How’s planes took down the first tower
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (33)
sorted by:
Let's clear one fact up which is repeated endlessly, and that concerns the fuel element and amounts. You see stated everywhere that because of the fuel, it travelled down the elevator shafts, weakened the steel etc.
Often people state with conviction that the full fuel tanks caused a massive amount of damage. Wrong.
No airline fly's aircraft with more fuel than is needed for, the expected flight plan, the diversion, and a legally required minimum to land with amount.
So far from the aircraft all being laden with full fuel tanks when they hit the towers they did not. The rough figures of the two that hit the towers were about 1/3rd (after the shortened flights) full on impact, maybe slightly over 1/3rd?
And aviation kerosene cannot burn anywhere near enough to melt steel, or even weaken it. It's like saying don't burn wood on your wood burning stove because if you keep it alight for longer than 4hrs the stove will melt, a ridiculous thing to believe. Or limit your gas ring cooker to 2hrs because the grill around it will melt. You get the idea.
Now people talk about the black boxes, but few know about how they work. One ex technician was able to see the data for himself from flight 93's FDR and after years of certifying and examining these recorders he instantly knew that the FDR for flight 93 was a "test bed" box and not fitted to the aircraft?
You see when an FDR (black box) is fitted to an aircraft for the very first time and power through the aircrafts busbar is introduced to it, the very first thing it does (remember this is all back 20+ years ago) is write specific data to its ROM which identifies itself to that specific aircraft. This is important, because you do not want the possibility for FDR's to be mistakenly attributed to any other aircraft other than the one it's fitted too. He could see instantly that the FDR data in the ROM for the aircraft the government told him came from Flight 93 was impossible, because within the ROM the serial number and aircraft ID were all 0's meaning it had never been assigned to an aircraft, during the build, and had never had an aircraft's power running through it from the systems busbar.
Amongst many many other problems, and again what most won't realise is on the FDR's even the cockpit door opening would be recorded, because of the microswitch with the doors mechanism which the aircrafts FDR records.
Flight 93's FDR never showed the cockpit door microswitch being opened at all. Not once in flight. In fact there's so much wrong with just this one FDR that the whole narrative is undone, but you won't hear or read much about these small but crucial facts!
I watched a plane disappear into the second tower, it made a plane shaped hole and then a fireball.
Now, who’s to say there weren’t secondary explosions setup to bring the towers down. That we don’t know.
There are no plane parts at any of the crash sites.
WRONG
3 of the 4 black boxes at the WTC were found in the first 48 hours, and were memory holed by the FBI. An entire engine landed on the sidewalk near the WTC.
Stop flippantly blurting out lies and disinformation about 9/11
study the fuck up
and landing gear
Allegedly.
And a passport, which a hijacker just happened to be holding out the window at the time of impact.
they were found by firefighters and given to the FBI
you are talking nonsense
there were hundreds of thousands of plane parts at the WTC
I believe some of the parts they did recover were from the wrong type of plane. Specifically, engine parts. It was as if someone had dumped a truck load of plane parts off, togehther with the odd pristine passport, to make it look real.
Do the math, frens. A northern royal albatross maxes out at about 18 lbs. One of the WTC towers massed 500,000 tons. The airplane itself (767-200) would have had a maximum gross weight of 315,000 lb (or 157.5 tons). Imagine running a VW Beetle into a massive semi-trailer at a speed of 450 mph. The plane will be totally smashed, taking out support columns. The fuel burn would weaken the remaining structure to collapse. Once the collapse starts, it feeds on itself. No surprise to anyone familiar with structural mechanics.
My beef is
Planes are built to be light
Buildings are meant to stand strong
The plane would damage the building no doubt (asymmetrically)
but much of the fuel would burn very quickly
and a weakened structure would not collapse that completely at near free fall speed into it's own footprint
Airplanes are built to be as light as they can be, but a 767-200 fully loaded at impact would still weigh 157.5 tons. Buildings are strong enough to withstand a collision with such an airplane---but not to withstand the buckling resulting from the fuel burn diminishing the strength of the steel by factors greater than the structural margin. And when there is any collapse, the downward momentum and shock force of the upper stories would cause each successive layer of columns to buckle immediately. So, yes, it would collapse that completely and into its own footprint. There is no force acting to push it outside of its footprint.
Are you an aeronautical engineer? Are you a structures engineer? Don't make summary conclusions when you don't know what you are talking about.
Same clap trap wrapped in an appeal to authority that I've been hearing for 20 years...
Still don't buy it.
That's because you can't tell good from bad...and have no engineering education.
I'm an A&P mechanic who specializes in structural repair of aircraft. These planes are very heavily built I have no doubt they could do the damage shown in the pictures.
No doubt at all.
Who needs a plane? Think Building 7.
The main issue that I have with all of the official narratives is that every vertical support beam on a particular floor would need to give out at exactly the same time. Melting all the inner and outer supports at exactly the same time would be unlikely.
Also, the top floors would need to give way first - even though they were the least loaded. Then the floor directly underneath would need to give way completely an instant later and so on until the ground floor collapsed.
Second issue, those supports cannot just melt. They need to give way completely in an instant. If they just sag slowly then the fall of the building will be slowed. For Building 7, a delay of only a tenth of a second per floor would have delayed the fall by nearly five seconds. That did not happen. It fell at free fall speed.
Third issue: Find another modern, steel-framed building anywhere in the world that collapsed into its own base at free fall speed due to fire. All buildings that collapsed in that way were blow up with explosives.
This building, for instance, is still standing!
You've nailed it well. Especially that each Bld. 7 floor needed to precisely give way from the top down to avoid the appearance of a planned demolition.
I'd like to add a Fourth issue: No changes to the International Building Codes have been made for high rise structures (60+ floors) in the 20 years since 9/11. A&E professionals worldwide, were apparently able to distinguish BS when they saw it and quietly continued on working as before. So did the insurance people, rates didn't go through the roof. No large building gets built without insurance. High rise construction continues as before.
That 3 building event was so out of our standard reality that it had to be ignored.
I'm not saying 911 wasn't an inside job,I'm just saying an aircraft can punch a hole like we saw,with no problem.
Sometimes I wonder about people.
Ever seen a fiery plane crash at high speed?
Using cherry picked examples like this makes it seem like that would not be possible because it would just get dented upon impact.
OK, but the plane was not full of coke. It was full of air. Now re-imagine an empty can of coke hitting a brick wall at 200mph.
Ever seen how a tornado can drive a piece of straw through solid concrete? I have. Ever seen a water saw that uses high pressure to cut through steel? I have.
By your logic both of these are impossible because water and straw are softer than steel or concrete. By your logic plane crashes are impossible. You seem to not be able to fathom the idea that an object going very fast could destroy a very strong object. This is literally how firearms work.
Am I saying 9/11 was squeaky clean? No, there are definitely a lot of questions and I don't doubt that shady stuff went down that day. But are you seriously telling me that a gigantic plane loaded with jet fuel can't crash into a building at 550+ MPH and destroy it? Fucking get real! People can be so frustrating, I swear!
A building that was specifically designed to withstand such an impact - according to the architect. And another one the same. And a third building that had no aircraft hit it also collapsed at freefall speed into its own footprint.
Nah, sometimes I can believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast - but not this. Those buildings had steel exoskeletons; an aluminium plane would have been cut into pieces and much of it would have fallen to the ground outside of the building.
"A building that was specifically designed to withstand such an impact - according to the architect"
Pal, the Titanic's architect said it couldn't sink. And they designed the towers to withstand a high speed deliberate plane impact from a jumbo jet packed with jet fuel? Pretty sure they wouldn't consider that, they would probably plan around accidental plane crashes from small crafts like the one that hit the Empire State Building. Also, the planes that hit the towers literally did not exist when the towers were built so how could they have possibly planned for that?
"Those buildings had steel exoskeletons; an aluminium plane would have been cut into pieces"
I repeat my question: have you ever seen a water jet saw cut through steel? This is simple physics.
"And a third building that had no aircraft hit it also collapsed at freefall speed into its own footprint."
WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, that is true, but it was hit by a collapsing skyscraper that was on fire. The gash from the flaming north tower debris was about ten stories high and it also burned all day. Someone might even say that it would be miraculous that a building would not collapse under those conditions. Crazy huh?
Waterjets ... it is NOT the water cutting the steel, it is the abrasives put into the water stream. It is extreme high pressure on a very narrow front on a relatively slow time frame and is not in any way applicable to the impact forces experienced by either the plane's body nor indeed the building itself.
Planes are ridiculously weak in a structural manner to impact forces as they are designed for tension. I recall some brits consulting with their american AF counterparts on simulating bird strikes using supermarket chickens in their "bird cannons". The problem was, the birds were going straight through the plane windows and nose sections and smashing hell out of the plane. The brits knew we were doing testing in the same way and wanted to know what they were doing wrong. The response sent back to them was, "Thaw chickens first." Can YOU understand what is happening? A small and relatively hard object was destroying an airplane at moderate speeds. Now imagine how that aluminum reacts to STEEL that is INCHES thick, far harder, far far stronger, and THOUSANDS of times the mass. That aluminum mass is widely spread out not concentrated. Aluminum does not beat steel in this configuration. THIS IS SIMPLE PHYSICS.
Your annecotes are bullshit, your facts are bullshit, your call to "physics" is nothing but smoke for your BS narrative. Glow harder somewhere else you shill.
I guess you just forgot the planes exploded at 500+ MPH? Fireballs HUNDREDS of feet high? Might have something to do with the damage than just impact alone?
Jee-zus, and calling me a glowie shill? First time that happened on here but not the first time for me ever. Once upon a time I would have discussions with 9/11 twoofers and they called me a shill back then too. I was in HIGH SCHOOL. Get fucking real! Now I'm a security guard from South Dakota and I've been on here since before the inauguration. But the one time I go "hey those planes were doing some pretty insane shit I could see how that would cause catastrophic damage" I'm a shill? Fuck off!
Yes a shill ... or just a normie who knows nothing about steel, physics and how it all interacts with mass, inertia, or heat. Or perhaps you do not possess the bare bones will to research it. You don't have to spend 20 years doing steel work like I have or spent a number of years in the AF to understand these basic things. After all, THIS IS SIMPLE PHYSICS. So yes, you are either a shill or willingly ignorant and misinforming people. Oh ... a security guard. Ok then, your own words convict you. Allow me to elucidate.
Giant fireballs are impressive to the normie who knows NOTHING about steel an physics. Fireballs are nothing but heat spread out over THOUSANDS of square feet. You think, "wow impressive", problem is the heat and energy is spread over thousands of square feet not all concentrated in an area 1/4" wide where it would do anything. Actually doing anything to steel that is INCHES thick requires MASSIVE force, ie explosives IN CONTACT with the steel or a minutes long concentrated stream of fuel in balance with the oxygen input to achieve maximum heat and THEN, when it was at the melting point, another additional input of oxygen to set the steel itself (in the local area [1/4"]) on fire. NONE of those conditions were present. The burning fuel producing smoke as black as it was indicates a massive shortfall of oxygen. While the fire would be hot to a person, or the surrounding furnishings, it wouldn't even phase a steel beam. In fact you could burn that gas there for hours or even days and not have any real impact. So, no the fireballs had nothing to do with the structural integrity of the building.
The plane had NO concentrated mass to do any true damage to the bones of the structure. A previous poster in this thread already mentioned an empty coke can as an analogy which is exactly what this is. There is no structural integrity in an airplane to do that kind of damage to massive steel beams, NONE. An airplane is not built to survive impact. The wings are built just strong enough to support the body, and the body is built to be in tension against atmospheric pressure changes. The only thing that would have a chance of doing any real damage would be the engines, but again the structure there is not massive concentrated weight but distributed structure necessary to holding and controlling the components to produce thrust. Again, insufficient force to accomplish the damages that occurred.
It's really very simple. Planes did not bring the buildings down. They were merely the distraction. If you aren't a shill, at least do some basic homework before embarrassing yourself. I am not even talking about the planes stuff, I am instead referring to building 7. Two options, shill or ignorant. If #2, education is the remedy, do some digging.