We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories: Two Boeing 767s Vanish into Twin Towers: Most 9/11 researchers reject the government’s Big Boeing Theory for the Pentagon and Pennsylvania events for lack of supporting evidence and presence of contrary evidence. Skepticism about BBT at WTC is less common, but if we look at the gashes in the towers, a telling question arises: How could two large wide-bodied aluminum jetliners penetrate massive steel towers and disappear with no deceleration visible, no plane wreckage visible in gashes and none knocked to the ground below the impact zone? Expressed another way, no confirmed debris exists from two alleged 767 high-speed crashes into skyscrapers within 17 minutes of each other, a stunning lack of evidence to support the official 767 theory. Given long experience with airplane crashes, it is difficult, if not impossible, to accept the proposition that a wide-body jetliner can smash into a dense steel-concrete tower and disappear virtually without a trace, much less do it twice within 17 minutes in the same city block. Yet the NIST Report states about the South Tower, “The aircraft completely disappeared into the building in a fifth of a second.” The tower walls were composed of high-strength steel beams, approximately 14 inches square on one-meter centers (39.37”) surrounding windows, with each column beam secured to others by steel spandrel plates about 52 inches x 10 feet forming a belt around each floor. Steel beam thicknesses varied from 4” at the base and tapered from 5/8” to ¼” in the WTC 1 impact zone and 13/16” to ¼” in the WTC 2 impact zone. The WTC floors were grids of steel topped by four inches of steel reinforced lightweight concrete in corrugated steel pans. Walls effectively were dense webs of nearly 40% steel covered by aluminum and backed by steel and concrete floor grids mated to an incredibly strong and dense core of 47 cross-braced steel columns, stairwells and elevator shafts. In a violent encounter between an aluminum plane weighing nearly 140 tons and a steel tower weighing 500,000 tons, the plane, of course, would be crushed. Aluminum has lower yield and failure strengths than steel and a Boeing 767 mass was a minuscule - to use Hoffman’s term - three hundredths of one percent of each tower’s mass. The impact did nothing, as UC Berkeley structural engineer A. Astaneh-Asl said, the airplane did not do much damage. Like a pin into skin or a person falling through the ice on a lake, a 140-ton airplane flying at over 400 mph could inflict local damage without damaging the structure globally. In particular, the engines themselves thrusting along full throttle at approximately 450-550 mph obviously could penetrate a steel tower, even fly through it. But whatever blew each gash in the towers, only 13% or less of the upper perimeter columns on a few floors were broken and the upper structure of the towers remained intact. A fuselage, with only minor hyperbole, could be termed a hollow aluminum tube. Among large jetliner components, only engines and landing gear would retain serious structural integrity in a collision, although small parts like actuators would remain intact too. Higher speeds increase kinetic energy by the square of speed and a frontal area of under 25 square meters would create local damage. Yet planes running into mountains, construction equipment, concrete barriers, and steel buildings fare very poorly, just as speeding automobiles hitting a guardrail, telephone pole or tree do. A plane flying into a WTC tower should break up, shatter and scatter pieces everywhere. The only issue is the exact pattern of destruction the building would impose on its intruder. A key question regarding each jetliner’s disappearance is: Would wing tips and tail break off against each steel wall or disappear entirely inside each building? Ordinarily, the answer would be that wing tips and tail would shear off on impact and bounce to the ground below. Wing tips have enormous forward momentum at impact, but begin to decelerate as the nose and fuselage collides with a steel wall, five floors of steel-truss-steel-reinforced-concrete and a steel inner core. This would wreak complete havoc on the plane, although the plane in the South Tower videos looks like an invincible hot knife going through a soft butter tower. Localized force applied by the wing tips was insufficient to fragment steel columns or spandrel plates and we should have seen video footage of the repelled wreckage bounce to the ground. There are no reports of such wreckage that I can find. A decelerating tail section would slow down and break off too, yet we saw no trace of it. The impact of the inner half of an empty wing significantly damaged exterior columns but did not result in their complete failure, the NIST Report concedes. In plainer terms, the hollow sections of the wings may damage steel columns, but not fragment them (complete failure). Instead, the dense steel exterior of each tower would reject or bounce back so-called empty aluminum wings, especially wing tips, the outer sections. Airplanes crashing into buildings, much less steel skyscrapers, are rare events, but there is some experience beyond airport terminal mishaps. The Empire State Building and Tampa crashes suggest that wings and tails break off, and even a fuselage does not penetrate far, at least at low speeds. Higher speeds increase kinetic energy by the square of speed, raising penetration power at the WTC... 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, 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 airframe bending and tail breaking off...
Posted on: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 05:20:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015