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.

 

Is it truly plausible that the OS happened this way?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I am not am expert in physics by any means. I only go off what others can say and prove. With so much back and forth debating over certain things regarding 9/11, I want to see others input on this.
Basically, could this have happened?


I found the pic here, in this article by Morgan Reynolds and he makes some pretty good points.

nomoregames.net...

Here is an excerpt of this article pertaining to this.


Most of us would agree that planes are flimsy things, as Marcus Icke points out: “Computer simulation and mathematical analysis of the impact by MIT, University of Purdue and others indicate that upon impact the wings of the 767 would have shattered and the fuel ignited outside the towers facade, the aircraft would have lost about 25% percent of its kinetic energy on impact and that the tail fin would have sheared off due to torsional forces. In layman’s terms this means that the aeroplane would have decelerated sharply [emphasis added] crumpled up and exploded against the tower’s wall with only heavy objects like the engines and undercarriage puncturing the towers facade. The entire airframe would not have glided through the outer wall and would not have left a large hole roughly the same shape and size of a Boeing 767-200.” Icke’s accompanying photos support his analysis by showing a MD80 landing hard, with its air frame bending and tail breaking off.

Also, can anyone else PLEASE point out how the plane got inside the Pentagon from this picture.




posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Good questions, but I think the "no-planers =disinfo" people will be arriving shortly.

I think everyone agree's something strange is happening with the pentagon. The WTC, on the other hand... I think the truthers believe planes hit, and the trusters do as well. The truther's believe that the no-plane is a disinfo ploy, designed to discredit truthers...



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Wasn't someone going to crash a large plane to prove all this??
Sure I heard something about it...

It is incredible though how the two twin tower planes, wings included, cut through the tower steel like butter..

The Pentagon was totally different..
The two things that should have penetrated the most, that's the 2 x 3500kg engines apparently disintegrated on impact while the flimsy fuselage penetrated 3 walls deep...



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Just look at the multiple horizontal and vertical straight lines in the photo of the tower on the lower right above. If a large commercial aircraft really caused that damage, do you think the damage would be so orderly? Certainly, the shape of the damaged building section would be much more irregular.

Commercial aircraft are not designed to be missiles which easily penetrate steel reinforced structures, while traveling well below subsonic speed. Where are the seat parts, luggage, cabinets & personal effects from the airplanes?

As for the nosecone strikes, has anyone ever considered building an airplane proof skyscraper out of bird bones? Seems to be a lot stronger than thick steel construction beams.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Good questions, but I think the "no-planers =disinfo" people will be arriving shortly.

I think everyone agree's something strange is happening with the pentagon. The WTC, on the other hand... I think the truthers believe planes hit, and the trusters do as well. The truther's believe that the no-plane is a disinfo ploy, designed to discredit truthers...


I agree that planes hit the towers as well...that is why I wanted others input on this. Like I said, this guy raises some good points.



Originally posted by backinblack
It is incredible though how the two twin tower planes, wings included, cut through the tower steel like butter.. The Pentagon was totally different.. The two things that should have penetrated the most, that's the 2 x 3500kg engines apparently disintegrated on impact while the flimsy fuselage penetrated 3 walls deep...


Yeah..the Pentagon story complete reversal from what we are being told about the towers.
1+2=3 UNLESS..........



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   
I think the planes could probably cut through the steel beams due to the enormous amounts of energy involved in the collision, but I find it odd that 2 buildings can take asymmetrical damage and fall symmetrically. I would think that if the supports are weakened on one side, if it collapses, wouldn't it fall towards the path of least resistance?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ayoss
I think the planes could probably cut through the steel beams due to the enormous amounts of energy involved in the collision, but I find it odd that 2 buildings can take asymmetrical damage and fall symmetrically. I would think that if the supports are weakened on one side, if it collapses, wouldn't it fall towards the path of least resistance?


Regardless of speed, it's hard to believe the flimsy aluminium wings still cut through steel...



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Commercial aircraft are not designed to be missiles which easily penetrate steel reinforced structures, while traveling well below subsonic speed. Where are the seat parts, luggage, cabinets & personal effects from the airplanes?


I can tell you where some of it supposedly went...better yet, Ill show you.
Bottom right picture.


Some other debris was found on top of the Bankers Trust building as well. Of course..the location of where WTC5 and the Bankers Trust building would come in handy...so Ill show you that too.



As for the nosecone strikes, has anyone ever considered building an airplane proof skyscraper out of bird bones? Seems to be a lot stronger than thick steel construction beams.



Note: Pictures were taken from this website as well.
nomoregames.net...



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Is it just me that find irony in the fact that the debris landed on the.

.......Bankers Trust.....building.????

edit on 25-12-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   
We all know that the OS is BS but I'm having a little trouble following the idea that the planes couldn't penetrate steel. I'll be the first to say that I don't have any proof that it could or could not but a couple of different historical scenarios do come to mind. Immediately, I think of Japanese kamikaze planes diving into steel armored ships, certainly they penetrated some armor there didn't they? Also, didn't that guy who supposedly flew a cesna into an IRS building in Austin last year put a hole in that building, which I'm assuming was also made of steel? Furthermore, 757's must weigh quite alot and it would seem that something in the plane's frame is awfully rigid in order to sustain both the weight of the craft and the outside forces that result from flying.

Beyond that, there are hundreds of eyewitness accounts and of course all those videos that have to somehow be reconciled. How would anyone even attempt to do that? I've got to say my gut feeling on this one is that yes, planes did in fact penetrate the outside walls of the towers.


I find it odd that 2 buildings can take asymmetrical damage and fall symmetrically. I would think that if the supports are weakened on one side, if it collapses, wouldn't it fall towards the path of least resistance?
Exactly what I say too.
edit on 12/25/2010 by budaruskie because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


We're not talking about a bird here.

We're talking about a 125 ton (possibly heavier) mass of airliner flying at 400+ miles per hour.

The argument is bunk, because if the soft flesh and bone skin bird can do that to something much harder when colliding with it at speed, then why would anyone think a 125 ton mass travelling at 400mph+ couldn't punch a hole through the side of a box steel frame?

Its arguing against its own point.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


It actually has a Maximum take off weight of 115 tons and this plane wasn't full of fuel, passengers or cargo..
Not that that makes much difference to your argument but worth mentioning..


But the wings are not so heavy or that strong..
I could see the fuselage and engines going through the steel walls but not all the wings..

But then when I see the debris that landed on the Bankers Trust building I just have this WTF moment..

Hardly scratched pieces of fuselage, seats and even a life jacket??
Now that's too much when you consider all this went through the entire building in a flaming heap..



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Good questions, but I think the "no-planers =disinfo" people will be arriving shortly.

I think everyone agree's something strange is happening with the pentagon. The WTC, on the other hand... I think the truthers believe planes hit, and the trusters do as well. The truther's believe that the no-plane is a disinfo ploy, designed to discredit truthers...


I simply think there is nothing to work with as far as the plane details go, except for people pointing out anomalies at the undercarriage and videos that show an explosion ahead of impact. The more important thing is to show controlled demolition and who did it and why. Further details are only important as to implicit those who were involved and had a hand in doing their part of the deception.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by DIDtm
 


We're not talking about a bird here.

We're talking about a 125 ton (possibly heavier) mass of airliner flying at 400+ miles per hour.

The argument is bunk, because if the soft flesh and bone skin bird can do that to something much harder when colliding with it at speed, then why would anyone think a 125 ton mass travelling at 400mph+ couldn't punch a hole through the side of a box steel frame?

Its arguing against its own point.

I believe we are talking about a Bird here.
If a flesh & blood creature at 50 lbs. max. can, and did cause that amount of damage...
Then what, would a steel reinforced non-forgiving object do ?
BTW, I'm not a No Plane, r
edit on America/Chicagoam5231America/ChicagoSat, 25 Dec 2010 10:14:52 -060012 3114 by BrainGarden because: clarification



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
In answer to the OP, the reason the plane cut through the buildings is SPEED and RIGIDITY.

Here is a record embedded into a tree. Would you not agree that the plastic record is flimsy compared to the tree?

here

Here is a piece of straw embedded into a tree. Shouldn’t the straw crumple instead?

here

What about breaking concrete blocks with your hands? Are you saying that’s impossible?

here




If a large commercial aircraft really caused that damage, do you think the damage would be so orderly? Certainly, the shape of the damaged building section would be much more irregular.


If you are speaking of the picture on the lower left of the OP, that picture was taken after the collapse from ground level (or close). The plane did not directly hit close to those beams.

Just look at the damage caused by a small single engine airplane with about 50 gallons of fuel.
Texas crash

PA28

What would have happened if a loaded 757 hit this building?



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Still and all, how the heaben the heaben the hell did the wreckage penetrate both buildings to end up atop the bankers trust building?
This on the outset looks completely bogus.
I had not previously heard this tid bit, but it sure kicks the OS in the butt.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


look at the imprint the 'plane' has made in the picture of one of the twin towers. doesn't it look contrived with all its vertical and horizontal 'cuts'. there is also a picture showing a poor unfortunate looking out of the distruction virtually unscathed when it is difficult to believe that anyone in the immediate vicinity of a massive fireball could have survived. i believe there is evidence to suggest that the crashes were a digital manipulation.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
reply to post by DIDtm
 


look at the imprint the 'plane' has made in the picture of one of the twin towers. doesn't it look contrived with all its vertical and horizontal 'cuts'. there is also a picture showing a poor unfortunate looking out of the distruction virtually unscathed when it is difficult to believe that anyone in the immediate vicinity of a massive fireball could have survived. i believe there is evidence to suggest that the crashes were a digital manipulation.


It reminds me of the Wile. E. Coyote and Roadrunner cartoons.
With only the outline of one of the two characters body shown, as it ran through something.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

In answer to the OP, the reason the plane cut through the buildings is SPEED and RIGIDITY.


Oh dear another debunker who just makes assumptions but fails to understand reality...


How do tornadoes do some weird things, like drive straw into trees, strip road pavement and drive splinters into bricks? The list of bizarre things attributed to tornadoes is almost endless. Much of it is folklore; but there are some weird scenes in tornado damage. Asphalt pavement may strip when tornado winds sandblast the edges with gravel and other small detritus, eroding the edges and causing chunks to peel loose from the road base. Storm chasers and damage surveyors have observed this phenomenon often after the passage of a violent tornado. With a specially designed cannon, wind engineers at Texas Tech University have fired boards and other objects at over 100 mph into various types of construction materials, duplicating some of the kinds of "bizarre" effects, such as wood splinters embedded in bricks. Intense winds can bend a tree or other objects, creating cracks in which debris (e.g., hay straw) becomes lodged before the tree straightens and the crack tightens shut again. All bizarre damage effects have a physical cause inside the roiling maelstrom of tornado winds. We don't fully understand what some of those causes are yet, however; because much of it is almost impossible to simulate in a lab.

www.spc.noaa.gov...

Nothing to do with velocity or force. Those properties can easily be created in the lab.

As for chopping concrete blocks, there is a lot more involved than just velocity. An untrained person would hurt themselves however fast they chopped. A plane does not have karate chop abilities and so is incomparable.


The purpose of all that focused power is brutally obvious: to break bones and rupture tissue. But success also depends on more subtle forces. Solid as they seem, all materials are at least slightly elastic. Whack them in the right spot and they will start to oscillate. A punch with a follow-through would dampen such oscillations, but a karate chop, by pulling away at the last moment, lets them move freely. "If you tweak a rubber band it goes up and down, and the same is true if you tweak a board or a brick with a much greater force," Feld says. "When they reach their elastic limits, they start to yield. In other words, they break."

discovermagazine.com...

An aircraft can't do that.
edit on 12/27/2010 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Your lack of physics knowledge is why you cannot believe planes did the damage.

Here is a simple science experiment that has been done for decades that might help you to understand. Pushing a straw through a potato. I even remember it from science class in the late sixties. Back then we used paper straws.




Straw through potato

Note the reason it works.




The straw penetrates the potato easily because it is a strong cylinder made from thin plastic which also


I dare say the straw is moving far slower than the planes.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join