It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are 767's wingtips and tail made of Pentanium Steel?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Notice that in both of the "Wile E. Coyote" impact holes in the WTC Towers, they show where it looks as if the 767's wingtips and tip of the vertical stabilizer tail sliced relatively cleanly through the facade:


WTC 1 impact hole:





(Flight 11 allegedly crashed into it going 470 mph.)



WTC 2 impact hole:





(Flight 175 allegedly crashed into it going 590 mph.)



The video of the 2nd crashes shows the ENTIRE planes passing through the building:





The photos of the 1st crash suggests that it did to.




QUESTION:

Do you think the wingtips and tail section of the Boeing 767's that supposedly crashed through the WTC 1 & 2 are strong enough to cut through the steel reinforced skyscrapers like a knife going through warm butter?




For that to happen, the fragile and mostly hollow wings and tail would have to SAW there way through each of the spaced steel girders of the buildings:





The spaced steel girders of the buildings should have acted like an egg slicer to anything coming into it:





The wings and tail also get weaker towards their tips and note that the angle the swept back wings and tail crashed at, the wings and tail would have had to contact the "sharp" corners of each of the many steel girders it would have had to saw through first. And not only that, the wings and tails would have had to slice through the floor slabs too, the sturdiest part of the facade. Also, Flight 11 reportedly was traveling 120 mph slower than Flight 175.



Now, notice what happens when a plane's wing comes in contact with a bird:








Remember, the question is can the wingtips and tail do what they supposedly did to the Twin Towers, not what caused the impact holes if the planes didn't.




Also, note that the angle of both impacts are nearly identical:




And both "planes" make a direct hit without any of its wings extending beyond the corners of the buildings. If that happened, the part that extended beyond the buildings would have sheered off and continued to travel forward and would be seem in the videos that would prove they were real planes.




(For those who don't know what Pentanium Steel is, see here.)

[edit on 30-3-2006 by Killtown]




posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Man Im sorry to say this, but you spent all that time making that huge post, for nothing because you fail to understand that:

1. 747 wings are huge compared to those personal aircrafts. They weigh alot more, and require alot more structuring in the wing to hold them up, plus those big engines, AND the amount of fuel weight in them.

2. I cant remember from the top of my head, what speed you said the planes were flying at, but it was in the 400-500+ range, and thats really fast for those wings, loaded with fuel and bracing. (all that inertia)

those girders you mention also appear simply to be a facing of the building, and no more then thin strips of metal, with girders appearing in a different order behind them.

now this is just a un-researched guess into the building design, but I am willing to bet the major girders are arranged like so:
|X|
|X|
|X|

[edit on 30-3-2006 by acura_el2000]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Please KillTown.

What ever you do, do NOT promote the no plane theory, it is going to be the death of the 9/11 truth movement, you will kill it.

From my research I know those planes were not commercial airliners, rather custom made probably by Boeing.

Who knows whether or not the wings would of been strong enough.

Please KillTown for the sake of the 9/11 truth movement, you also have Jimmy Walter promoting this ridiculous idea.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   
CNN already managed to kill the 9/11 truth live, with the help of Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen.

[edit on 30-3-2006 by Aztecatl]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 06:20 AM
link   
You don't think it's an accident that Sheen and Jones come on mainstream TV promoting some of the wilder theories do you?
Funny, one minute CNN and co are all in on the plot showing fake video, etc and are puppets of the Government, but when they seemingly start promoting the conspiracies they can be trusted?
Suckers!



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by acura_el2000
1. 747 wings are huge compared to those personal aircrafts. They weigh alot more, and require alot more structuring in the wing to hold them up, plus those big engines, AND the amount of fuel weight in them.

2. I cant remember from the top of my head, what speed you said the planes were flying at, but it was in the 400-500+ range, and thats really fast for those wings, loaded with fuel and bracing. (all that inertia)

those girders you mention also appear simply to be a facing of the building, and no more then thin strips of metal, with girders appearing in a different order behind them.

now this is just a un-researched guess into the building design, but I am willing to bet the major girders are arranged like so:
|X|
|X|
|X|



1. A 767 and that fails to explain how the outer wing tips and tail-section was able to slice through.

2. 11- 470mph; 175 - 590 mph

The girders on the facade my be "thin" compared to the internal girders, but they are a lot wider, thicker, denser, and stronger than the aluminum wingtips and tail-section of a 767.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
Please KillTown.

What ever you do, do NOT promote the no plane theory, it is going to be the death of the 9/11 truth movement, you will kill it.

From my research I know those planes were not commercial airliners, rather custom made probably by Boeing.

Who knows whether or not the wings would of been strong enough.

Please KillTown for the sake of the 9/11 truth movement, you also have Jimmy Walter promoting this ridiculous idea.



I understand your concern, but I'm just exploring it. I haven't put anything about no-planes at the WTC on my website. I'm just exploring it on the 9/11 forums, the place to explore theories and ideas.

And remember, people who believe the following:

all planes crashed = planehuggers

77 didn't crash, but the rest did = 25% no-planer

only 77 & 93 didn't crash = 50% no-planer

none crashed = no-planers



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown

1. A 767 and that fails to explain how the outer wing tips and tail-section was able to slice through.

2. 11- 470mph; 175 - 590 mph

The girders on the facade my be "thin" compared to the internal girders, but they are a lot wider, thicker, denser, and stronger than the aluminum wingtips and tail-section of a 767.


KILTOWN , to add you everything you have been told already , consider the equation E= M V2

its a simplistic view of impact energiy - but good enough to get the point across , as it neatly demonstrates that velocity is a quality in its own right in an impact

if you need a practical demonstration - ever seen the vid clips of a wax candle beeing fired from a shot gun ??/ - it will penetrate 6mm marine ply - can you punch a ordinary wax candle through a ply sheet with your bare hands ?? - no ??

thank you , case closed



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
if you need a practical demonstration - ever seen the vid clips of a wax candle beeing fired from a shot gun ??/ - it will penetrate 6mm marine ply - can you punch a ordinary wax candle through a ply sheet with your bare hands ?? - no ??
thank you , case closed



I'm not arguing that the fuselage couldn't have penetrated (comparable to your analogy), I'm arguing that the wings couldn't slice through all of those steel girders and floor slabs.

What you argued is apples and oranges.

Case re-opened.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown

I'm not arguing that the fuselage couldn't have penetrated (comparable to your analogy), I'm arguing that the wings couldn't slice through all of those steel girders and floor slabs.

What you argued is apples and oranges.

Case re-opened.



then you are putting forward a strawman - the wingtips only penetrated a short distance - as one would expect

they didnt " slice through floor slabs " - so stop pretending this argument is valid

and besides do you realise just how large the wing tip ACTUALLY is ?? here is the data [ supplied by zaphod58 ]

the wing depth is 2.29m and cross section ratio of 10.13% at the tip

thats over 8 feet by 12" in merkin measurments - hardly a flimsy structure



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
then you are putting forward a strawman - the wingtips only penetrated a short distance - as one would expect

they didnt " slice through floor slabs " - so stop pretending this argument is valid


1. The 2nd hit video shows clearly that the wing and tail tips disappear into the builing. What happened to them if the didn't slice through all the steel girders and floor slabs?

2. Yes they did, look more closely.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
This actually looks like part of a control surface:




oops sorry that is the pentagon.





[edit on 31-3-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Not sure what that has to do with the WTC, but that's either an inboard aileron or inboard flap it looks like.

[edit on 3/31/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Hit and clipped at least 5 light poles before hitting the pentagon....

Uh.... 5 light poles



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
And 5 light poles means what? That the 250 pound poles are going to drag the almost 200,000 pound plane off course?



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Killtown, are those pics accurate?

Because they make the planes seem pretty tiny compared to the buildings. I never noticed that before...



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Killtown, are those pics accurate?

Because they make the planes seem pretty tiny compared to the buildings. I never noticed that before...



The one's with the red scaled planes? I don't know, they are from Gallerize. I put them up more so to give people an idea of the angle of impact and how the wings and tail extend.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   


Killtown, are those pics accurate?


I was wondering the same thing.

The superimposed images on some of them seem to be in the wrong places or at the wrong impact angles (The plane angle is head on where it should have been rotated, which would slightly alter how it covers the hole.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Maybe it means something... why don't you take a little read here:

www.davesweb.cnchost.com...

I promise you.... it's a good read..... perhaps we can have a conversation about it afterwords.


Originally posted by Zaphod58
And 5 light poles means what? That the 250 pound poles are going to drag the almost 200,000 pound plane off course?



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Hehehe Zaphod please wach that little video on that website that Promomag posted above.

Is that the truck you were sitting in?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join