WTC and Aircraft
Structural Performance Issues
Computer simulation and mathematical
analysis of the UA175 impact by MIT, University of Purdue and others indicate
that upon impact the wings of the Boeing 767-200 would have shattered and the
fuel ignited outside the towers facade, the aircraft would have lost about 25%
percent of its kinetic energy on impact and that the tail fin would have
sheared off due to torsional forces.
In layman's terms this means that the aeroplane would have decelerated sharply,
crumpled up and exploded against the tower's wall with only heavy objects like
the engines and undercarriage perhaps puncturing the facade. The entire
airframe would not have glided through the outer wall and would not have left a
large hole roughly the same shape and size of a Boeing 767-200.
If a Boeing 767-200 had hit the tower it would have exploded externally and
bent the facade inward noticeably while depositing pieces of fuselage, wings,
tail fins...etc in the streets below. There would have been some column damage
but it would have been virtually impossible for any of the lighter airframe
sections to pass completely through the tower.
The 911 researcher Geoff King (aka "PlaguePuppy") illustrated these
points in a radio interview with Webster Tarpley in early 2006. King's report,
which describes in detail what the WTC2 videos should have shown if a real
Boeing 767-200 had hit WTC2, can be downloaded here.
The airframe of a modern aircraft is not as strong as you might think; they
tend to be manufactured as light as possible in the interests of economy. For
example, the aircrafts cabin is not pressurised to sea level. Instead it is
pressurised to about 8000ft above sea level, the purpose of which is to save
weight by not strengthening the structure to withstand internal sea level cabin
pressure while flying at cruise altitudes.
In essence the aircraft is nothing more
than a aluminium shell that serves its purpose well for carrying passengers,
but in extreme situations the airframe will fail as demonstrated below by these
images of an MD80 landing heavily. Notice how the undercarriage stays more or
less intact during the landing but the airframe flexes noticeably and
eventually the tail fin breaks off:
Typically any commercial aircraft's
airframe will crumple and fall apart during a crash, like much like this
737-400 that came to grief during an emergency landing at East Midlands
Airport.
We also have this interesting comment
given by Charlie Thornton in an interview recorded the early 1980’s.
Thornton is quoted here with reference to the WTC towers being designed to
withstand 13’000 tons of wind pressure.
"...the largest aircraft flying
today, at least commercially, the 747 fully loaded is on the order of 300 tons.
So if you think about a 300 ton element crashing into a building that’s
been designed to carry 13’000 tons, you can see that an aircraft crashing
into the World Trade Centre would probably not do anything to the major
building, it could effect localised structural elements, could knock out a
column, and there could be some damage..."
The apparent impact of the supposed Boeing
767-200 is the foundation for the 'Hologram Theory' and the 'Media Hoax' theory
which means that the UA175 aircraft was either a hologram hiding a smaller
aircraft or the Boeing 767-200 was added to live footage of the crash or added
in post production.