Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Aluminum Cladding Vs. Steel Support Columns
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Study > Research > Alternative Theories
waterdancer
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.

aluminum & steel (from FEMA)
jrnsr
It isn't just as you say, NPT people, it is also those with a lot of experience with aircraft or engineering types that see it as a hoax.

German Engineers did very nice analysis of holes, as well as plane outlines. They brought out good details of intact columns vs severed.

Painter posted a couple a while back.

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm
jrnsr
Maybe I interpretted "removed" different than your intent, for the above answer. They didn't have to "remove" anything, just prepare it in advance with torches, jackhammers, impact guns, etc. then let explosives and gravity create the cavity inside.

Note aluminum siding hanging down at the bottom and protruding out at the top? An impact wouldn't have looked like that.
waterdancer
QUOTE (jrnsr @ Sep 4 2007, 06:16 AM)
It isn't just as you say, NPT people, it is also those with a lot of experience with aircraft or engineering types that see it as a hoax.

German Engineers did very nice analysis of holes, as well as plane outlines.† They brought out good details of intact columns vs severed.

Painter posted a couple a while back.

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm

I'm sorry, but sites which only seem to show modified images- in other words, no original source images for reference- really bug me. Particularly when they show things which are as easily debunked as this composite. Debunk: see this image. Let me know if you run across one which at least links to original images and I'll give it a look.
Also, can you point me towards where the German engineers who stand behind that work have posted their names and credentials? Until I see that, it's just another webpage AFAIC.
amazed!
A Tempest In A Teapot, if there ever was.
Factfinder General
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.
SPreston
QUOTE (Factfinder General)
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.

There is no doubt that the Tower impact videos which we see from the corrupted mainstream media were faked in some way. But why were they faked?
1. So we would not have evidence to show what the real aircraft looked like which hit the towers?
2. To hide that no planes hit the towers and explosives were used instead to imitate the outlines of aircraft on the heavy steel exterior walls?
3. For some other yet unforseen reason to fake the videos?

Regardless we know that the aluminum aircraft in the videos violated the laws of physics and did not slow their progress through the heavy steel walls and multiple concrete floor slabs as they met resistance. They just smoothly slipped through the heavy steel exterior columns which we all know for a fact is impossible. Even though just the aluminum cladding was missing in many areas and the heavy structural steel was still in place, in the videos the entire aircraft slipped through unopposed. That is impossible. thumbdown.gif Flight 175 Stabilized video

For now I will go by #1 but keep an open mind until better evidence is brought out supporting #2 or some alternative. We now know for a fact that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. It was likely a Tomahawk missile and planted explosives or just planted explosives in the trailers on the exterior and planted explosives in the Pentagon interior. There is no possibility that a 757 fuselage, wings, and tail section squeezed through that tiny hole between the unmelted plastic cable spools and concrete 2nd floor slab. Most of the Pentagon damage was on the 1st floor and the alleged aircraft exit hole was on the 1st floor, so that aircraft would have had to squeeze under that 2nd floor slab into the 1st floor area and we all know that is impossible. The initial blast in the security videos was a bright white high explosive, not a red/yellow/orange jet fuel explosion. B)
QUOTE (Terral)


This schematic shows only seven feet between the tops of those cable spools and the bottom of the still intact second floor where only two windows are missing. Note the two windows to the left are not even broken, while the three damaged columns are bent back in our direction. The Official Pentagon Cover Story attempts to squeeze their 125-feet wide 100-Ton Jetliner into a space that simply cannot contain a Jetliner less than half this size.

Arrogant Deception - Or an Attempt to Expose a Cover-up?
Factfinder General
QUOTE (SPreston @ Sep 4 2007, 01:47 PM)
There is no doubt that the Tower impact videos which we see from the corrupted mainstream media were faked in some way. But why were they faked?
1. So we would not have evidence to show what the real aircraft looked like which hit the towers?
2. To hide that no planes hit the towers and explosives were used instead to imitate the outlines of aircraft on the heavy steel exterior walls?
3. For some other yet unforseen reason to fake the videos?

Regardless we know that the aluminum aircraft in the videos violated the laws of physics and did not slow their progress through the heavy steel walls and multiple concrete floor slabs as they met resistance. They just smoothly slipped through the heavy steel exterior columns which we all know for a fact is impossible. Even though just the aluminum cladding was missing in many areas and the heavy structural steel was still in place, in the videos the entire aircraft slipped through unopposed. That is impossible...

For now I will go by #1 but keep an open mind until better evidence is brought out supporting #2 or some alternative. We now know for a fact that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. It was likely a Tomahawk missile and planted explosives or just planted explosives in the trailers on the exterior and planted explosives in the Pentagon interior. There is no possibility that a 757 fuselage, wings, and tail section squeezed through that tiny hole between the unmelted plastic cable spools and concrete 2nd floor slab. Most of the Pentagon damage was on the 1st floor and the alleged aircraft exit hole was on the 1st floor, so that aircraft would have had to squeeze under that 2nd floor slab into the 1st floor area and we all know that is impossible.

Thank You SPreston. You raise excellent points which really advance the general discussion on this issue, IMO. I will give serious consideration to what you have written. salute.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.