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 1980ís.
Thornton is quoted here with reference to the WTC towers being
designed to withstand 13í000 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
thatís been designed to carry 13í000 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.
Next - "UA175 Aircraft" Speed Analysis