If we moved WTC1 or WTC2 at 600mph into a 757, would we see the same result; the plane blowing a hole through the towers mainframe, and emerging from the other side?

My hypothesis is that most of the aluminium, fibreglass and other lightweight materials would be "blown away" by the impact, and the heavy parts like gear, struts, engines would cause some damage to the structure, but never enough to initiate a collapse.

How did the wings cause so much damage on WTC1 and WTC2, yet on the Pentagon, didn't even appear to scratch the walls? (Sucked into the fuselage hole?? Sucked the engines in too? Impossible!)

Whoever posted the maths for the impact force - while the maths are generally correct, it is calculating total impact force of that mass - which is not a correct indication of all the forces and stresses present at the time of impact. Imagine putting some hen eggs along the leading edges of the wings - the eggs do not become capable of penetrating steel just because there is a huge mass behind it.

Originally posted by adjay


Whoever posted the maths for the impact force - while the maths are generally correct, it is calculating total impact force of that mass - which is not a correct indication of all the forces and stresses present at the time of impact. Imagine putting some hen eggs along the leading edges of the wings - the eggs do not become capable of penetrating steel just because there is a huge mass behind it.

Ok this confusses the previously established point, but it's worthy of further discussion

i agree with others....mass and speed. that is pretty easy. kind of like the old joke of what is heavier 1lb of gold or 1lb of feathers.

Originally posted by adjay
Whoever posted the maths for the impact force - while the maths are generally correct, it is calculating total impact force of that mass - which is not a correct indication of all the forces and stresses present at the time of impact. Imagine putting some hen eggs along the leading edges of the wings - the eggs do not become capable of penetrating steel just because there is a huge mass behind it.

Hello?

Its not very often on ATS I'll come out and say that another poster is talking complete and utter rubbish, but in this case I have to.

We're not talking about eggs on a leading edge. We're talking about a total combined mass of 218,000lb (maybe more because that was a conservative estimate) moving at 466mph. All the parts of that airplane are moving in unison, along the same path.

Imagine - if you could - putting an egg on the front of a bullet and firing it at someone. The egg might break on impact (and to be honest even if it did there would be huge blunt trauma), but the bullet is still going to penetrate.

Your argument is spurious rubbish.

Originally posted by neformore
Its not very often on ATS I'll come out and say that another poster is talking complete and utter rubbish, but in this case I have to.

Your argument is spurious rubbish.

So your saying that thin aluminum with an impact area of 100s of feet would not be shredded by the hardened steel?

I can show photos of small birds putting holes in a airliner only going at takeoff speed. Imagine what the steel beams will do to the plane.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by neformore
Its not very often on ATS I'll come out and say that another poster is talking complete and utter rubbish, but in this case I have to.

Your argument is spurious rubbish.

So your saying that thin aluminum with an impact area of 100s of feet would not be shredded by the hardened steel?

I can show photos of small birds putting holes in a airliner only going at takeoff speed. Imagine what the steel beams will do to the plane.

Actually your post disproves your point. You just showed that a smaller more fragile object can do a lot of damage to a more sturdy, larger object. OOPS.

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually your post disproves your point.

No, you missed the point completly. The point is that the airliner is the fragile object. If birds can put holes in it, the the steel beams would have shredded it to pieces.

It would not have caused much damage to the steel beams of the towers.


[edit on 22-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually your post disproves your point.

No, you missed the point completly. The point is that the airliner is the fragile object. If birds can put holes in it, the the steel beams would have shredded it to pieces.

It would not have caused much damage to the steel beams of the towers.

[edit on 22-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

No you missed the point. Either you're saying that a smaller more fragile object can damage a larger more sturdy object
OR
Birds are stronger the aluminum and tempered glass as a rule.
OR
You're saying we should build planes out of bird bits as they are stronger then current material.


Them is some strong birdies !

Originally posted by jfj123
No you missed the point.

This is what i am saying.

The aluminum airframe of the airliner is thin aluinum and would be shredded by the steel beams of the builidings and not do much damage.





[edit on 22-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Again you missed the point - the skin is thin gauge aluminium What is
underneath is often very massive. Not unlike our body - the skin covers
bone and muscle which can do some considerable damage.

Originally posted by thedman
What is underneath is often very massive. Not unlike our body - the skin covers bone and muscle which can do some considerable damage.

Can you post information or photos of this? Because it certainly did not protect a plane from birds putting holes in it. Or a large section or wing torn off by hitting a light pole.



[edit on 22-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
No you missed the point.

This is what i am saying.

The aluminum airframe of the airliner is thin aluinum and would be shredded by the steel beams of the builidings and not do much damage.
[edit on 22-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

You're still missing your own point.
You said
"I can show photos of small birds putting holes in a airliner only going at takeoff speed. Imagine what the steel beams will do to the plane."
You are saying a smaller, more fragile object can do a lot of damage to a larger, stronger object.

So what you are also saying is that a plane (smaller, more fragile object AKA BIRD) can do a lot of damage to a larger object (WTC's).

Unless of course you're saying that birds are stronger then aluminum and tempered glass? Let me know if this is the case.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by thedman
What is underneath is often very massive. Not unlike our body - the skin covers bone and muscle which can do some considerable damage.

Can you post information or photos of this? Because it certainly did not protect a plane from birds putting holes in it. Or a large section or wing torn off by hitting a light pole.

[edit on 22-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

If planes were really as fragile as you think, the wings would break off where they attach to the core of the plane.

Originally posted by jfj123
If planes were really as fragile as you think, the wings would break off where they attach to the core of the plane.

If you knew anything about planes you would know that wings are designed to take lateral movment (up and down) but they are not designed to take any kind of impact.

If you look at crash scenes you will see most of the time the wings will shear off upon hitting any obsticle.

Also at most crash scenes the tail section survives, thats why they put the black boxes in the tail section.

Originally posted by adjay
Each tower weighed ~500,000 tons. The plane hitting it on 5 floors is roughly 5 floors divided by 110 = 4.5%. Which is approximately 22,500 tons (4.5% of 500,000). The 767 is supposed to weigh 140 tons - which is 0.6% of the mass it impacted.

Some things about this - the plane did not impact all of the 5 floors at once, and apparantly the steel at this part of the building was thinner than at lower sections, but even if you use 1/3rd of the building mass - 7500 tons - the aluminium plane was still only 1.8% of the mass of the object it impacted.

A bullet weighs a couple of ounces. A man weighs 210 pounds.

Fire a bullet at the man from distance.

Is the bullet going to bounce off the man?

No.

Its to do with the kinetic force of the impact.

Originally posted by jfj123
Unless of course you're saying that birds are stronger then aluminum and tempered glass? Let me know if this is the case.

No, what i am stating is the the aluminum airframe is fragile and cannot stand up to impact. The prove that the airframe is fragile is the fact that it can be easily damaged. So if the airframe were to hit steel it would be damaged.

Originally posted by neformore
Is the bullet going to bounce off the man?

No.

But was the plane traveling as fast as a bullet?

NO.

Is a Plane built like a bullet?

NO.

Is a Plane as strong as a bullet?

NO.

[edit on 22-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]