Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
What is shows is a seat belt from an airplane. His point was that as far as he knows, missiles do not have seat belts.

So what does a photo of a seatbelt have to do with anything?

Specially if it does not have a source like who took the photo, where and when it was taken and is there a report to state what plane it came from.

Originally posted by Boone 870
Aircraft tail numbers are like personalized license plates, they can be transferred from plane to plane.

If the tail number can be transferred why does the FAA use tail number as a way to find registration information. You would have multiple registrations with the same tail number.

Originally posted by thedman
Empire State Building 1945
This was from a plane weighing 1/10 of 767 traveling at 1/3 of the speed
impact forces are only about 1/100 that which hit WTC.

Yes and the B-25 that hit the Empire state building caused no damge to any of the steel beams. You might want to try to post the whole facts next time.

You still cannot explain how a aluminum airframe could cause so much damage to steel like the official reports state they did at the WTC.

While the skin of the plane may be aluminium much of the planes structure is made of heavy duty components/

I have already shown several photos of small birds punching holes through the wings and airframe.

The landing gear is heavy steel to withstand
repeated landings.

What does the lsnding geear have to do with anything, they were inside the wheel well so they could not have casued much damage.

Anymore idiotic comments?



[edit on 26-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Yes and the B-25 that hit the Empire state building caused no damge to any of the steel beams. You might want to try to post the whole facts next time.

Ok - been over this before....

Difference in building construction

Empire State Building - infill construction, exterior 8" thick quarried
limestone , structural members are heavy steel beams cemtered 35'
floor heavy steel beams with metal decking cover by 7-8" cement

WTC - exterior was 30 ft panels of light gauge steel bolted togather,
lightweight steel trusses connected to central core columns, floors
are metal decking with 3" lightweight cement (4" lower down)

Impact as described above was only about 1/100 that at WTC, smaller
aircraft moving at 1/3 speed of WTC aircraft

Steel columns in Empire State covered by 4" of concrete or terra cotta
masonary as per 1938 fire codes.

Steel columns/trusses coated with 1/2" spray on fireproofing or 5/8"
sheetrock

Fuel load - B 25 max is 2000 gals, only fraction as short ferry hop
WTC - 767 over 9,000 gal Jet A

Differnce is forces is like being shot with BB gun vs 44 mag - one is
going to do lot more damage

Originally posted by thedman
Difference in building construction

If their was such a big difference in building construction and the plane why even try to compare it to what haapened at the WTC towers to begin with?

I mean lets face it the towers and building 7 have been the only steel buildings to ever collapse from fire and or structural damage. I have shown several steel buildings that had longer fires and more structural damage and DID NOT collapse.


[edit on 27-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 I have shown several steel buildings that had longer fires and more structural damage and DID NOT collapse.

What airliners flew into those buildings? If no airliners did, then what criteria are you using to compare structural damage? Also, were the other buildings fires caused by airline fuel explosions? If not, why criteria are you using to compare the fuel based fir with other fires?
Sounds like your links have nothing in common with what happened at WTC. Besides, arent you trying to claim that the fire dept or a demo team caused WTC7 to collapse anyway? Even though you have no proof of that, or evidence anything like that had even been done before?

Originally posted by gavron
What airliners flew into those buildings? If no airliners did, then what criteria are you using to compare structural damage?

It does not matter if airliners flew into them or not. Do you understand the fact that structural damage is structural damage, it does not matter what casued it?

Besides there are several reports that staste the planes did not casue that much damage to the towers.

As stated the buidlings i showed had a lot longer lasting fires and had just as bad or worse structural damage but they did not collapse. In fact there has never been a steel buidling in the US that has collapsed from fire or structural damage except for the 3 WTC buildings.

As far as the jet fuel, a large quanity of the fuel was burned of in the intial explosion and what was left burned off quikly leaving only a normal office fire.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Boone 870
If I were to crash the PC 21 and the airframe was destroyed, the tail number would still belong to me and me alone. I could then assign it to the next aircraft that I purchase or let the registration lapse and it would be available for someone else to use.

Maybe that is why we had a report of a man stating he flew on a plane with Flight 93's tail number after 9/11?


[edit on 27-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

You still cannot explain how a aluminum airframe could cause so much damage to steel like the official reports state they did at the WTC.

Doesn't matter how tough skin over airframe is - its whats underneath
(or in case jet engines hanging below). As stated there are many
heavy substanial components on an aircraft , wing spars, keel beam,
jet engines, landing gear made of very heavy high strenght alloys.

You stated that landing gear doesn't matter as was retracted - the landing
gear is one of the heavist pieces on plane and will hold togather as
rest of plane disintergrates. At the Pentagon the landing gear punched
all way through E, D, C rings to knock hole in outer wall of C ring.

How about simple experiment? Cover aluminium baseball bat with
newspaper, then have someone beat you with it. Despite fact
can rip newspaper with finger whats underneath is still heavy and strong
enough to do considerable damage....

The reason why I stated what I did, My brother -in-law flies 757's for american airlines: He stated to me in the event of a dsetroyed plane, the NTSB would require that the registration number be listed as destroyed pending the evaulation and final report of the incident. Which was not the case as I earlier stated.

If miss understood him, I apologize for stating things incorrectly.

Originally posted by thedman
Landing gear part from Flight 77 in Pentagon - hole in C Ring wall

Can you please show me exactly in that photo where the landing gear is supposed to be.

The only photo of a landing gear i have seen shows it to be inside the first hole, (which menas it did punch all the way through).

Also as i have shown many times, several reports state that the planes impacts DID NOT cause that much damage to the towers.

In fact most reports state that the buildings withstood the planes impacts.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]