Aluminium will not cut through steel even at 500mph...

[mason-free party]

WTC Forensics
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/08/inconvenient-truth-about- 911-hijacked.html
November 11 2005
Gerard Holmgren


Observe that we have a hole in the tower which is approximately the size and shape of a 767, indicating that the alleged large passenger jet punched decisively through the building. Also observe that we have no wreckage significant enough to be identifiable.



The combination of these two factors is a forensic proof that it can not have been a plane of that size, as I shall explain shortly.



Before that comes another forensic proof. Note that the shape of the hole indicates that the wings punched through the building, making more or less a shape of themselves.



When you sit in a passenger jet and look out the window to the wings, what do you see ? A light aluminium structure which is segmented into panels and movable flaps. Hardly a cutting blade or battering ram, except against light materials.



The WTC was constructed of heavy construction steel, built to withstand hurricanes. We are asked to believe that such flimsy aluminium wings sliced through this structure decisively enough to make a cartoon type shape of themselves. Steel cutting blades are generally made from cobalt or tungsten and are either sharpened to precision or toothed.



If unsharpened, untoothed aluminium wings, with moveable panels could slice through construction steel like this, then blades for cutting steel would be a whole lot cheaper and less demanding of precision manufacture than what they are. This alone is enough to show that the 767 type shape in the wall, including an almost exact fit for the wings is an absurdity.



But lets just suppose that this was possible. That a plane could decisively punch through a building in this way. If so, then the wreckage can't just disappear into effectively nothing. Its simple conservation of energy. When a stronger object strikes a weaker object or vice versa, there are three possible outcomes.



The struck object is completely destroyed or moved out of the way, leaving the striking object with no damage and only loss of velocity to show for the collision. The striking object is completely destroyed or bounces off, leaving the struck object unmoved and undamaged. The destructive energy of the collision is shared in some balance between the struck object and the striking object. Most collisions will give this result although the destruction may well be much more heavily weighted towards one or the other, leaving one object with the majority of the damage.

What you can't have is a striking object destroying itself against the same object that its decisively punching through.



Here's some every day examples.



1a. Striking object negligibly damaged, struck object destroyed.

An arrow shot through a piece of carboad. The impacted part of the carboard is decisively destroyed making a hole roughly the shape of the arrow, and the arrow passes through, losing velocity and comes to rest undamaged.



1 b Striking object negligibly damaged struck object moved.

A bowling ball hitting a bowling pin. The pin is knocked clear and the bowling ball slows a little as a result.



2a Striking object destroyed, struck object unmoved and undamaged.



A glass thrown against a wall. The glass smashes, the wall is unmoved and undamaged.



2b Striking object bounces off, struck object undamaged



A tennis ball thrown against a wall and bouncing off.



Now note what happens if the tennis ball breaks as it hits the wall. Instead of bouncing, it will now flop pretty much where it is. It cant break *and* bounce off as it did before. If you add energy to one part of the process, you have to subtract it from somewhere else. Conservation of energy.



Which brings us to



3 Destruction shared between both objects.



A car colliding with a brick garden fence. Both objects suffer some damage and the car pretty much stops. The possible graduations of how the damage is shared are infinite, but what you cannot have is the car decisively punching through the fence leaving a cartoon type shape of itself, complety going through and *then* suddenly disintegrating beyond recognition.



If the car disintegrates itself to almost nothing, it will be because it hits a stronger surface which pushes most of the energy of the collision back into the car. So you might get a car reduced to confetti, but the surface it struck will be negligibly damaged/moved.



Or you might get a car bursting through a barrier of stretched cardboard, easily punching a shape of itself, but in this case you wont get a confetti car. It will emerge the other side negligibly damaged. Or you might get a wall of roughly equal strength to the car, in which case, you get a damaged but still basically intact car, coming to rest , probably part way through a wall which has been significantly damaged but doesn't have a cartoon type shape of the car punched neatly through it.



Think of the cartoon scene, where the cat chases the mouse through a mincer. The cat emerges from the other side still running, not realizing that its now made of a jigsaw type shapes. It keeps running for a while, and then with a look of resignation realizes that its been cut up, stops and collapses into a pile of little jigsaw type pieces.



Why do small children find this funny ? Because even at that age, they know that what they've seen is impossible.



In real life, the cat either



Gets immediately cut into pieces and ceases all co-ordinated movement as a single object, and doesn't damage the blades or Bursts through the mincer blades, breaking them or Mangles itself, stopping almost immediately and also causing significant damage to the blades.

So what we asked to believe at the WTC is a Tom and Jerry cartoon.



What would happen in real life is



the plane would smash itself to pieces against the building, doing little damage to the building and the wreckage falling mostly to the street. or The plane would pass through the wall making a cartoon type shape of itself (heh! Those sturdy aluminium cutting blades slicing through the flimsy construction steel of the building ! ) and come to rest, relatively intact. or You'd have a smashed up and scattered plane, still in large identifiable pieces some of it inside the building, some falling to the street below, and damage to the wall of some unpredictable configuration.

The latter option is what happened when the plane hit the Empire State building in 1945. Large pieces of the plane broke off and fell to the streets below, and the bulk of it stuck pretty much in the side of the building.



In the Sandia video, you see option 1 - the plane being reduced to almost nothing and the struck surface negligibly affected.



What is impossible is for the plane to punch neatly through the building leaving a cartoon type shape of itself and *then* disintegrate into nothing. If this were possible we'd find the following examples in everyday life.



You saw through a piece of wood. When you've finished you've got a neat cut, and the saw blade has completely disintegrated.



You swing a sledge hammer through a plasterboard wall. The wall is decisively punched through, and when the hammer emerges the other side, the head has disintegrated.



A tennis ball hits a racquet. The ball smashes through the strings, leaving a neat round hole, passes through and then disintegrates into tiny pieces after its passed through.



One last thing to look at. Suppose that we forget about the aluminum cutting blades problem, and suppose that the plane passed through decisively, relatively undamaged, thus obeying conservation of energy laws and then , being packed with explosives, blew up into pretty much nothing after passing through.



In this case, how does an explosion massive enough to disappear a 70 ton plane, have a negligible effect on the building inside which the explosion is taking place, leaving no damage other than that apparently caused by the entry of the plane ?



This problem is heightened by the following observation. If the plane passed decisively through the wall, then the plane is by definition the more robust of the two objects, having easily smashed aside the wall. But when the explosion goes off it totally disintegrates the stronger plane and yet somehow doesn't damage the comparatively flimsy building. Not possible.



Since the WTC was about 210 ft each side and the alleged plane about 160 ft, then with the plane completely inside the building, the extremities of the plane are less than a stones throw from the edges of the building. So any secondary explosion, powerful enough to disappear the plane should have also exacerbated the damage to the wall, where the plane passed through. If there had been, for a brief moment, a plane shaped hole, that should have been blasted bigger and differently shaped by the explosion which blew up the plane.



In fact it was this observation which finally laid to rest any lingering doubts I had about the Sth tower plane being a fake, after I looked at WF's site, way back.

As if that's not enough, there isn't room for a 767 to completely disappear inside the WTC. The total size of the building only allows about 50 ft to spare, and there's the problem of the core of the building. Nearly half of the plane would have still been hanging out when the nose hit the core and the plane started smashing itself up. Or if you want to make the absurd suggestion that it also easily smashed through the core, without even enough damage to the plane to disturb it's direction enough to mess the cartoon type shape of itself, then why doesn't it also pass through the other side of the building in a similar manner?

Lets see now... the plane effortlessly punches through the wall, the wings making a shape of themselves, effortlessly punches through the core, and then, with a few feet to spare, once its completely inside the building, puts the brakes on and then blows up into nothing, with the explosion miraculously causing no extra damage to the building.

This would also mean that those razor sharp aluminium wings which sliced so easily through the flimsy construction steel would have been merrily slicing away for about 100 ft into the building, slicing the building like a loaf of bread before the plane blew up. The slice then healed itself. Perhaps the explosion put it all back into place...

This kind of thing might happen in cartoons and in the "minds" of people like Eastman, but it's notably absent from real life.

The alternative is to come to the shocking conclusion that CNN and the govt lied to us, by showing us an animation and passing it off as real. The idea that CNN and the govt might have lied (gasp ! ) is so shocking to the "minds" of people like Eastman, so offensive to their deep sense of patriotism that they prefer to believe that cartoons are real.

[alwun]

As lucid and cogent as you are going to get.
Now let's wait for the counter-arguments. There are a number of posters here who are becoming quite agitated by having their carefully researched and thought-out theories challenged.
The first video which I saw of the second plane hitting and which featured the sound of an explosion, I saw earlier this year on 'camera planet'. How come these new improved vids are beginning to surface only now? Any private citizen who captured such an event at the time would be rushing their footage over to the networks in the hope of making a couple of bucks, the awfulness of the tragedy notwithstanding.
I remain increasingly suspicious about the media possibly colluding.

cheers Al..

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

This makes a great deal of sense


Yes Snowy and Andy - please post your counter arguments to this

[HERA]

You ***** ***** Why dont you go and *** yourself and stop talking ***** you *****.

Any moment now.

[Snowygrouch]

Well I`m sorry people but your work and theories are utterly worthless.

You have been conned by a couple of very very badly put together websites (I note that you NEVER produce your own credible analysis but use reams of weblinks).

The theory is pitiful to anyone with a grounding in Materials science or mechanical engineering. Unluckily for you lot I have both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Strength of structural steel used in perimeter columns = 551MPa or 551N/mm2

Number of columns sheared (WTC1) = 33

Cross sectional area of columns at impact height of planes = 16130mm2

Total cross sectional area of steel sheared by impact= 1,064,580mm2

Velocity of plane at impact=500mph or 222m/s

Mass of plane at impact = 145,000kg (100,000kg dry weight + 10,000 gallons fuel)

Energy of plane@ impact velocity = 4 Giga-Joules (4x10^9 joules)

If the plane is to bounce off the building it must decelerate to zero meters/second over a distance near zero. We shall use a very generous figure of 2 meters (the smaller the figure the greater the force expended), this allows the building to instantaiously move 2 meters at impact which is highly unrealistic. If an object were to bounce off the distance figure would be much closer to zero, giving many; many times the instantaionus force I use here.

1 Joule = Amount of energy needed to apply a force of 1 newton over a distance of 1m

4 GJ/2meters = 2 Giga Newton’s must be expended in doing so.

Stress = force/ area
= 2GN/ 1,064,580mm2
= 1868N/mm2

Thus in order to “bounce off” the side of the world trade centre the steel would have to be over 3.5 times stronger than the steel actually used.

The above analysis is naturally simplified a great deal as I don’t have sufficiently accurate computer models (or the time) to run a finite element analysis routine.

Hence I used extremely generous figures in favour of a “bounce off” scenario and still fell short of the required stress figures by a very considerable margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------

What follows are simulations of wing impact and engineering schematics of the fuel tank layouts in a 767-200.

Of course an EMPTY plane will not penetrate with anything like the effect it did. Trouble is it WASNT empty and had 10,000 gallons of fuel in, or about 40 tons of fuel if you prefer my mass.

This is a fact ignored by the patheticaly absurd attempts at a serious analysis on the NPT websites which normally consist of "aluminium is soft and steel is really hard so it COULDNT go through". B********S.

I`m bloody SICK of spending months doing serious research only to have my (and the efforts of others who are ACTUALLY SERIOUS about DOING someting) undermined by unresearched UNsubstanciated UNCALCULATED "net nonsense".

[andyb]

[alwun]

Well the maths are very impressive. Unluckily for whoever, academic competence, or even brilliance, does not necessarily equate with that ephemeral, difficult to quantify phenomenon which we call intelligence(for want of a better word). There are I'm sure, examples to be found in many peoples circles of friendship, of the brainy guy with three and a half degrees - or more, who nevertheless remains somewhat nonplussed by life at large outside the ivory towers.

As a matter of interest - Did you read the article before delivering the maths?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Snowygrouch]

I did the maths today at about 6:00pm.

I'm not in no 'Ivory tower' mate either, I spent 5 years working as a welder before I started University.

I know alot about what metal does from years of working with it 50 hours a week.

Something I wish certain website authors would take to heart before announcing themselves experts (not than I`m an expert either I have to add; at least I`m honest about my credentials).

9/11 Isnt a joke or a game to me. Its probably the most crucial thing that will EVER happen to me in my lifetime. This is really serious stuff and NO place for anything less than carefully analysed and heavily substantiated factual invesitigations.

[alwun]

Fine. I spoke out of turn. I must agree that this is a matter of great seriousness. I share along with you and most, I suppose, posters here, a sense of outrage by the behaviour of the 911 perps.
I know nothing about the events of that day other than the initial news reports and subsequent media furore. I recall an article from those days in at least one British broadsheet mentioning the lack of debris at the Pentagon, but by and large, and even until now, our much vaunted free press still toes the party line.
It is at least not without foundation, therefore, the theory of major media collusion. A collusion much greater than even we can imagine. We, who know how difficult it can be to cross the gap of comprehension concerning the tower demos v. collapses. Is it not possible that there are further gaps to cross?
I also share with the mods the sense that too much of the speech posted here somewhat counters the point of this site, the major UK entry point to the groups of people who are taking the 911 atrocity seriously. I am on your side Snowy Grouch, and all the rest of you, bar some, of course.

cheers Al..

[Snowygrouch]

No need to apologise to me at all Alwun.
For those interested in "common sense visualisation" the impact of the 767 weighing about 145 tons at 500mph gives EXACTLY the same energy impact as the followng.

SIXTY FOUR Challenger 2 Main Battle tanks (62.5 Tons each) driving into the side of the WTC tower at ONE HUNDRED miles per hour all at the same time.

Ek=Kinetic Energy=Energy posessed by a moving object
If an object is to stop; ALL this energy must be dissipated.

Ek=0.5*Mass*velocity squared.
Ek=0.5*62500kg*64*44.4m/s squared (64 cos theres 64 of em)
= 3.94 Giga Joules

Bear that in mind before considering what 'sounds reasonable' about these absolutely collossal impacts.

[nomore]

FACT: A moving object contains more energy than a non-moving object.

Example. I can rest or even drop a tennis ball onto a sheet of glass without the glass being damamed. If I throw the ball at a greater velocity, the ball has more kinetic energy. When the ball hits faster, more energy is transfered from the ball to the glass, and therefore it breaks, due to the properties of the glass.

Another example. A glass of water poured onto steel will do nothing to the steel, yet take the same water a shoot it at the steel at high pressure, and the water will cut the steel. This is a common method used to cut metal. Nothing more than water!

[chek]

[mason-free party]

[mason-free party]

interesting debate on the results of aluminium smashing into a hard object from http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon911/pentagon911.html

You go on to say that, a large passenger plane flown into a solid concrete structure is "obliterated"…the largest piece left would be small enough to fit in your pocket …You obviously haven't watched any video footage of actual crash testing of large aircraft. Deutch Wella Television recently screened such a programme in New Zealand, which showed American crash testing of planes as large as Boeing 747's into a huge solid concrete block cube, several hundred feet long, wide and high. Slow motion photography showed the entire compression, compaction and destruction of the planes in graphic detail, as they impacted into the side of this immovable obstacle. The aftermath was large sections of identifiable structure. Inevitably the tail sections, in conjunction with significant segments of attached fuselage survived complete, as did engines and sections of wings.

[mason-free party]

is this video of a jet crashing into a nuclear type concrete casing faked?...was it made to back up the pentagon crash claims of no wreckage...looks like a fake to me
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4664242626206288868&q=planes+ crash+tested&hl=en

[Nambo]

Now I thought those ouside panels of the twin towers that the plane went through like butter, where alluminium, not steel?

I read that they where suffering dissimilar metal corrosion with the steel frame of the building that they where bolted too, and a huge amount of money would be required to rectify the problem, more money than the buildings where worth due to the white elephants that they had become.

[mason-free party]

[nomore]

[nomore]

[seatnineb]

Even if the plane had penetrated that solid steel exterior wall and steel/concrete floors.......it would have come up against this solid wall (of as yet unknown composition)....that encased the perimeter of the core:



Note that this "wall" is at least 2-3 stories high at this stage in construction.

[physicist]

What is intuitively surprising to me is that the second plane appears to slice into the south tower like a knife going through butter - with very little debris thrown out backwards, not even clouds of dust.

The entire plane enters the tower and nothing seems to happen for 0.5 seconds when we see the huge explosion.

We also see what appears to be the nose of the plane exiting from the other side of the tower. Wow, they make them tough.

[alwun]

physicist's opening gambit -

[Nambo]

Regarding the Phantom hitting the concrete video, so, yes, if the planes flying fast enough it can just dissapear, but when it hit the Pentagon and "vapourised", what was left to do the same thing, punch a hole through the second ring of the Pentagon?, and what was left after that which probably vapourised as well, to punch a hole through the third ring of 9 foot reinforced concrete?
And how come the engines and wings didnt even break the windows of the Pentagon where they would of hit?

Dont witnesses claim that jet was travelling quite slowly?

[physicist]

[Fallious]

Come on NPT's... Face it. You watched that one 'butter melts' video from CNN and built a crock full of nonsense around it to explain an already well known and understood video artefact problem.

Your explanation of 'cartoons' or super imposed images is nieve in the extreme.

I honestly can't understand why people are getting hooked by this turd sandwich. It would be funny, if it wasn't so tragic.

[James C]

Can we wind this argument up, it's getting very silly especially as the inaccuracies are quite obvious. It also helps the shills to bolster their argument that we cannot agree on what the conspiracy story is. There is also the issue of the discrepencies between the sizes of the mass of the aircraft and the steelwork sections.

The steel in the upper sections of the outer steelwork lattice was only a 1/4 inch thick and shaped into square hollow sections of 14" x 14". A light alumumnium cladding was fixed to the outside and plaster board used internally. The outer steelwork was very strong and lightweight acting like a stiff mesh capable of supporting its own weight and resisting a distributed wind load.

What the steelwork couldn't do was withstand a point load, especially a point load as massive as an Boeing 767. If you look at the pictures you will see that the breaks in the facade are at the connection points between each prefabricated piece of lattice steel work; sections of steelwork were lifted into position and bolted together. The aircraft simply broke these joints, punching some of the steel lattice work sections into the building; these sections probably remained intact as the planes hit them although obviously were much deformed. At the wing tips, the tips damaged the outer cladding and did not slice through the steel. Since the aluminium claddding was light grey and the steelwork dark brown, the pictures give the impression that the wing tip marks are holes when in fact they simply show the breaks in the cladding to expose the dark steel behind.

Now please can we forget this nonsense?

[Ally]

Link



Link

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Sunday, May 14, 2006
Arguing "No-Planes"
I know this theory is unpopular with most 9/11 "truthers" and 9/11 activists, and lord knows that I sometimes wonder why I am spending so much time on an apparently ridiculous theory that "no one" believes. Certainly "no sane person would believe that no plane hit the WTC, ESPECIALLY the South tower because EVERYONE saw that, there were THOUSANDS of witnesses".

I know many in the 9/11 "truth movement" just wish the no-planers would go away, as we give a bad, crazy association to "real" 9/11 truth. And even more, many in the 9/11 "truth movement" believe the no-planers are active disinfo artists, paid government shills, meant to disrupt true 9/11 activists.

In fact, I am a private citizen who just wants to know the truth about 9/11. I want to know exactly what happened that day, and specifically I want to know: if 9/11 was an inside job-- how was it set up? It simply is not enough for me to say, "oh, they used patsies for the hijackers, remote control planes and distracted the air defenses with war games". I have been down that road. If you read my archives from when I started this blog, you can see it for yourself. Early on, I bought into the whole "let's ignore all 9/11 physical evidence" meme-- big time. I even wrote a couple of posts early on saying how 9/11 activists shouldn't talk about no-plane hitting the Pentagon, because that makes us look bad.

But you know what? I started looking at the physical evidence. The towers looked like they were blown up. And the Pentagon hit started looking very strange. Then I started looking at the flight 93 crash site-- and that was even stranger. And then it looked to me like no planes crashed at the Pentagon or at Shanksville, though someone tried to make it look like planes did crash. But they could only fake so much. Then the question arose: if there were no planes at the Pentagon or at Shanksville, is it possible they didn't use planes for the WTC either? Then I started looking at the footage of "UA175" melting into the south tower, and it really didn't seem quite right to me.

Finally, I also began to wonder why so many 9/11 "truth" people were telling me NOT to look at the physical evidence when it was so compelling and clearly bizarre!

So-- my nagging feeling is that there is something VERY important about the no-plane theory that deserves attention. I don't want to force it down anyone's throat, but I think it also should be looked at by all 9/11 activists with an open mind.

The evidence for there being no planes is a cumulative argument, without any one 100% infallible piece of evidence. This is much like the whole idea of 9/11 being an "inside job"-- it doesn't rest on one rock-solid piece of evidence, but rather it rests on many official parts of the 9/11 story being improbable, and that these add up to a highly unbelievable official story. 9/11 being an "inside job" is a bit of a gestalt, really. If one can handle the 9/11 "inside job" gestalt, than handling the no-plane theory should not be a big problem.

In any case, it is worth periodically going over the reasons for the no-plane theory, if nothing else than for my own sanity.

9/11 facts that support the no-plane theory*:

1) the one "live" shot of "UA175" flying to the South tower, shown from the same feed by three different networks (ABC, CNN, Fox), was discontinuous with the explosion. Moreover, the south tower was not even seen directly as it was blocked by the north tower. All in all, very suspicious footage

2) the second shot of the south tower hit shown by CNN showed only an explosion, no plane. The area on the screen where the plane should have been was blocked by the CNN news "crawl". Also very suspicious footage.

3) several eye-witnesses saw the south tower explode, and were in a location where they could have seen the plane, but didn't see a plane.

4) several eye-witnesses spoke of missiles or a missile hitting the south tower instead of a plane.

5) the plane-shaped holes in the WTC towers (and in Shanksville and to a lesser degree the Pentagon) are not physically plausible for real plane crashes-- the holes look as though the perpetrators were simply trying to make it APPEAR as though planes crashed in the buildings and on the ground.

6) several videos of the south tower hit show the plane sliding into the tower without slowing, without exploding upon contact, without any part breaking off-- with even the freaking wingtips gliding through thick steel columns!

7) there are many video anomalies in the videos of the second hit-- the plane is deformed, there are obvious "pods", there are conflicting plane paths between videos, the videos have anomalous, often dark, coloration, etc. This all casts doubt on a real plane being in the videos.

evidence for planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville is weak; people initially at both scenes said there was no evidence of a plane crash, etc.

9) flight 11 and flight 77 officially did not take off according to the BTS database.

10) no black boxes were found at ground zero (officially).

11) almost no plane parts were found in the WTC rubble that was SIFTED for human remains.


9/11 concepts that are consistent with the no-plane theory:

1) the lack of air defense is best explained by a lack of any real planes to intercept-- this would have been the best way to insure no awkward air force interception of a hijacked plane.

2) the big lie that no planes were used would be a very effective tool for insuring the truth never came out, as it would sound too crazy.

3) if 9/11 was an inside set-up, not using planes is technically easier, in terms of not having to deal with moving large aircraft around and piloting them precisely and not having to deal with live hijacking situations-- they only needed to plant the plane meme and plant some parts.

4) some plane parts laying in the street or on the ground seem implausible and appear to be planted-- but parts would not need to be planted if real planes were used, would they?

5) there appear to be TOO many videos of the second hit. I have counted 30 of them and there may be more. This is of a highly transient event that could only be seen from certain angles and was completely UNEXPECTED (in principle that is!).

6) videos of the second hit were played over and over and over on TV, as if they were trying to reinforce the plane meme.

7) it is unlikely amateur pilot terrorists could have piloted planes so effectively, but remote control does not make sense for how UA175 behaved in the videos, with the last minute turn right before hitting.

the origin of most 2nd hit videos is very obscure-- but in some cases, they came from known computer animators.

[James C]

Sigh!