The air frame Didn't resist breaking up...it did so as it was going into the buildings THIN facade,with the two 8000 pound engines doing major damage. And you really need to get your eyes checked if you think there was anything 'neat' about the holes inn the towers
Here are two illustrations of a tomahawk cruise MISSILE...How again does it's construction differ from an airliners?
The problem with the cartoonie cut-out in the wall is the fact that not only can aircraft wings NOT cut through steel box columns, the alleged "FLT175" was said to have hit the wall aprox 12 degrees off perpendicular, therefore the left side wing would have contacted the wall before the right wing, and given that, the stress to the entire aircraft would be increased over what was experienced in just the nose of the aircraft punching a hole in the wall, it would impose most definitely sufficient stress to break up the aircraft such that the right wing would have broken off before penetrating the wall and the left wing would not have penetrated completely. The story that 2 aircraft were able to penetrate the towers and indeed penetrate completely virtually making the aircraft disappear. and the people who question this story are called the "FRINGE CASES", the psychological warfare here is VERY intense!
back to "OH but the airliner was going SOOOO FAST! " really guyz .... ? Given the speed that the airliner was alleged to have been traveling ( impossible, but just for the sake of argument .... ) the airliner would have >.080 sec between the point of contact nose to wall, and the next point of contact that is left wing to wall, and in that time, there was PLENTY of time to have parts become disconnected from whatever bolted or riveted mounting that existed in the aircraft. The penetration of the wing, is dependent on having all of the structure holding together, if the wing that contacted the wall was one of seriously compromised physical connections between various parts of the structure, all bets are off, there will be no penetration.
So how would a tomahawk cruise missile,built shockingly similar to an aircraft,yet designed to penetrate INSIDE a building,according to you,do what 120 TONS of steel,aluminum,titanium and various other things wouldn't be able to do?..... Argument from incredulity,yet agan And MASSIVE fail on your part
First your claim appears to be insisting that the ONLY missile that could have possibly been used was the " tomahawk " when in fact our military has weapon systems that are classified and thus NOT in the mainstream of published data about weapons, I stand by what I said in that missiles are designed to penetrate targets and airliners are NOT. Also making an assumption about how those massive jet engines would have penetrated the WTC tower wall(s), does in no way justify the wings making the impression that was seen in the tower wall(s). My earlier statement about how there was time - plenty to fracture all sorts critical structural bits within the airliner as a product of the stress imposed by the airliner crashing into the wall ..... + the fact that "FLT175" is shown striking the wall at a minimum of 12 degree angle off perpendicular to the wall .....
I never claimed any such thing,,,It was YOU that used the generic term 'missile',.I just used the one we were regularly using to blow (*)(*)(*)(*) up in Iraq with And you're digging yourself in a deeper hole with the 'classified weapons system' spin...fact is,all missiles are built pretty much the same way,the only difference is how they a propelled And since they're designed similarly to an airliner,there's no reason an airliner wouldn't go in either,even if it hit the tower SIDEWAYS,It was STILL 120 tons of mass travelling at high velocity.. More fail.
Here is a clue 4 U Military aircraft can travel at high speed ( that is > mach ) near sea level, airliners are NOT designed to have that capability because they have no use for that capability, likewise MISSILES are designed to penetrate targets, airliners have no use for that capability and so are NOT designed to penetrate targets. now do you see?
Wrong...missiles are designed only to blow up,bombs like JDAMs are made of hardened steel and are designed to penetrate buildings and hardened bunkers before exploding...The ONLY difference between the way planes and missiles are built, is the payload.. More fail.....
So some people BELIEVE that an aircraft wing could cut through steel box columns as was alleged to have happened on 9/11/2001. and really its about belief, not real science, the fact is that no matter how fast an aircraft may be traveling, upon impact, its still a strength of materials issue and the allegation that the wall of the WTC towers was a thin facade is false. Have fun with your assumptions & fantasy!
yeh reality is just a word for some people! LMAO Not only did a plane fly right on through thick steel columns it left no trace what so ever on the iron! 911 the day fantasy became reality!
"mostly windows" My my calculation 3.6 sq meter for each wall segment that is per window and window area of 1.1 sq meter. Where did you get "mostly windows" ?
I am amazed at the number of people who believe in all these conspiracy theories. But never mind, later tonight I am headed for the moon to bring back some blue cheese.
So you are totally OK with video(s) of an airliner penetrating a wall leaving behind wing shaped impressions and completely disappearing inside the building, not once but twice with the same result, and then steel framed skyscrapers simply collapsing into complete & total destruction, allegedly because of the aircraft crash & fire. You can look at the PENTAGON scene and say "ya, it could happen like that" that is an airliner crash into the PENTAGON and produce the result as reported on TV ..... & you can believe that "FLT93" crashed at Shanksville ..... Question, did you ever take SCIENCE 101 and did you earn a passing grade?
Looking at the WTC wall notwithstanding, what do you have that gives a valid rebuttal to the calculation I provided?
