2009, 12:21 AM

Maybe some of that would make sense if we didn't
ALREADY have many examples of planes that hit
buildings. They didn't slice into the buildings.
They largely bounced off the buildings.

broken sticks

Oct 7 2009, 01:25 PM

DrBabs

Oct 7 2009, 12:21 AM

Maybe some of that would make sense if we didn't
ALREADY have many examples of planes that hit
buildings. They didn't slice into the buildings.
They largely bounced off the buildings.

many examples?

please post ANY examples.

DrBabs

Oct 11 2009, 07:18 AM

broken sticks

Oct 7 2009, 01:25 PM

DrBabs

Oct 7 2009, 12:21 AM

Maybe some of that would make sense if we didn't
ALREADY have many examples of planes that hit
buildings. They didn't slice into the buildings.
They largely bounced off the buildings.

many examples?

please post ANY examples.

Don't make me do your research.
Pick any video of a plane crash and look at it.
The plane gets seriously messed up.

Planes get messed up if they land too hard, for cripes sake.
You think it could survive an impact with a steel building?
Not sensible.

broken sticks

Oct 11 2009, 07:42 AM

DrBabs

Oct 11 2009, 07:18 AM

broken sticks

Oct 7 2009, 01:25 PM

DrBabs

Oct 7 2009, 12:21 AM

Maybe some of that would make sense if we didn't
ALREADY have many examples of planes that hit
buildings. They didn't slice into the buildings.
They largely bounced off the buildings.

many examples?

please post ANY examples.

Don't make me do your research.
Pick any video of a plane crash and look at it.
The plane gets seriously messed up.

Planes get messed up if they land too hard, for cripes sake.
You think it could survive an impact with a steel building?
Not sensible.

"if we didn't
ALREADY have many examples of planes that hit
buildings"
Babs! We've done the research! Just from memory, there's ONE example of what happens to materials like aluminium at 600mph, there's a few videos of sub-150mph crashes, and you know what, i can't think of any into a building, apart from that old wooden plane that hits a barn.

babs - we've done this research!!! we are interested in this you know!

"You think it could survive an impact with a steel building?
Not sensible."
who says that i or anyone else thinks the plane would survive?!
in every single frame of video, the plane is either outside the building, or irreparably damaged.
even if time stopped halfway through the entry, that plane hasn't survived - its entire front half has had the s*** smashed out of it.
of course, the back end is none-the-wiser.
so how come the really off-the-mark quoting?
ok, not quoting, but you said:
"You think it could survive an impact with a steel building?
Not sensible."
Well, that's never been said by me or anyone else.
Do you read the various threads you post on?

DrBabs

Oct 11 2009, 11:14 AM

Your theory is that the airplane
survived the impact with the exterior steel beams with
no apparent damage, but then was shredded by the
interior beams.