In Defense of Wing Damage?
I was originally going to write something very different about wing impacts, but after doing some further examination of the topic, I realized I needed to rethink things.
This diagram shows a simulation of a Boeing 767 (in AA colors) going into the WTC North tower about where AA11 is alleged to have hit and at a similar angle as how AA11 is alleged to have hit (the flight simulator program allows you to fly through many large buildings with any impedence):
(click to enlarge)
Here, the wings are just starting to go into the tower. I've marked several things in the image, but what is most striking is the relative size of the columns at this angle compared to the wings. Note-- the column cross-sections (the little yellow squares) may not be perfectly scaled, but the relative proportion of the columns to the wings is very close.
When I made this diagram, what struck me was the huge width (horizontal surface) of the wings in relation to the cross-section (horizontal cross-section) of the outer columns.
Now, as indicated by the fact that a bird can smash through the outer aluminum skin of the wing, I've no doubt that the leading surface of the wings would be crushed on impact with the heavy steel of the WTC columns.
However, there is so much wing material that impacts the columns because of the horizontal surface of the wings (roughly 20 feet wide near the fuselage, 10 feet wide in the middle, and about 5 feet wide at the tip), that it changes this equation, I think. In particular, the inner wings, the parts of the wings bearing the landing gear and engines, have a great deal of mass.
Thus, it is conceivable to me that the overall mass of the wings-- the large horizontal mass of aluminum piling up at high-speed at a concentrated section on an individual column-- could lead to column severing to the extent that was seen here:
Of course, it is NOT clear what would have happened to these wing sections once they got inside. If they were strong enough to get through the steel columns, it is not clear what would have destroyed them once inside. Yet we have not seen one picture of a wing section recovered from Ground Zero. (Of course, the black boxes officially were not even recovered from Ground Zero.)
Furthermore-- my tendency is STILL to think that the wingtips would have shorn off by the diagonal force exerted by the columns along the length of the wings (see arrows in top image). This force should have driven the wings backwards such that the very outer tips would never make contact with the columns and left an imprint. We know the outer 20 feet of the port wing could not have entered the tower intact, and thus some part of the wing HAD to shred upon impact.
Still unresolved for the official story is what happened to the wings where the columns were not severed and were just "impacted"-- for instance, the last 7 columns columns of the facade scar on the North tower as shown above. Did the outer wings shred and pass completely between the columns in the windows? Or did the wings shred and most of the material was deflected backwards? Either way, that is a lot of aluminum to shred and it is far from clear what happened to all this material.
Furthermore, the effect of the wings on individual columns is quite different than the phenomenon of the wings apparently penetrating concrete and metal floor slabs, as seen here in a video of the south tower attack:
Whereas individual columns present only 14 inches of horizontal material for the wing to penetrate, floor slabs obviously present a much larger horizontal obstacle. Thus, this image of the 2nd hit (for many reasons actually), still seems patently bogus to me.
There is also the issue of how the aluminum shredding and penetration of columns should have slowed the plane down as it went in. If the wings stayed attached to the fuselage (i.e. didn't break off) as the wings shredded against the outer columns, this would seemingly slow the plane significantly (which of course was not seen in the South tower videos).
Ultimately, all this does not prove that Boeing 767's hit the towers-- I still think there is a great deal of evidence against that-- but rather that the severed columns by themselves are not proof against the official story.
The wing scars MAY be evidence against Boeing 767 impacts, although the argument is more complicated.
My general impression is that "someone" was trying REAL HARD, by making the building gashes the exact wingspan of a Boeing 767, to make it look like Boeing 767s hit the towers.
Another factor is that the tower scars defy physics in general, since objects that can crash through another object and leave a cut-out shape of themselves shouldn't be destroyed at the same time they are making the cut-out shape.
Ultimately, I am still convinced that a Boeing 767 did NOT hit the South tower, and therefore it is not clear why they would lie about the South tower and not the North tower.
This diagram shows a simulation of a Boeing 767 (in AA colors) going into the WTC North tower about where AA11 is alleged to have hit and at a similar angle as how AA11 is alleged to have hit (the flight simulator program allows you to fly through many large buildings with any impedence):
(click to enlarge)
Here, the wings are just starting to go into the tower. I've marked several things in the image, but what is most striking is the relative size of the columns at this angle compared to the wings. Note-- the column cross-sections (the little yellow squares) may not be perfectly scaled, but the relative proportion of the columns to the wings is very close.
When I made this diagram, what struck me was the huge width (horizontal surface) of the wings in relation to the cross-section (horizontal cross-section) of the outer columns.
Now, as indicated by the fact that a bird can smash through the outer aluminum skin of the wing, I've no doubt that the leading surface of the wings would be crushed on impact with the heavy steel of the WTC columns.
However, there is so much wing material that impacts the columns because of the horizontal surface of the wings (roughly 20 feet wide near the fuselage, 10 feet wide in the middle, and about 5 feet wide at the tip), that it changes this equation, I think. In particular, the inner wings, the parts of the wings bearing the landing gear and engines, have a great deal of mass.
Thus, it is conceivable to me that the overall mass of the wings-- the large horizontal mass of aluminum piling up at high-speed at a concentrated section on an individual column-- could lead to column severing to the extent that was seen here:
Of course, it is NOT clear what would have happened to these wing sections once they got inside. If they were strong enough to get through the steel columns, it is not clear what would have destroyed them once inside. Yet we have not seen one picture of a wing section recovered from Ground Zero. (Of course, the black boxes officially were not even recovered from Ground Zero.)
Furthermore-- my tendency is STILL to think that the wingtips would have shorn off by the diagonal force exerted by the columns along the length of the wings (see arrows in top image). This force should have driven the wings backwards such that the very outer tips would never make contact with the columns and left an imprint. We know the outer 20 feet of the port wing could not have entered the tower intact, and thus some part of the wing HAD to shred upon impact.
Still unresolved for the official story is what happened to the wings where the columns were not severed and were just "impacted"-- for instance, the last 7 columns columns of the facade scar on the North tower as shown above. Did the outer wings shred and pass completely between the columns in the windows? Or did the wings shred and most of the material was deflected backwards? Either way, that is a lot of aluminum to shred and it is far from clear what happened to all this material.
Furthermore, the effect of the wings on individual columns is quite different than the phenomenon of the wings apparently penetrating concrete and metal floor slabs, as seen here in a video of the south tower attack:
Whereas individual columns present only 14 inches of horizontal material for the wing to penetrate, floor slabs obviously present a much larger horizontal obstacle. Thus, this image of the 2nd hit (for many reasons actually), still seems patently bogus to me.
There is also the issue of how the aluminum shredding and penetration of columns should have slowed the plane down as it went in. If the wings stayed attached to the fuselage (i.e. didn't break off) as the wings shredded against the outer columns, this would seemingly slow the plane significantly (which of course was not seen in the South tower videos).
Ultimately, all this does not prove that Boeing 767's hit the towers-- I still think there is a great deal of evidence against that-- but rather that the severed columns by themselves are not proof against the official story.
The wing scars MAY be evidence against Boeing 767 impacts, although the argument is more complicated.
My general impression is that "someone" was trying REAL HARD, by making the building gashes the exact wingspan of a Boeing 767, to make it look like Boeing 767s hit the towers.
Another factor is that the tower scars defy physics in general, since objects that can crash through another object and leave a cut-out shape of themselves shouldn't be destroyed at the same time they are making the cut-out shape.
Ultimately, I am still convinced that a Boeing 767 did NOT hit the South tower, and therefore it is not clear why they would lie about the South tower and not the North tower.
posted by spooked at 2:02 PM
20 Comments:
red arrows were steel
yellow lines were concrete
---
a 767 nosecone is made of a composite plastic and the skin of the entire plane is aluminum sheet. it should NOT be considered to be similar to a bullet by any means. rather it is analogous to a beer can. staying with this analogy a wtc can be considered to be a barbeque grill placed on cinder blocks, ya?
although i do have a size 12 clown shoe(hi conspiracy smasher's wife! do the math!), in order to be fair to the official(talk about fucktards!)fairytale, 500mph momentum might be more analogous to the 16 lb. hammer that i also have.
so.
placing the barbeque grill squarely upon the cinder blocks and securing the beer can to said hammer, we can then begin our re-enactment of the final moments of alleged ua175: ready? 1.2.3...smash!
oh! unbelievable.
beercan175 not only does NOT slice cleanly thru the barbeque/cinderblock wtc, it squashes like the beer can that it is and most of the remaining 10k gallons of jetfuel beer splashes all over the side of grill/block wtc instead of concentrating in one spot inside the wtc where it would have had to in order to reach the 1300 degrees F necessary(impossible!) for even beginning to melt even one single bolt or weld out of the 100's of thousands that each wtc was comprised of.
imagine that.
by the way, the ghost of edna cintron says hi!
I believe that this 83 second video will greatly enlighten you.
http://www.livevideo.com/video/bsregistration/CFD76C65B77F45F98D287CECF704E97E/casper-175-suzanne-jovin.aspx
It's Casper 175!
Fred
http://www.livevideo.com/video/bsregistration/CFD76C65B77F45F98D287CECF704E97E/casper-175-suzanne-jovin.aspx
oh xlnt!
"there's good boos tonite!"
ha.
Sometimes I think there's too much focus on the wings, and too much of treating the airplane like a single physical object.
Think of seats and suitcases.
Tell me how it is that we don't see one single seat bouncing off the side of one of those floor slabs?
How about a suitcase? Maybe one of them would break open in this big crash and we'd see a bunch of laundry flying down from the entry hole?
Pretend that the plane sliced through the entry hole of the south tower, then blew up inside. If it's a passenger plane we should see seats and luggage all over the place. Where are all the inflatable slides? Maybe the lifejackets are hardened too so that they punched holes in the building? A lot of this stuff in a real plane is soft and bouncy, and we should see it bouncing all over the place as the plane breaks up when it smashes into the South Tower.
Fred
well there was the passport belonging to one of the evil other guys that made it all the way to the street below - doesn't that count?
in fact that's the only thing about 9/11 that does count: the magic passport.
Thus, it is conceivable to me that the overall mass of the wings-- the large horizontal mass of aluminum piling up at high-speed at a concentrated section on an individual column-- could lead to column severing to the extent that was seen here.
are you arguing that because of the mass of the wing, it would be able to cut the columns? that sounds unlikely to me given the number of columns cut.
for instance, if the total mass of each wing was behind the severing of one column, it might make more sense. but for each column severed on each side of the plane, there was only one wing doing the cutting.
the large horizontal mass of aluminum piling up at high-speed at a concentrated section on an individual column
i think if you're going to make this argument, you'd need to determine how many mass from each section of the wing is contributing to cutting a column section. would you agree that for each column cut, the entire mass/force of the wing was not behind it? in other words, can we look at each cut column against a subset of the wing force/mass or do we need to consider the wing acting as a whole on each column? i do not know.
how many columns could these wings cut if we are to believe they had enough mass? for each column cut, how much force would be required to cut it?
i agree that it is conceivable that a wing could cut through one column but i find it hard to accept that a wing could cut through as many columns as we seen in your picture below, particularly the wing tips.
the inner wings, the parts of the wings bearing the landing gear and engines, have a great deal of mass.
as far as i know, the landing gear is in the main fuselage, but i could be mistaken on that one. having it mounted on the wings seems a little silly, but i could be wrong.
just offering up my 2ยข.
when considering the physics of a real aluminum 767 really hitting a steel/concrete wtc we have to begin at the 1st moment of contact between the two, correct?
if i am not mistaken that would be at the very tip of the plastic nosecone.
so.
since we observe from each of the only 4 videos of what was alleged to be ua175 actually hitting and penetrating wtc2 that alleged ua175 passed entirely thru the side of the steel/concrete wtc2 without even slowing down, did the aluminum 767's plastic nosecone slice thru the steel/concrete wtc like a razor or did it bludgeon it's way thru like a hammer or did it flow between and around the steel perimeter columns like mercury?
unless i am mistaken these are the only 3 manners in which a real aluminum 767 with a plastic nosecone could actually penetrate the side of a steel/concrete wtc.
ha.
I agree there should be more focus on other parts of the plane. There are parts of any 9/11 plane we've never seen as debris-- tail sections and seats, for instance. There should have been lots of seats and it's hard to believe all the seats were disintegrated.
The landing gear is definitely housed in the wing of a 767.
i could imagine the columns near the fuselage and larger wing section being cut, but i still have a hard time seeing how the wingtips never broke off but still managed to cut columns off and pinch some aluminum cladding. so many columns are cut on the left wing impact point. and still have the tail section no scar mystery. i do see the problems with focusing on wing impact vs. columns.
A lot of this stuff in a real plane is soft and bouncy, and we should see it bouncing all over the place as the plane breaks up when it smashes into the South Tower.
totally. shouldn't we see the plane busting up to pieces instead and slip sliding into the tower.. nice smooth. i think of that video i saw earlier of an MD-80 landing a wee bit too hard, pinched a fuel line perhaps, and smack! hit da ground and its tail section snapped off because of the impact forces traveling back through the plane.
how come not one piece breaks off ua175 as it enters the tower?
did the aluminum 767's plastic nosecone slice thru the steel/concrete wtc like a razor or did it bludgeon it's way thru like a hammer
h is for a hahammer and i'd say that nosecone hit like a hammer. but why doesn't it slow down? WTC looks like it turned into a giant airplane hanger where ua175 can melt into it at near top with losing a wingflap.
i believe that the steel/concrete wtc, even though stationary, would act as the hammer compared to the plastic/aluminum nose of a real ua175, which should act as the beer can despite its momentum. i think that the nose of a real ua175 would squash against the side of wtc, at least up to the point of the engines contact with the wtc. at that point we would have to start a new consideration.
does anyone (besides conspiracy smasher's wife) concur with this?
ok after dwelling on this further i think that at the same time as a real 767's front was squashing like a beer can, the wtc perimeter columns would be very stressed and deformed. some might even break when the engines made contact with them. but these columns were not only very hard and strong and very numerous and close together but they were backed up by the horizontal steel reinforced concrete floors which were in turn backed up by the extra massive core columns. and the front section of aluminum 767 would have been squashed and wadded up and acted as a sort of cushion or shock absorber between the wtc and the engines.
anyone?
"The landing gear is definitely housed in the wing of a 767."
Let me clarify-- the struts are in the wing, while the wheels go in the underbelly.
"same time as a real 767's front was squashing like a beer can, the wtc perimeter columns would be very stressed and deformed. some might even break when the engines made contact with them. but these columns were not only very hard and strong and very numerous and close together but they were backed up by the horizontal steel reinforced concrete floors which were in turn backed up by the extra massive core columns. and the front section of aluminum 767 would have been squashed and wadded up and acted as a sort of cushion or shock absorber between the wtc and the engines."
This sounds reasonable though I am not sure what you think the damage pattern should look like.
the columns would never have been cut as if by a giant scissors especially where the wings would've hit - that part of the damage that we see is just ridiculous. a real 767 would have ended up in a million pieces all over the place - some of it might get stuck in that hole where we see edna cintron waiting to be rescued but there is no 767 anywhere. fuel would have splashed all over the outside and ignited, leaving scorch marks everywhere and much more of the aluminum facade would have been dislodged.
i start out trying to envision the damage to the tower and i just can't get beyond the plane - oh the tail section - as if it would vanish into the tower!
was it actually jim fetzer who proposed that the wtcs somehow opened up like a garage door and allowed the "planes" in?
unfuckingreal. looking at the "plane" one can see wings blinking on and off, incorrect angles of wings, different colors that shouldn't be there, a weird pod that only manifests itself at the very last moment and zaps out a lightning bolt, nose outs that fail to leave an exit hole, bla bla bla -
and rather than face the obvious the leader of the so-called "truth movement" proposes that someone clicked a remote control which opened up a fucking garage door in the side of the tower allowing the "767" to disappear entirely?
and this same "truth movement" actually has the gall to accuse us of damaging their credibility!
could it possibly get any more ironic than that?
"If the wings stayed attached to the fuselage (i.e. didn't break off)"
According to Dave McGowan's article on the Pentagon, the two wings are one piece that passes through the fuselage, so they are not attached to the fuselage. I agree that tremendous mass would be in the part of the wing between and including the two engines, where most of the fuel would be. I could see this mass shearing the columns in this area, but not without much more resistance than shown in the fake video.
""shearing the columns in this area""
that's where i disagree - i don't think that the columns could be sheared as if by cutters despite the mass of the wing roots. no matter the mass of that part of the plane, it was still very soft and might as well have been a giant beer can or papier mache or even a hard boiled egg compared to the hardened steel box columns.
i think the columns would deform and some might break but maybe not even that as they were fully backed up by the floors which were in turn backed up by the core columns.
i don't think that the columns could be sheared as if by cutters despite the mass of the wing roots....it was still very soft...
otherwise steel cutting saw blades would be made out of aluminum, and that would never happen.
"that's where i disagree - i don't think that the columns could be sheared as if by cutters despite the mass of the wing roots."
I'm not saying it could or couldn't do that, really - I'm just saying that I could fathom it happening, but not with no-resistance penetration.
The engines are rigid and dense, so I could definitely see them shearing the columns, again with great resistance.
the no resistance penetration that we all see in the videos is beyond ridiculous.
ya, real 767 engines are rigid and dense and they would've been moving along at a good rate but they would be very brittle as well.
the wtc box columns were much much stronger, harder and more massive by comparison.
is a 767 moving @ 500mph and hitting a stationary wtc any different from a wtc moving @ 500mph and hitting a stationary 767?
the more i think about it the more i believe that ANY penetration would be very unlikely.
real 767 engines are rigid and dense and they would've been moving along at a good rate but they would be very brittle as well.
the wtc box columns were much much stronger, harder and more massive by comparison.
are you sure? i thought the engines would have had titanium so they might have been able to punch thru. i am still convinced wingtips and tail would have shown some deceleration and breakage.
IMO, video fakery is established-- from the torpedo/friedl video where the nosecone come out the other side to the closeup impact shots where we see no deceleration or airplane breakup. i don't know what physics argument to make along with this. Ningen has some good kinetic energy points here .
that video fakery has been established should be taken as a given.
i still believe that ANY penetration of a wtc by a real 767 would be very unlikely.
Post a Comment
<< Home