QUOTE (waterdancer @ Sep 4 2007, 12:48 AM)
I've noticed that one of the arguments frequently used by people advocating NPT at the WTC is something like how could an aluminum aircraft penetrate a steel skyscraper. Then they show a picture like the first one below:
How much of what we see penetrated is aluminum cladding, surface damage, penetrated window and empty space vs. actual steel column penetration is what I wonder. Which is not to say that I think aluminum would win out against steel. I'm just curious how much actual steel had to be "removed" in order to give us pictures like we see. The second link shows what I believe to be side by side aluminum and steel debris for comparison purposes.
Yes, I believe that aluminum based planes cannot slice through steel frame buildings like the videos and official reports maintain.
Aerospace Engineer, Joseph Keith, in his Expert opinion, confirms this fact in this interview with Morgan Reynolds:
Keith: Every video that shows impact shows a plane flying through the tower wall the same way it flies through thin air: no cratering effect, no pushing parts of the building in, no crunching of the airframe as it hits resistance, no reaction from the heavy engines and hidden landing gear, no parts breaking off, no outer 30 feet of the wing breaking off, no bursting, shredding or bending of the wing. No nothing.
Reynolds: Isnít that impossible in reality?
Keith: Yes. Then after absorption of the plane, you see the building closing up and then an explosion. Meanwhile, nothing fell from either the building or the plane.
Reynolds: Thatís compelling evidence of video fakery.
(End of Excerpt)
The impact damage as evidenced on photographs and films supports this fact also, though in an indirect way.
Whatever made the impact holes was not planes slicing into the building, wings, tail and all, (which is what the videos and reports allege happened).
The holes are simply not big enough to allow for that. In other words the visible damage on the facades is not consistent with the damage that would be necessary to allow for what the videos and reports allege to have happened.
In a 2002 report, supportive of the official story, engineers Levy and Abboud had to "fudge" the size of the impact holes in order to allow for this "slicing". This deception on their part is clearly illustrated by the following comparison of actual impact damage derived from image analysis and Levy and Abboud's ludicrously "creative" estimate of damage. Talk about "reverse engineering." This is transparently a case of distorting the facts to fit the desired result and nothing more:
I am in total agreement with Morgan Reynolds and Joseph Keith regarding these matters.
This is "compelling evidence of video fakery." The planes in the still and motion camera images simply had to have been computer generated superimpositions. At least according to my logical process.