A Question About the South Tower Hit

[spooked911]

Videos of the second hit show that an aluminum plane apparently had the
strength and momentum to enter the steel and concrete tower, without SLOWING or BREAKING or even BENDING --like an arrow might pass through through paper.

Therefore the question is: WHY DIDN'T the plane EXIT the tower intact?

A tower offering no appreciable resistance to the plane's first 160 feet (the plane's length) of entrance, would not have suddenly stopped the whole plane within the next approx. 50 feet (the short distance between plane nose and north wall at the instant the tail entered the south wall).

Any good answers for this?

[greyl]

1. You're way off.

You're saying that the videos show something that they clearly do not and stating conclusions of 'physics' without any regard at all to the laws of physics.

Large parts of the plane did pass through the building, like this engine:

http://www.geocities.com/revisitingny/lastlookatg0.html

[Harald Ragnarsson]

2. Do you really think you're going to convince us the Bushtale is true?

Seriously? Is that the point of all the posting in the 911 forum about how everyone and anything they say that is NOT in accordance with the Official Conspiracy Theory is wrong and kooky and nutty? For real?

I don't believe it, frankly, and I won't say what I think the motivation is, but I don't think it's good for me, my country, or my party I always vote for.

[greyl]

3. I'm guessing that you aren't being honest

You are now on ignore.
Give a warm hi to the fellow freepers.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

14. Yep, I'm just a big ole liar. Can't help it

that's why I bash everything the government is doing right now and attack their bullshit story of 911 that enables them to do it all.

What a freepazoid I am, I'm sure.

I know I'm on Ignore, but for the second time, what's your motivation for supporting Bush's Official Conspiracy Fairly Tale? You know, the very device he is using to destroy our country, military and Constitution with?

[spooked911]

6. You obviously didn't understand what I was saying. If the plane could

slice into the building at full speed, without slowing, bending or breaking or exploding-- why didn't it come out intact on the other side? The plane after all was 160 long and the building only 208 feet long.

How could the plane break apart without slowing?

[RayUbinger]

30. Hee hee, that tiny thing is supposed to be a 767 engine? HAR HAR

It's no wider than the little street sign!

[hack89]

34. Don't know your high bypass turbofan engines very well, do you?

that is the rotor or the compressor - not the large fan on the front of the engine. It is the right size.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan

[LARED]

4. Before you ask the question

WHY DIDN'T the plane EXIT the tower intact?

Perhaps you should provide some evidence the plane entered intact.

[spooked911]

5. Heh. I assume you've seen the videos.

The evidence is that in the close-up videos of the plane impacting, as I said in the OP, the plane never slows, never explodes, never bends and never breaks-- for the whole length of the plane. The plane slides into the wall full-speed.

Okay, tell me how the plane broke up upon entering when it never slows, bends or breaks.

And if you're telling me the plane disintegrated upon impact, like pasta dough being pushed through a mold, then the plane shouldn't have sliced a hole in the shape of itself on the wall and it also should have slowed.

You can't have it both ways.

Either the plane went in intact and then broke through intact the other side, or the plane went in and tore apart and slowed.

Another possibility is a bomb ripped the plane apart after it entered completely-- but the timing for that would be rather tricky.

The only other possibility is the plane never really existed.

[Peter Frank]

7. This seems somewhat silly...

For one, the plane was loaded to the gills with jet fuel.

[spooked911]

11. but the plane enters the building intact and doesn't slow at all

--and how do does jet fuel keep the plane intact as it enters?

[LARED]

8. plane went in and tore apart and slowed.

is the correct response.

The problem seems to be that you watch the plane go into the tower and assume it stays intact. I've no clue why you believe that. You can't see into the tower.

As the plane impact the tower it starts breaking up, you can't see this from the outside because the pieces are moving into the tower.

[spooked911]

10. when exactly does it slow? In the last 50 feet?

Are saying that the plane is breaking up as it hits the outer wall, but we can't see any effect on the airframe, this causes no explosion, and also this doesn't cause it to slow?

That makes no sense.

[hack89]

16. So what cause the aircraft shaped hole in the building? nt

[spooked911]

18. The question was -- why doesn't the plane slow down upon impact

or exit intact. You tell me the answer then we'll have a better idea what made that hole.

[LARED]

19. How do you know the plane seen outside the towers

did not slow down?

[spooked911]

23. It is clear from the videos-- all of them

count the frames it takes for the plane go in. It's the same number as the plane takes to cross its length in air.

In any case, you can see the effect even at full speed.

[hack89]

20. Here's why it did not exit:

1. The plane was not flying level and the entry hole extended from approximately the 78th floor to the 83th floor. That means the airplane impacted 3 to 4 concrete floors end on. Those floors would shred the light aluminum and break the wings into big chunks. They would also rupture the fuel tanks.

2. The port wing and engine and most likely the fuselage impacted some of the core columns.

You seem to have this image of an intact plane flying neatly through an empty space - but there is no way it could have gone all the way though in one piece. Besides the issues addressed above involving the plane impacting the floors and the core columns, there is simply the fact that the plane was too big to fit!

1. The fuselage was 15 feet in diameter - there was only 12 feet between floors.

2. The tail was 40 feet high - thats three stories high.

[spooked911]

22. why didn't the plane slow upon impact?

[hack89]

24. Who said it didn't ..

you you really think the quality of internet video is sufficient to detect a an event that took place in a fraction of a second? What are you looking for and what experience do you have to know what to look for?

I just don't get this thread - is it questions just for the sake of questions? If the evidence does not point at a 767, just what does it point to?

[spooked911]

27. Yes, the video is good enough, especially when analyzed frame-by-frame

You can look at the plane enter frame-by-frame here. It goes in the whole length in essentially equal lengths.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/2explosion/

The point is, the plane did not slow or explode or even have anything break off upon entry.

WHY?????????

[LARED]

32. Looking at the link you provided CLEARLY shows the

jet does not enter in equal lengths. Starting at slide four where the flash (nose hitting the building) is seen, the plane moves all the way to the front of the engine by slide 5. Slide 5 to 6 shows the engine just barely through the building. At slide 7 the engine is just into the building and the front of the wing is just starting to enter.

Did you look at these images? By simple observation one can see the plane slow down.

Jeez.

[RayUbinger]

43. But if the tail was going appreciably slower on impact than the nose was

then how did the tail manage to punch through the wall unbroken just like the plastic nose did?

[LARED]

53. Define appreciably (n/t)

[sgsmith]

40. Why?

Because the airplane has momentum. Every ounce of material is travelling at 400 (?) mph.

Let me ask you - does a NASCAR race car, or a F1 race car, travelling at less than 200 mph just STOP, when it hits the wall? Of course not. Their momentum causes the car to turn, flip, slide, but it doesn't just STOP. True, race cars shed parts when they crash, but in many cases that is because they're designed to disappate energy by losing parts like wheels. On the other hand, the only thing designed to come off a jet airliner is the engine.

Do you know where fuel is stored in a jet airliner? It's in the wings, and maybe a tank in the fueselage about where the wings join. There's no fuel to burn when the nose hit the building. It's not until the plane is approximately half way into the perimeter wall when fuel tanks or lines are encountered. Also, most fuel lines are run behind the wing spars, in order to provide a little extra protection during a crash.

A quick review of that clip shows it's about frame 7 when the engines enter the perimeter wall. About frame 20 is the first sign of the explosion coming out of the sun lit wall. That's 13 frames, or less than 1/2 second if the clip is 30 fps. Now I'm not an expert on explosions, but 1/2 of a second sounds ballpark reasonable for jet fuel to be atomized and then catch fire & explode.

Gotcha - the Webfairy site says the video is 60 fps. That's roughly 1/4 second.

[RayUbinger]

44. How could it have momentum to enter 100% unbroken but not exit?

And why didn't the engines break off if that's what they're designed to do?


As for the explosion, I find it remarkable that a stalked tan-gray mushroom cloud came out the impact side, and a black-orange fireball come out the OPPOSITE side. BOTH these phenomena occurred in BOTH Tower hits.

[rumpel]

48. What is the dot in the center of the entry hole only visible in Frame 35?

This is the frame before the explosion.

[RayUbinger]

33. Try to think through your statements a little before stating them as fact

"The airplane impacted 3 to 4 concrete floors end on. Those floors would shred the light aluminum and break the wings into big chunks. They would also rupture the fuel tanks."

WHEN would they do that? No known footage shows any wing chunks or ruptured fuel tanks falling down the outside of the tower.


"The plane was too big to fit!"

So why is there no picture of any portion of it sticking out of the tower?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[hack89]

41. Ray - you can't be that dense!

it weighed 175 tons and was moving at 500 mph - how much inertia and momentum do you think was there? All the wreckage was moving forward into the building - it was not going to stop on a dime.

[RayUbinger]

42. So dense I asked a question you can't answer

which was,
WHEN would the concrete floors tear the wings and engines apart--as they hit the perimeter or after they were all the way inside?

instead you like Make 7 answer with a question of your own, How much momentum do I think was there?

so now my question has to become,
How many of your questions do I have to answer before you'll deign to answer one of mine?

[hack89]

59. Answer ...

the floors were six inches thick and 12 feet apart. As the wings entered the building they hit multiple floors end on. Those floors acted like 6 inch thick knives, slicing the wings into 15 to 20 foot chunks weighing thousands of pounds. Their momentum carried them into the building. Traveling at 500 mph, do you really think that any big pieces would actually travel backwards out of the building?

[Harald Ragnarsson]

13. Yeah, once it made it through the aluminum and steel

sheetrock and framing materials ripped it to shreds.

:sarcasm:

[hack89]

17. What about the concrete floors?

The plane was not flying level - it hit at least three concrete floors end on. Go back and look at the pictures of the entry hole.

[RayUbinger]

37. If the concrete floors tore it up

why did they wait until it was 100% (100+ feet) inside before doing so? Or are you privy to some footage no one else here has seen, wherein airplane parts fall down the outside of the tower?

[greyl]

71. You've heard of bullets being lodged in skulls, right?

I think you're putting us on.

[mirandapriestly]

21. LOL, nt

[RayUbinger]

31. Why did it wait until it was all the way inside before tearing apart?

"You watch the plane go into the tower and assume it stays intact."

No, we see that nothing breaks off on impact and falls down the side, which is simply the DEFINITION of entering the tower intact.

Since you can't see into the tower either, what's YOUR basis for saying the alleged plane suddenly tore apart at the instant that it became 100% inside?


"As the plane impact the tower it starts breaking up, you can't see this from the outside because the pieces are moving into the tower."

Make up your mind, does it start breaking up on IMPACT WITH the outside of the tower, or can't we see any breaking off and falling plane parts down the outside?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[hack89]

35. Because that is where the core column and the floors were. nt

[RayUbinger]

36. And all that alleged steel and concrete at the surface

was really just papier mache'?

[hack89]

39. The exterior columns at that height were welded box columns

made up of quarter inch steel plate. They were not massive thick steel columns like the core columns - quarter inch steel plate is not going to present much of an obstacle to a 175 ton aircraft flying at nearly 500 knots.

[RayUbinger]

45. So to recap, the concrete floors broke the plane, but

they didn't do so until the plane was all the way inside the building? And that was because why? Didn't the floors didn't extend all the way to the perimeter?

[hack89]

61. Momentum

that plane and wreckage was moving forward at 500 mph at impact. Secondly, the floors were end on - imagine 6 inch thick knives slicing the wings into big chunks.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

46. Wow, the way you describe them

The towers sound quite robust.

It's amazing these massive, thick steel core columns crumbled to the ground like they did, huh?

[hack89]

63. Then you haven't been paying attention ..

The perimeter wall was made of welded box columns using quarter inch steel - relatively thin. The core consisted large columns arranged in a 6 X 8 grid.

Penetrating the perimeter wall was easy. The plane(actually pieces) only had to penetrate 60 feet to reach the first row of core columns. Many of these were severed or damage. It then penetrated an unknown distance into the core before it ran out of energy and stopped. So now you have big fires and damaged core columns - which eventually led to the tower's collapse.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

69. Only the first tower could have had core column damage

It was a straight on hit. The second one got hit through the corner, so at most the corner core columns would have been effected.

At any rate, if only core columns were damaged on one side, then that part of the building should have just fallen off rather than 80 floors of undamaged building collasping down upon itself for its' entire length.

To address the headline of your post, since you said massive core columns and those were the words I used in my post, then I have quite obviously been paying attention.

[hack89]

70. The core was a large area

and certainly the left wing and engine hit the core columns. The fuselage most likely did to considering it hit at a shallow angle. Look at figure 2-25 on page 29 to see the relationship.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

As to the collapse - you are missing the point. The undamaged columns held the entire building until they weakened. Once they failed gravity and weight says that the building above the impact zone is only going to fall one way and that is straight down. The steel frame is an interlocked system to distribute stress - there cannot be a partial collapse as the remaining structure was not designed to support those kind of dynamic loads.

[kerry_s]

9. It went out

Just look at this video:

http://thewebfairy.com/911/missileout/

you can clearly see the plane (orsyh looking as a plane0 going out the building, so is it a proof or just another hologram???

the question is: why on half of the videos the plane "losts" one or two of his wings...

Why the plane hasnt got a shadow??

[spooked911]

12. do you really think that is the nose of the plane that comes out?

and that it disintegrates in midair?

[hack89]

15. Two reasons:

1. The plane was not flying level and the entry hole extended from approximately the 78th floor to the 83th floor. That means the airplane impacted 3 to 4 concrete floors end on. Those floors would shred the light aluminum and break the wings into big chunks. They would also rupture the fuel tanks.

2. The port wing and engine and most likely the fuselage impacted some of the core columns.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

47. Why didn't these shredded pieces fall outside the towers then? n/t

[hack89]

72. First of,

I am sure that small pieces were ejected outside the building.

The vast majority went inside the building because the floors carved the plane up into big chunks weighing hundreds if not thousands of pounds - their momentum would carry them into the building.

[dailykoff]

25. Yes it's bizarre.

After hitting the core (if it got that far) the rest should have broken up outside and fallen into the plaza. In any case one would expect to see a huge commotion and debris field OUTSIDE the building in an actual collision.

[mirandapriestly]

26. yes, I could never figure out why

at least PART of the plane didn't fall off on impact OUTSIDE the building. The tower holes are deceptive, too. They look like a "plane shape" from a distance, but part of it is just the cladding removed, leaving the steel which is the same color as the background giving the impression of a perfect plane cut out, but it's really sort of an odd shaped blob, that wouldn't even fit the engines inside. I guess we've got another vaporizing plane. I think there had to be something else blasting through that, but I don't know what.

[dailykoff]

28. Strange that the wings maintained a perfect trajectory.

Whatever made the hole, it wasn't a passenger jet, that much seems certain. A passenger plane would have begun disintegrating immediately. Maybe some kind of military craft with specially hardened cutting surfaces like depleted uranium?

[sgsmith]

29. Why would it take special hardened cutting surfaces?

The speed of the aircraft alone will have an impact on what materials give first. If you don't believe me, watch an episode of "American Chopper" on Discovery Channel. They use a machine that uses water, traveling at up to mach 2, to cut steel 6" thick. Simple, plain, everyday water cutting metal with a near unbelievable accuracy.

[RayUbinger]

38. But 767s don't go Mach 2

and aluminum is not used to cut steel.
And even if a 767 was going fast enough to slice cleanly all the way in, then what suddenly decelerated it to zero mph in the next 50 feet?

[Kevin Fenton]

49. I think wreckage did fall off outside the building

There are plenty of claims it didn't, but philb had a thread on here called "What hit the towers" or something like that and he posted comments by firemen describing what were clearly plane parts around the towers (although he thought the plane that hit the North Tower was smaller than a 767).

This site has 7 pictures of wreckage, but it claims they were found in the debris pile, so it's not clear whether they entered the building or fell off outside:
http://www.americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=45

The holes in the towers are definitely "odd-shaped blobs" not perfect plane cutouts, but I'm fairly sure you could get the engines through them - we can even see where floor slabs have been knocked away.

[mirandapriestly]

50. Yes, I searched around and it seems that

there was visible debris falling from one of the impact holes. I suppose if you were good at physics, you could calculate how much velocity an aluminum plane would need to cut through steel beams, and since that MIT guy calculated the speed of the planes, it could be matched to what was needed to provide the necessary force. But, I got a C in physics and that was only because the professor felt sorry for me. So, it's really above my head.
I have a "common sense" problem with the engines or one of the engines continuing on its trajectory to the other side and out a second set of steel beams in a fiery explosion. Especially when there is an amateur video showing what looks to be cutting charges going off on the far wall BEFORE the "engine" makes it way out.

[Kevin Fenton]

51. I don't think it makes that much difference...

... what the plane is made out of (i.e. aluminium), it's important how heavy it is and how the weight is concentrated. My understanding is that if it were going fast enough and packed tightly enough, it could be made out of cream cheese and still go through the wall. The heaviest bits are the fuselage and the wings, where the fuel tanks were - even if they were more than half empty, there was still plenty of fuel in there (after the plane hits the perimeter, the fuel tanks rupture, so the plane is much lighter when it hits the core, this is one of the things NIST fiddled in there "severe case"). I haven't done the sums, but I don't have a problem with pieces, especially heavy assemblies like engines and landing gear, coming out the other side. It's generally accepted that such an assembly might even sever a core column, provided it hit head on and didn't hit the floor first, so it should easily be able to sever a (much thiner) perimeter column on the other side.

I haven't seen the amateur video, would you have a link?

The oddest piece of wreckage that came out the other side is the landing gear that came all the way through the North Tower's core.

[mirandapriestly]

52. Link

http://terrorize.dk/911/misc2/

it's in Danish, but self explanatory. I emailed the guy, Devin Clark, who made the video and he said he filmed it as it occurred out of the window where he works, but posters on here were saying the plane was faked. He says he only changed the end to spread the smoke over the city. You can see flashing lights where the plane is about to come out and on the other tower.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

54. Two things I noticed in that video

After the second plane hit, you can see the area around the base of the towers is hazy and smokey, then there's a clear patch, then the tops where the fires are. The only reason there could be smoke at the base of the towers was if explosions went off there when the planes hit, as many witnesses have reported.

Second, when the North tower collapses, again a helicopter is directly over/just finishing flying over the tower, just as the Eyewitness video shows happened when the first tower fell.

[rman]

55. Another cause of smoke is fire - not only explosion.

there's a video out there that clearly shows a couple of cars on fire very near the towers, and it's rather obvious that's causing the smoke.
It would still be interesting to know what caused the fire.

I've no direct link but the video is among these:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=cameraplanet+9%2F11

[mirandapriestly]

60. yes, those helicopters

lurk around right before each collapse. In 911 eyewitness you can see flashes with the helicopters and in another video you can see them too. They look just like the flashes that come off of the bottom of military planes I saw on the military channel on cable. Also in this video you can see lots of light flashes from the square building on the far left, wish I knew what it was, as the last building collapses. & there is the detonation-like blinking right before the remnants of the plane come out and on the north building up and down the inside corner edge.
I think this is something very significant caught by an amateur who didn't edit edit unexplained stuff out. Maybe I'm a sucker, I dunno.

[benburch]

56. Just how solid do you think an airliner is?

9/11 Bomb plot CTers seem to want airliners to be made of cast iron like a locomotive boiler.

It was torn into zillions of bits.

[benburch]

57. To clarify...

As it struck it DID slow down. A LOT. There was a crumpled section at the front that did most of the slowing down The back section just plowed on into the crumple zone almost without noticing because it was not mechanically coupled to it due to the failure of the stiffness of the fuselage.

So, your premise, that it entered without slowing down or being torn to ribbons was exactly wrong.

[jschurchin]

58. First off I agree that........

the plane turned into a lot of little pieces upon impact. I do have one question for you though. What is a Bomb Plot CTer? What like a 2,000 lb'r or something.

[mirandapriestly]

62. ooh, I wanna be a "bomb plot CT'er"

it's a lot better than being an a$$hole.

[hack89]

64. It's possible to be both. nt

[jschurchin]

65. I am allowed to be an.............

asshole. Sometimes I am even a dickhead, jerkoff, jackoff and on my best day's a motherfucking asshole.

If you get an opportunity to talk to demolitions expert ask him how many "bombs" he uses in the course of his work. I am pretty sure he will tell you, none. They are shaped charges and explosives. They do not build bombs.

As far as planes go, an aircraft with a mass of 160 ton's traveling at 500 mph striking a stationary object made up of steel, concrete and a lot of air will penetrate a certain distance as the moving object gives up it's energy in the form of work.

[mirandapriestly]

66. I was not calling you an a$$hole I meant

the person who originated the "bomb plot ct'er" comment, although I was just trying to make a joke!
and I agree about shaped charges, I have been reading a lot about them and I think that that was how the steel beams may have been cut!

[jschurchin]

67. So Sorry!!

My misunderstanding.:dunce:

[Harald Ragnarsson]

68. LOL n/t