[dataeast]

Originally Posted by wags

...

The documentary’s I’ve seen on telly, re the construction of the towers, have shown how the steel beams ‘failed’ due to the impact of the aircraft and subsequent explosion. My main interest here is: the buildings were constructed with steel beams in a recognised / accepted / proven engineering manner, which had never failed prior to 9 /11, so they say, a very strong and stable construction.

...

The construction of the facade was a lattice/jigsaw of hollow steel section and it had lateral strength only, the concrete & steel core was the main load bearing structure. The outer facade was made of 1/4 inch steel plate welded in box sections, glass and plaster and there is no actual concrete in the construction. So, they aren't actually steel beams as such, it's just an illusion.



The facade is designed for lateral strength, so an object, such as a plane at ninety degrees flying into it is hitting at it's weakest design point, particularly if it was in the middle of the adjacent floors. I guess a different story if it had directly hit the plane of the floor.



The plane was flying at around 500 mph (805 kph) and it's mass and velocity carried enough kinetic energy to sheer the latticework of the skin. Once inside and between the floors the fuel onboard ignited and produced an explosion whilst sandwiched between them, so contained and deflected the blast back upon itself further disintegrating the pieces that initially survived sheering/shredding through the facade.

Originally Posted by samncheese

This has been a healthy discussion and I thank you all on the topic, but I will state simply not all the numbers add up here.

1 aircraft penatrating a building wing tips and all? I live in Seattle and have watched boeing do speed test on the tail of aircraft and watch them rip off due to high speed, and the impact on a building would send at least parts of it to the street, and the wing tips are thinner and and more prone to damage. A fuel truck on the ground so much as touches the wing and it does 10's of thousands of $$ of damage.

Yes, but it depends on the angle and the velocity, the point of impact was roughly ninety degrees with enough kinetic energy to offset most of the deflection and there is a greater area of glass compared to the area of steel section. However, there was plane debris scattered in the area and on to the tops of surrounding buildings.

I would not equate a dollar value to damages by a truck to a plane. It would not be the correct comparison because we are talking about quality standards and damages to control surfaces which affect the flight worthiness of the plane. It's like when you have a car accident and it no longer meets roadworthy standards and you get the bill from an accredited repairer.

Originally Posted by samncheese

2 If the aircraft and people are gone they are gone, but if it was a show then the aircraft that the paperwork says was distroyed wasn't distroyed and there is proof somewhere on this planet.

Sure.

Originally Posted by samncheese

3 If the aircraft were distroyed like the gov says John Lear is a liar. If the aircraft and people were not distroyed and John lear is telling the truth then there is proof somewhere to back it up. The implications are huge. Not even our gov. can keep a secret this big and get it right. It would take the co-operation of hundreds if not thousands of people to pull this off, and somebody would talk.

I wouldn't think that that would mean that he was a liar, but that he has some information that suggests something else, none of this is on a personal level, we are comparing evidence. I assume it was his opinion. It'd be great if he released what he did know so that it could be reviewed amongst the other evidence.