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.

 

Perplexed about the plane's tail sections crashing

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
It looks like the 1st and 2nd plane's tail sections sliced right through the steel WTCs.




At the Shanksville field, it looks like the tail only made a light indentation of itself in the ground, but then disappeared afterward.



Maybe someone can explain these seemingly contradictory events of the WTC plane's tails being so strong they were able to cut through steel versus the Shanksville plane's tail being so weak it hardly dented the reported soft ground there before vanishing.




posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I'm going to give you a very simple explanation and that will be all. If you want to argue then find someone else to argue with.

The exterior of the WTC was aluminum, not steel. You do not see in this video what actually happens to the vertical or horizontal stabilizer portions of the tail section. It very likely shattered into thousands of shards of aluminum simply because in contrast with the wings it has very little mass. It is just mostly hollow with spars to give it strength when flying in contrast with the wings which contain a massive amount of fuel. It is impossible to tell from the video exactly what happened, but in a typical crash of this sort the tail just simple turns into mostly aluminum confetti. Because of the nature of aluminum the airplane just ripped a big jagged hole giving the impression it went into the building intact. I can assure you it didn't. It entered in thousand of pieces as it ripped apart in a chaotic manner. The large bulky massive pieces such as the engines would stay intact longer and identifiable pieces might be found, but the aluminum skin likely could not be identified for the most part.

There is no difference in what happened to both sections of the tail in either crash. The soft soil in Shanksville merely provided an impression that you can see afterward. If you will look at area photos of the Shanksville crash site you'll see thousands of pieces of aluminum that look nothing like they did when they were all one piece. Those tiny pieces are parts of the aluminum of the airplane. It's impossible to tell from photographs what piece is from what part of the airplane. The bulk of the airplane at Shanksville buried itself into the ground, but there were also plenty of small pieces scattered over the general area of the crash site.

If one could examine each and every piece individually at each crash site they would largely be the same, however, I suspect there was more metal compression in the hole in Shanksville due to the nature of the compacting soil as opposed to striking a building in the horizontal.

If you still don't understand after this simple explanation then you need to take some courses in physics and understand what happens to mostly an aluminum tube in a chaotic collision with the amount of kinetic energy present in this crash. In addition, a Course in Aircraft Accident Investigation and years of experience examining crashed aircraft would also help.

Without those two things, you need to accept the simple explanation and move on. There is nothing strange of mysterious at all about what happened in either crash.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
The exterior of the WTC was aluminum, not steel.


Wrong.

The exterior was steel clad with an aluminum facade.

Better re-think your hypothesis huh?




posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Firstly, almost no perimeter columns failed from the impacts. Secondly, the fuselage already opened up a big enough hole for the tail to sail right through:




We're not going to do the no-plane argument again. There are tons of other no-plane threads to contribute to.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
I'm going to give you a very simple explanation and that will be all. If you want to argue then find someone else to argue with.

Basically you're saying you are going to give me your hypothesis, but don't dare question it? That's pretty cowardly in my opinion.


Without those two things, you need to accept the simple explanation and move on. There is nothing strange of mysterious at all about what happened in either crash.

Oh I need to accept it. Is that right? Your response is very nothing to see here folks, move along.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by ATH911
 


Firstly, almost no perimeter columns failed from the impacts. Secondly, the fuselage already opened up a big enough hole for the tail to sail right through:


Not sure I follow. Where did the tail sail through?


We're not going to do the no-plane argument again. There are tons of other no-plane threads to contribute to.

Why is that? Do you control this joint? You believe a plane crashed at Shanksville?



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Originally posted by Reheat
The exterior of the WTC was aluminum, not steel.


Wrong.

The exterior was steel clad with an aluminum facade.

Better re-think your hypothesis huh?


Nope, don't need to rethink at all. It doesn't matter as what you are seeing in the video is aluminum. You simply can not see beyond that how much compressions (crumpling) is occurring with the fuselage. At any rate, with the kinetic energy involved it is going to break through the aluminum and steel columns.

My original comments are still valid. What we see and know happened is exactly what happened.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you think it should have bounced off and fallen into the street below. Muhahahahaha!



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Reheat
I'm going to give you a very simple explanation and that will be all. If you want to argue then find someone else to argue with.

Basically you're saying you are going to give me your hypothesis, but don't dare question it? That's pretty cowardly in my opinion.


Without those two things, you need to accept the simple explanation and move on. There is nothing strange of mysterious at all about what happened in either crash.

Oh I need to accept it. Is that right? Your response is very nothing to see here folks, move along.


Thanks for proving my point. You see, I've seen your previous posts and knew you wouldn't accept what I said to include learning what the hades you're are questioning.

You are correct in that "there is nothing to see here, move along". What happened is EXACTLY what should have happened unless you happened to be ignorant and unwilling to accept knowledgeable analysis.

You are the victim of irreducible delusions and I can't help with that.

[edit on 13-6-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
The bulk of the airplane at Shanksville buried itself into the ground, but there were also plenty of small pieces scattered over the general area of the crash site.

Wow, Reheat, that's an awesome claim!

Please, for the sake of educating the wider audience, can you put a numerical quantity to 'the bulk of the airplane' for us? Include your error margins as well. You've made the claim, so it's only fair that you support it with evidence.

Remember in this thread, you stated that claims need to be proven.

I don't have much hope that you'll be able to prove your claim, as you never managed to do it in this thread either.

Keep on making your unproven statements, Reheat. You might convince some people, while the rest of us watch how you continue to spread unproven disinfo.

[edit on 13-6-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I think he was referring to there not being a plane in PA, not NYC.

To the OP - I believe without question that there were planes which hit both towers. I'm skeptical about Shanksville and the Pentagon.

However (I don't have a link or anything for this), I remember WAY back in elementary school my class was shown a video showing post-hurricane destruction. One thing that amazed me, was this drinking straw, much like one you would find at mcdonalds, which had "pierced" through a tree trunk from the high speed of the wind. Point is, while there really isnt much 'valid' evidence for Shanksville, that video with the straw is pretty much the only thing that makes me think there MIGHT have been a plane there.

If a drinking straw can go through a tree trunk, then its plausible that somehow the entire plane is buried in the dirt.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Nope, don't need to rethink at all. It doesn't matter as what you are seeing in the video is aluminum.


I was just correcting your mistake and you say it doesn't matter?

And then you put words in my mouth? Did I even mention the plane, or what it did, or didn't do?

If you get a very basic fact wrong about how the towers were constructed, and you can't comprehend what you are reading without your mind embellishing on it your bias, why should anyone pay any attention to anything else you say?

Sorry but credibility means a lot, and you don't have much to waste on a simple mistake that turns into a major hypothesis.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Originally posted by Reheat
Nope, don't need to rethink at all. It doesn't matter as what you are seeing in the video is aluminum.


I was just correcting your mistake and you say it doesn't matter?


There was no mistake. You're reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. But, that's typical for whom I'm dealing with.

I'll state it again. The exterior of the WTC that is being shown in the video is ALUMINUM. What's behind that is irrelevant as it is not shown in the video. I'll say it again, so there is no mistake it doesn't matter anyway as the mass is going to penetrate no matter whether it's aluminum or steel.

[edit on 13-6-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I think he was referring to there not being a plane in PA, not NYC.

That is right.


If a drinking straw can go through a tree trunk, then its plausible that somehow the entire plane is buried in the dirt.

Straws don't pierce into trees from a hurricane, but actually get stuck in the tree's pores when they temporarily widen when trees bend from the force of the hurricane.

I just want to know what happened to Flight 93's tail.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Not sure I follow. Where did the tail sail through?

Apologies. I misunderstood your OP. Carry on.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Sorry but you're not making any sense now.

So because you can't see the steel columns, and you can only see the aluminum facade, the steel doesn't matter?

Do you have proof a 757 can sever steel columns? And if you do then why didn't the plane at the pentagon do the same?



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


Look, here's the statement in the OP:

"It looks like the 1st and 2nd plane's tail sections sliced right through the steel WTCs."

My original comments were that all one can see in the video is the aluminum panels. The steel perimeter columns are not visible. NIST states that some of the perimeter columns were damaged. So to state that the plane's tail section sliced through the steel is not accurate. It is impossible to tell from the video precisely what happened when the aircraft impacted the steel columns. My comments indicated that the tail section would have been shredded into confetti like aluminum shards no matter and would have penetrated the building along with the remainder of the aircraft due to momentum from the mass. I suspect there was some debris which fell to the street below as the aircraft impacted, but I am not familiar with any reports that indicated that.

I would suspect that the heavier items such as the engines might sever a column, but as far as I know the NIST Report is not specific in that regard.

The OP compared the WTC crash with the Shanksville crash and now in typical "truther" fashion you want to change the subject to the Pentagon.

The columns at the Pentagon were of different construction than at the WTC and since I'm not a structural engineer I have no comment on that. I will stick to what I know and leave building structural details to experts in that area.

This obsession with the tail is amusing and reminiscent of the idiot known as "Killtown".

What's next? Why was AF 447's tail (vertical stabilizer) recovered virtually intact and none of the tail sections of crashes on 9/11 were recovered?

Psssst....... It has to do with an intact aircraft striking a solid object versus a mid-air breakup.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
The four aircraft involved in 911 had tail surfaces covered with carbon fiber skins, not aluminum. Other than the white stripe, all objects in the photo below that are painted white are made of composite materials.



From Janes ATWA Boeing 767 descripton:

Aluminium alloy two-spar fail-safe wing box; centre-section continuous through fuselage; ailerons, flaps and spoilers extensively of honeycomb, graphite composites and laminates; tailplane has full-span light alloy torque boxes; fin has three-spar, dual-cell light alloy torque box; elevators and rudder have graphite/epoxy honeycomb skins supported by honeycomb and laminated spar and rib assemblies; CFRP wing/fuselage and flap track fairings. All landing gear doors of CFRP/Kevlar.

Unlike aluminum, which bends, carbon fiber shatters into small pieces upon impact. The resin in the carbon fiber is flammable. When ignited, the resin will burn away, leaving the carbon cloth.

See last page of Boeing Fire Manual below:




When UA175's tailfin struck the South Tower, it shattered and left a mark (visible in photos on this thread). The shattered pieces were engulfed in the fireball and drifted away with the wind.

When UA93's tailfin impacted the ground, it also shattered and left a mark. The shattered pieces were carried aloft in the mushroom cloud and drifted downwind, scattering carborn fragments from the crash site to Indian Lake.

If you're searching for pieces of UA93's tail, this is what you should be looking for.







Descriptions of the carbon fiber and honeycomb appear in numerous witness statesments and are misidentified due to lack of knowledge. In other words, they simply had no idea what they were looking at and made their best guess.

Investigators crawled through the debris field, bagging bolts and bone fragments. They found chunks of seat cushion foam and honeycombed sound insulators. Then a shoelace, some shirt buttons, and a wedding ring.

Below is a perfect description carbon fiber cloth; she just has the burnt and unburnt reversed.

And there was some black webbing -- a lot of people found that," she said. The webbing, flexible where it hadn't burned, crisp where it had, was from insulation lining the belly of the jetliner.

Hope this helps,
waypastvne



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by Wally Hope

What's next? Why was AF 447's tail (vertical stabilizer) recovered virtually intact and none of the tail sections of crashes on 9/11 were recovered?

Psssst....... It has to do with an intact aircraft striking a solid object versus a mid-air breakup.


That might be true, but sooner or later all of those pieces have to hit the ground or water surface, don't they?

Rewey



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


Yep, and the tail stabilizer of the AF jet hit the water at a much slower velocity.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
Unlike aluminum, which bends, carbon fiber shatters into small pieces upon impact.

The aluminum on Flight 93 supposedly did shatter into plate-sized pieces.


The resin in the carbon fiber is flammable. When ignited, the resin will burn away, leaving the carbon cloth.

Are you suggesting this is what happened to 93's tail?


When UA175's tailfin struck the South Tower, it shattered and left a mark (visible in photos on this thread). The shattered pieces were engulfed in the fireball and drifted away with the wind.

Shouldn't you state that as your opinion? I don't see the tail shattering in the videos.


When UA93's tailfin impacted the ground, it also shattered and left a mark.

It was shown to make a faint mark -- and missing the left stab mark -- yet the rest of the plane was reportedly able to penetrate through this same soft soil. You guys can't have it both ways.


The shattered pieces were carried aloft in the mushroom cloud and drifted downwind, scattering carborn fragments from the crash site to Indian Lake.

Uh, OK. What is your evidence of this whopper of a claim?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join