It has always troubled me how a lighter Aluminum alloy cut the external steel grid of the WTC like a hot knife going through butter. Watching the pictures of construction in the 70's those things were large and strong, the fascade was weak yes, but the steel behind it was thick and strong.
When you watch the second plane hit and go through it so easily, it just doesn't seem possible. I know some people will say kinetic energy did it.
But shouldn't the wings have snapped off like in other plane accidents.
This part of 9/11 baffles me. Thoughts?

[edit on 20-11-2007 by Blue_Jay33]

Since I have sold pressure washers at work, I get that water can cut '"STUFF" line. And I am no troll. What am I trolling for? Please tell me because I don't even know?

There is a huge, size difference here too. Not to mention liquid versus solids.

It's a good question however the simple answer is:
when it's going 600 mph

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Since I have sold pressure washers at work, I get that water can cut '"STUFF" line. And I am no troll. What am I trolling for? Please tell me because I don't even know?

There is a huge, size difference here too. Not to mention liquid versus solids.

I think it's not accurate to say that it "cut" the exterior panels.

The water jet example is pretty weak too IMHO. To cut hard materials, it uses an abrasive to do the actual cutting.

I believe a more accurate way to describe it is that it "battered" its' way through. Not all parts of a plane are thin aluminum - engines, landing gear, gear linkages, hydraulic/electric actuators, wing box ( thx John Lear)hydraulic pumps, etc, etc are pretty dense. In one photo - I think it was for WTC2 - , you can see where the left wing tip - which doesn't contain any dense items - only managed to knock off the exterior aluminum cladding. This is what one might expect when you use the common misconception that planes are made of just thin skinned aluminum.

ive seen copper cut through a man hole cover thats about an inch and a half of steel. copper is pretty soft as far as metals go. and under the right conditions Aluminum is stronger than steel.

In a doc i heard that they added sulphur to the explosion so it will basically melt the steel away.

Of course they had detonations in the building.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
When you watch the second plane hit and go through it so easily, it just doesn't seem possible. I know some people will say kinetic energy did it.

I couldn't tell you anything about it but if you want to do some searches, apparently there may be some photo evidence that something else was happening on the face of the building as the plane impacted, ie columns being cut. The only reason I post this is because I was reading through some posts of a couple people I respect at the Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice forum, and apparently there had been some lengthy discussion before the group split where several members were forced to come to the conclusion that explosives were used to "ready" the buildings for the plane impacts, and that by no other way could so many parts of the planes exit out the other sides of the building. Even NIST's computer models showed that plane parts weren't coming out of the other side of the buildings as observed, so, of course, NIST changed their models simply to reflect only what they saw and asserted these new parameters to be the right ones (of course!).


I can see it happening two or three different ways from what I've personally seen of it. No idea whether the planes could have done what they appear to have done or not, but it sure would be nice if NIST has modeled it for us and given us the results without tampering with them first.

[edit on 20-11-2007 by bsbray11]

So Kinetic energy is the answer then?

dont make me laugh you cant compare the two [edit on 20-11-2007 by h2owater]

And why is that? Why cant i compare aluminium/steel with water/steel, when my example is much more far out?

A far more intersting question is how did they get the plane to fly so fast at such a low altitude? The turbofans are not designed to fly fast at low altitudes. They're designed for the thinner air at their cruise altitudes (in the 30's). At low altitude the higher density air can't pass through the compressor blades very fast and they end up acting like to 50 sq ft barn doors.

Originally posted by jtma508
A far more intersting question is how did they get the plane to fly so fast at such a low altitude? The turbofans are not designed to fly fast at low altitudes. They're designed for the thinner air at their cruise altitudes (in the 30's). At low altitude the higher density air can't pass through the compressor blades very fast and they end up acting like to 50 sq ft barn doors.

That Q was raised here a while ago. A video was posted of a guy doing 350 kts (about 450 mph?) at 125 ft above sea level, and then pulling up into a 2g climb.

There's no problem.

Originally posted by jtma508
The turbofans are not designed to fly fast at low altitudes. They're designed for the thinner air at their cruise altitudes (in the 30's). At low altitude the higher density air can't pass through the compressor blades very fast and they end up acting like to 50 sq ft barn doors.

Where are you getting this information? There is no "minimum density altitude" restriction that would have prevented the engines from flying those planes at the speeds they flew at the altitudes at which they were flying.

If you've read something stating the contrary, please post your source.

Originally posted by Haroki
That Q was raised here a while ago. A video was posted of a guy doing 350 kts (about 450 mph?) at 125 ft above sea level, and then pulling up into a 2g climb.

There's no problem.

I'm not disputing you but was he in a 757 when he did this? I'm not an aviation expert so I have no idea either way.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Haroki
That Q was raised here a while ago. A video was posted of a guy doing 350 kts (about 450 mph?) at 125 ft above sea level, and then pulling up into a 2g climb.

There's no problem.

I'm not disputing you but was he in a 757 when he did this? I'm not an aviation expert so I have no idea either way.

I doubt it was done in a 757, however if it was done in a jet, that would easily refute the claim that this "low density altitude limitation" would apply across the board to turbofan engines. It would appear that the original poster who made the claim is not familiar with their operation.

Originally posted by tep200377
And why is that? Why cant i compare aluminium/steel with water/steel, when my example is much more far out?

Your comparisons are way off.

First the water used to cut steel is traveling a lot faster then the planes was, also the water is comming out of a small nozzel so there is a smaller impact area.

When talking about the plane hititng the tower you are talking about the impact area being spread out over most of the building.

Also if you watch the Purdue animation you will the plane being shredded by the steel as soon as it hits the building. The aluminum is not going to stand up to the steel no matter what speed it was going.

Another point, the landing gear was indside the wheel well and protected by a door made of kevlar, so its hard to think the landing gear is just going to fly out and casue all the damage.