I agree that what the videos purport to show of the Twin Tower impacts is scientifically implausible. Even if the body of an aluminium 767 could penetrate the solid steel and concrete superstructure of the WTC towers, large parts of the wings would be lopped off and fall to the ground.

Why would the wings cease forward motion and fall to the ground, instead of entering the building?

the wing of the plane is technically weaker than the structure in question.. therefore they would break away upon impact, unlike the suggested plane fuselage which due to weight would continue forward.. although my thought process assumes that the plane fuselage would break apart upon impact anyway..

Even if the wings were attached to the fuselage with duct tape and good wishes, the wings are still moving forward and will continue to do so until their velocity is depleted by the impact - At which point the wings were inside the building and likely appear unrecognizable amidst all the carnage.

At no point could the wings cease their forward motion the moment the fuselage impacts the building and just drop to the ground.

Not the entire wing .. I presumed small and large debris would plummet to the ground having their force and velocity halted by the structure. Ps I'm no engineer but I am an architectural graduate and it's true when they say that it's physically impossible for a plane to break through and collapse the structure of the World Trade Center

I presumed small and large debris would plummet to the ground having their force and velocity halted by the structure

If the planes were travelling slow, then yes, the front of the wings may absorb the impact, terminating forward motion for the rest of the wing and falling to the ground.

However the wings weren't going slow.

I'm no engineer but I am an architectural graduate and it's true when they say that it's physically impossible

Which part of your course taught you about high velocity impacts?

It taught me about structural integrity of buildings. Where's your major? Stop being so condescending and discuss rather than looking for flaws in an open ended argument. Write me up a mathematical equation based on the physics and scan it through. Otherwise your opinion is as valid as my own. Tl;dr. Stop being a dick and discuss

It taught me about structural integrity of buildings

Undoubtedly. But did it teach you about high velocity impacts?

Where's your major?

I don't divulge much personal information on reddit.

Otherwise your opinion is as valid as my own

Precisely, so why are you trying to pull your credentials into this if they aren't relevant?

Lol right. I'm waiting for your argument rather than pointing out flaws. Show me the velocity chart of a Boeing carrier jet according to speed and force and you might swing the reader. As for now you still haven't answersd the question as to why the wings wouldn't be affected by the structure of a highrise, as if the velocity of the plane is the only physics in play. Please argue a point as my finger tapping is becoming increasingly strenuous

Because the relatively flimsy, hollow aluminium wings would each strike several massive steel supporting columns on the WTC towers, meeting more resistance than the nose of the plane.

If a bird can do this to a plane: it doesn't take much imagination to see how a 120 tonne airliner would come off distinctly second best against a 500,000 tonne steel and concrete skyscraper.

You do realise that the plane doesn't smack into the entire building right? So your 120 vs 500,000 ton comparison is senseless.

If a bird can do that to a small plane, it suggests that a bigger, tougher wing going faster would also crumple upon impact with a harder object.

However at no point will the wing just snap off and fall to the ground, somehow losing its forward velocity.

Fast objects hitting hard things don't just snap off and fall. They become rendered unrecognizable.

You seem to be suggesting however that a 'weak' plane shouldn't be capable of doing any damage to a hard building. Keep in mind that with sufficient force even water can cut steel.

Water is extremely dense! Very poor analogy.

Edit 2: Just looked it up, the stream of water in a jet cutter moves over 2 times the speed of sound, or around approx. 1800 mph, , combine that with the area of applied force and the pressure is immense. Hopefully this alone makes it clear why speaking of water based cutting in the context of this discussion is basically nonsensical.

Edit: I made a minor mistake when attempting to hastily respond to this during a work break on my phone. What I was referring to was pressure, (which is, if you will "density of applied force") not density of water vs aluminum. Rather, the concentration of applied force (pressure) of specifically an aluminum airplane vs that of water in a jet cutter stream, all other factors equal. Because the stream of water in a water jet cutter, which is what I presume rockran is referring to, is immensely pressurized, the water comparison is a poor analogy, as the force of an airplane is distributed over a relatively wide area, and thus, overall, applies much lower pressure than does a water jet cutter. Also, the water jet in such a cutter is moving much faster than the plane was supposed to have been traveling. This is where pressure comes from, force divided by area: the greater the distribution of an entity's applied force, all other things equal, the smaller the pressure. Or conversely, the lower an entity's overall mass, all other things equal, the lower the pressure at a given constant speed/area of force applied

Long story short, in the case of 911 the wide-area of distribution of the planes applied force relative to the concentrated force application of the buildings steel framework means the pressure exerted by the buildings, which is in the reverse direction of the planes vector of travel, concludes with the plane going kabluey, not the section of the building which it struck. The poor water jet analogy, despite not being a good analogy, nevertheless can further illuminate the absurdity of the idea that the plane would simply "glide in."

Basically: Try again, or concede that you're grasping.

Metal, even Aluminium, is more dense than water.

Refer to the above edited reply. I was referring to the pressure (ie density of applied force) of the plane vs that of a water jet cutter, which is the only real example in nature where water cuts steel.

[deleted]

Nice vid. Commenting so I can come back & find this later ;P

Great series of videos!!

Let me help you out. Here is 43 angles of the plane striking the towers. Many of them by random people on the street. These aren't even all of the videos available. Planes hit the towers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpUKM0MFNaM

Why do you not think 43 angles could be produced? That doesn't strike me as a large number if we are talking careful preplanning. Sorry, but this doesn't debunk physics, my friend.

Comments disabled...wonder why...?

Most likely because it was filled with trolls, blind patriotism, hate speech, pro militant islamic rhetoric, advertisements, and other things of the sort common on any 9/11 video posted to YouTube.

Shanksille and the Pentagon are a little shady. But when hundreds of amateur videos in varying degrees of quality all show the exact same images you can't claim that all of them are doctored without empirical evidence to back your claims.

This does not mean that the planes weren't possibly being controlled remotely. Or that elements of our government weren't complicit in the attacks. Both of those scenarios are likely and have some evidence supporting them. I just personally don't like to see people actively seeking truth in the wrong direction. Your rhetoric is more along the lines of the controlled opposition which wants to paint truth seekers as wild theorists giving canon fodder to those that wish to discredit us.

You are free to believe and think as you will though. No one can tell you how to live your life or which information you choose to pursue. Especially in this subreddit. Have an upvote for visibility so others can have the opportunity to chime in as well.

[EDIT: In regards to the 28 redacted pages. If and when they are released, they will most likely show that both Israel and Saudi Arabia had foreknowledge of the attacks, with held that information from us, and/or had involvement with training and funding the "hijackers". If that information ever surfaces the world will view what happened that day in a completely different light and open up more inquiries into other cover-ups revolving around the events that happened that day. Which is the last thing the real criminals who are responsible want to happen.]

There will be no such information about Israel in those pages.

Look, feel free to think my rhetoric sounds like controlled opposition, I really don't care. You seem content with begging the question and posting a video, without attempting to address the foundational issue...the physics. Seriously...the majority of the angles on that video were from a huge distance, many of which conveniently zoom in right after the collision. If you cannot see how this could have been set up then I cannot help you. If the plane was a drone/remote controlled, thats the definition of a guided missile, essentially. If so it was an unoccupied plane made of military grade strong/reinforced materials, not an aluminum plane carrying passengers. It is sad when being on the side of immutable scientific laws makes one's rhetoric, "sound like controlled opposition." Also sadly, it doesn't surprise me anymore.

PS: It's never a good idea to start a debate with Ad Hominem. Trying to persuade a demographic to your point of view by attacking their character is the quickest way to alienate an audience and open your ideas to dismissal. Instead try showing sources to the information you are presenting and avoid fallacies of logic if possible. Might help you get your message across a little better. I'm not here to argue with you. Just thought evidence to contradict your initial statements might be useful to yourself and others viewing this thread.

Your condescension is pointless. My source is basic physics. I don't see where I started with an ad hominem, therefore I must conclude that you are a bit too sensitive. Besides, I make no formal flaws in logic, so the argument is sound. You just can't wrap your head around whats really going on here, apparently. Godspeed, doc.

The idea that no planes hit the towers gives me brain cancer. If no planes hit the towers, how did they leave perfect plane sized marks in the side of the buildings.

Try cannabis extracts, they shrink brain tumors.

To answer your question: charges placed in a specific pattern. Don't forget this was carefully planned for many years.

evidence?

You're asking for evidence of his question?

Asking for evidence that there were planed sized holes and not missiles with wings .. Or any other form of explosive. There are multi faceted answers to solve the equation of a hole in the building

There is video evidence of planes flying into the buildings and of plane sized and shaped holes in the buildings. There is no evidence of missiles even existing with a wingspan anywhere near that of an airliner.

Asking for evidence of something that ends

I don't believe it was a missile with giant wings. I don't not believe that a plane flew into the building. Frankly I don't know what to believe. I am trying to the physics aspect of the situation. From a engineering standpoint regardless of the size of the plane.. The building would not collapse. A missile could probably do such damage however it wouldn't show the same signs (aka falling within it's footprint). I'm not here to say it did or didn't happen. I'm simply asking for evidence, and ps... Pictures and videos are not evidence.. Unfortunately it seems the evidence of any 'plane' or 'missile' was cleaned up in record time. An illegal clearing of evidence in a criminal investigation.

Pictures and video are not evidence? Really?

I think you have a lot of learning to do.

Actually, accepting the videos at face value suggests you're the one who has learning to do. Specifically...about physics.

You've seen movies before I presume. News flash. Movies aren't real they are made in studios. I also assume you've looked at a magazine in your lifetime. News flash the pictures aren't real they are photoshopped and edited. What's real is what you see in the flesh in real time in the physical body you exist in. Even then it can be fake. Open your mind

That's completely illogical. So because photoshopped pictures in magazines exist, non-shopped pictures don't exist.

There is absolutely no eye witnesses who said there were no planes. All the video and photo evidence supports the planes. You need to have a strong argument to dispute that and none of you downvoting no-planets have provided any evidence to the support your theory. Of course you're "just asking questions" though....

It's very logical. Your argument is that evidence of the attack was caught on camera and in photos. I showed you that said documentation can very easily be faked. Not that IT IS. that it CAN BE. I am neither arguing the point of the planes existence or non existence. The discussion topic if your read your reply to the initial comment was that 'the plane fuselage and wings would either go through the building or not and as a result would/nt leave a plane shaped hole in the structure and would/nt as a result send debris to the ground'. You say that something hitting a large amount of structural force at such a speed would break through that structural force with ease. Granted in theory you are correct at super sonic speeds the force of a propelled object would break through the structure. however. I emplore you to throw a tennis ball at a wall. Chances are unless you have one heck of an arm is that it bounces back at you. The same logic can be applied to a plane hitting a sky scraper. Due to the force applied on both ends of the impact, logic shows that the plane would at least slow, be halted or even reverse the impact and as a result send debris out of the building. Let me be clear. No one is arguing that there is footage and pictures of a winged flying object hitting the building. The point is that either way, the building would not collapse if the plane would fly into it.. You argue that upon impact the high velocity object (plane) would continue through the first set of structural beams (which again is logically and structurally impossible) and stop before exiting the other side of the building without propelling any debris out of the building. No tail wing, no engine, nothing.. Please help me understand your point of view if this is not correct. Ps who gives a flying fuck (no pun intended) about down or up votes.

...we've all seen evidence of is pointless and I really don't understand why you're asking for it. Where's your evidence of this missile with giant wings?

Check out my edit to the OP above.

Septemberclues.info

Mhmm. So, id like to remain respectful, and tell you that in my opinion, your understanding of physics (particularily in balistics and aeronautics and filmkgraphy) is flawed. You are obviously free to believe what you want.

Im all for the skeptism of the official narrative. All for it. But in this case, the evidence overwhelming supports the notion that planes, not missles with CGI effects, hit the two towers. I did not find you analysis to be condusive to logical application of physics. I did not find you analysis to be convincing.

Again, you are free to believe what you want, and i will respect that. I just disagree with this claim of yours, 100%.

There is no high speed, high definition footage of the twin tower hits.

So how are you able to make claims that would rely upon such footage? Such as the way the plane crumples, plane shakings/vibrations.

Shooting at 30fps you've got only a few frames between the plane making impact and disappearing inside the building.

So how are you able to make claims that would rely upon such footage? Such as the way the plane crumples, plane shakings/vibrations.

I've never seen a plane crumple hitting the second tower. All they do is melt into the building and then a second or so after the building explodes. If you have a link to footage showing crumpling, that would be great.

Not quite the kind of crumpling I was referring to.

So when you said

when the plane crumples

And I asked for evidence of said crumpling plane, your response is:

Not quite the kind of crumpling I was referring to.

Even though in your comment you said:

when the plane crumples

So then what did you mean?

Right.

Think of a can being fisted into a solid wall. Then think of a can being fisted into sand.

They both crumple, but it's not the same kind of crumple. The can will actually enter the sand whilst it deforms.

OP seems to think that we should be able to see the plane crumpling as it collides with and enters the building, whereas i'm claiming that you'd need a HD/highFPS camera to be able to see that, so i'm bringing into question how OP can even make that point when the cameras weren't good enough to be able to spot anything like that.

So...buildings made of steel are analogous to the sand in this scenario, and NOT the wall? Oy ve.

Yes. Buildings will 'give' when impacted, much like sand.

Yes. Buildings will 'give' when impacted, much like sand.

Do you see the building give in any way when it swallows the plane? In ever shot I've seen they absorb a plane and then maybe a second after an explosion occurs from within.

Or do you need a special camera to see this motion too?

Also "disappearing inside the building" is part of the problem...as it wouldn't happen. So, you too, albeit seemingly unintentionally, are begging the question.

30fps would still be fast enough to show deflected material/deceleration, its not like the frames evincing such phenomena would magically disappear.

Edit: verb tense.

Lol, you're just going around making ignorant claims, I have the whole thread a read, and only upon this comment do I realize you don't have a clue about anything you're saying. 30fps can barely capture a moving person without motion blur.. You need hundreds or thousands of fps to be able to see details. Cgi wasn't even that good in 2001, the planes may have been rigged, perhaps, the buildings were rigged, most likely, but this extreme point of view does nothing but hurt the opposition, because when you go and say shit like this, people who are not awake yet will be scared away and think the theory as a whole is flawed, but the theory that 9-11 didn't take place without prior knowledge by a few is very solid, many of the things happening prior to and after the event point to that.. This is kind of like instead of saying I believe there's alien life out in the universe you say.. It's here, they are shape shifting lizards, and the queen is one of them... You'll have much better luck with people if you don't go to the extreme.. But anyway, you are free to believe what you want.

Uh...dude, it's not about blur, literally no plane material can be seen falling off the surface of the building. Blurry or not, this should and would be evident on the video. Also, knowing the frame rate would allow one to calculate deceleration, and there is none evident, even taking "blur" into account. You are brushing this off way too simply.

There is video evidence of planes flying into the buildings and of plane sized and shaped holes in the buildings. There is no evidence of missiles even existing with a wingspan anywhere near that of an airliner.

Asking for evidence of something that ends

...we've all seen evidence of is pointless and I really don't understand why you're asking for it. Where's your evidence of this missile with giant wings?