767's Wing Tips Made Of Pentanium Steel?, 767 penetrating WTC facade

(Note: I am not saying that no part of a 767 could penetrate the facade of the WTC and I'm not disputing that the any of the fuselage could penetrate.)


Notice that in both of the "Wile E. Coyote" impact holes in the WTC Towers, they show where it looks as if the 767's wingtips and tip of the vertical stabilizer tail sliced relatively cleanly through the facade:

WTC 1 impact hole:




(Flight 11 allegedly crashed into it going 470 mph.)



WTC 2 impact hole:



(Flight 175 allegedly crashed into it going 590 mph.)



The video of the 2nd crashes shows the ENTIRE planes passing through the building:





QUESTION:

Do you think the wingtips and tail section of the Boeing 767's that supposedly crashed through the WTC 1 & 2 are strong enough to cut through the steel reinforced skyscrapers like a knife going through warm butter?



For that to happen, the fragile and mostly hollow wings and tail would have to SAW there way through each of the spaced steel girders and floor slabs of the buildings:





The spaced steel girders of the buildings should have acted sort of like a giant egg slicer to anything coming into it:





The wings and tail also get weaker towards their tips and note that the angle the swept back wings and tail crashed at, the wings and tail would have had to contact the "sharp" corners of each of the many steel girders it would have had to saw through first. And not only that, the wings and tails would have had to slice through the floor slabs too, the sturdiest part of the facade. Also, Flight 11 reportedly was traveling 120 mph slower than Flight 175.



Now, notice what happens when a plane's wing comes in contact with a bird:


http://wildlife.pr.erau.edu/pics/acy-bittern2.jpg


http://cellar.org/2002/birdstrike1.jpg

http://www.aetc.randolph.af.mil/se2/torch/...ges/runway3.jpg


Remember, the question is can the wingtips and tail do what they supposedly did to the Twin Towers, not what caused the impact holes if the planes didn't.


Also, note that the angle of both impacts are nearly identical which seem to be to much of a coincidence.

And both "planes" make a direct hit without any of its wings extending beyond the corners of the buildings. If that happened, the part that extended beyond the buildings would have sheered off and continued to travel forward and would be seem in the videos that would prove they were real planes.




(For those who don't know what Pentanium Steel is, see here.)

I see exactly what you mean mate. But if the wings couldnt slice through the steel...then what really did happen? Maybes, just maybes, CD™ weakened the steel in the parts in which they were told the planes would hit? Thats all I can think of.

I could only speculate how they created the holes. Shaped charges??? Who knows. All I can say is I doubt the wing and tail tips did, so something else must have.

My nose is dug into eyewitnesses, KT. Credible eyewitnesses. Forget about plane holes. I'm on to something. Hard slogging thru thousands of pages. Patience is a virtue.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/

Be sure to post anything interesting. If it's WTC witnesses, add them to Londoneye's post...

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=2073

A straw can stick in a piece of wood from Tornado force winds, so I would say yeah, the wings cut thru the building like butter at 400+ mph.

Apples and oranges.

Be sure to post anything interesting. If it's WTC witnesses, add them to Londoneye's post...

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=2073

I want to keep eyewitness reports made at the scene separate from reports filed at a later time.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=2296

I've provided an excellent analysis by a FAA licensed A & P mechanic, stating that it is possible. He long ago had even provided the technical data to the members of the US Senate and US Congressional sub-committees on Aviation with respect to 'radio-controlling/flying' Boeing 7x7's from the ground via satellite hook up had to say regarding the physics of the impact and even surveyed and ID'd at crash sites...here's what he had to say...

The ESB Crash...

The B-25's wing and engines entered the ESB, or in the case of the left wing at least made a mark, we don't know if it went in all the way for a fact, but we know both engines did. The right wing hit the corner of where the building sticks out. It was ONLY going 230 mph, 275 MAX. Into a stone facade steel building, weighing ONLY ten tons. The plane exploded within the building. One engine shot all the way though, came out the other side and landed on a building's roof. The other went into an elevator cart.

Some debris did fall to the ground, but again I contend that came from the right wing which hit the corner sticking out. It even says...

You can see the "building's setbacks" below, note the impact hole with the wing hole/damage to the left of it...




It sure looks like it would have been a cartoon hole, if that corner wasn't there. Not as clean as steel.

And again...

Let's look at this again.

A B-25 weighing 10 tons flying 230-275 mph into a steel structured building with a stone facade does all that.

But a 767 weighing 197 tons flying "590 mph" into a steel structred building with a steel facade can't???

The wing weighed OVER 43,800 lbs EACH! Over 30,000 without the engine. You mean to tell me a 30,000 lb aluminum 'blade' going 500 mph, couldn't pierce a steel plate???


Here is his take on the plane coming out the other side…

This post has been edited by Merc the Jerk on Apr 15 2006, 07:36 PM

Can you ask the guy why this fuselage created no exit hole in the area of the tower from which it is portruding?

It is not exiting from the famous corner "door" so the hole should be easily visible on the north side of the south tower. I have various images of the area in question and I see no hole in the wall whatsoever.

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb...der=asc&start=0

It's too bad this thread has lost the images. This is the time I began questioning the validity of the aircraft

Apples and oranges.

Um, no. Apples and apples.

Fact: The 767 hit the tower. Fact: The picture of teh side of the tower shows the planes entry into the building. What part can't you comprehend?

A plane did hit wtc but something did help make a hole. I do not think that it was 767. Only the plople beind 9-11 knows what kind of planes they was, plus nobody has said why the hole in wtc look like a plane but the pentgon dose not whats up with that.

This post has been edited by cam on Apr 20 2006, 01:20 AM

killtown: Apples and oranges.

For real. A tornado is 110-300mph and can put a two-by-four through a cinderblock. Meanwhile, the plane is aluminum and is going 590mph.

Hell, you could see the nose punch out the other side, completely intact. That photo you posted of the tower construction seems to suggest the steel frame is only 6 or 8 inches thick, not much thicker than the walls of my house.

Not to mention, everything about the WTC construction was right-angles. Not a diagonal beam in the whole place.

The perimeter steel beams may also have been tapered thinner and thinner the further up you go, just like the core columns were...?

The principal is called momentum.

And if the plane was travelling at that altitude at 550-590MHP, maneuvering deftly, then there were no hijackers, or anyone for that matter, on board that aircraft (plane as missile).

Plane fired in an incendiary warhead prior to entry (by a mere fraction of a second, thus perfect timing, meaning high precision military reconfigured Boeing 767).
Plane meets detonation, further scaling up the fireball magnitude.

This post has been edited by Sun Zoo on May 15 2006, 07:40 PM

How can you be so sure? I think you're wrong.

Context and framing...it means everything.

Most probable culprit, based on the entire record of all observed phenomenon and information?

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc767/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...raft/kc-767.htm
The Boeing 767 tanker transport aircraft, designated KC-767 for the US Air Force, is a high performance version of the Boeing 767-200ER twin aisle jetliner equipped for fully integrated tanker operations. It is fitted with either boom and receptacle refuelling, hose and drogue refuelling or both. The commercial 767 first entered service in 1982 and more than 880 aircraft have been delivered. The cabin of the tanker can be configured for passenger transport, as a freighter, convertible (passenger or freighter) or Combi (passenger and freighter).

DESIGN
The structure incorporates new materials such as improved aluminium alloys, graphite composites and hybrid Kevlar graphite composites, which give enhanced strength, durability and longevity.

The configuration of a commercial 767 for the tanker transport role involves the installation of additional pumps and auxiliary fuel tanks together with the fuel distribution lines below the floor of the main cabin, leaving the main cabin free for cargo, passenger or both cargo and passenger transportation. The concept allows simultaneous refuelling and airlift operations or successive refuelling and airlift missions.

In the cargo configuration, the aircraft can transport 19 standard military 463-L pallets; in the passenger configuration, 200 passengers can be accommodated; and in the Combi configuration ten cargo pallets and 100 passengers can be carried.

COCKPIT
The 767 Tanker Transport aircraft has an advanced two person all-digital flight deck.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Dark Circle under Tail (Refueling Boom Removed?)
Note that there is no such mark, tail skid, or avionics blade antenna at that location for a normal Boeing 767-200, and therefore nothing else to account for this perfectly circular blemish visible in both the still photo and the CNN freeze frame.
http://www.letsroll911.net/images/unders.jpg
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2001/trade.c...maginable/2.jpg

I picked this up from another forum. Take a very good look through it.

It's not speculation, but is based on all observed phenomenon and information.

Start with the proof of the CD of the twin towers and ask yourself, right off the bat if they would be using poorly trained terrorist pilots for the operation..???

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/aeronaut...s-hijacker.html

Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006

Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft.

There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.

What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.

A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how “easy” it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the “open sky”. But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.

And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.

For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers.

In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot — and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft.

The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past. Take-offs—even landings, to a certain degree—are relatively “easy”, because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist “outside” the cockpit.

But once you’ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)

In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard” instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules.

And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!

The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.

Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.

In fact, here’s what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:

Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."

Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”

Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.”

Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

Now let’s take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger/hijacker Hani Hanjour rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that this would present considerable difficulties to a little guy with a box cutter—Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock who had flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor. But let’s ignore this almost natural reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.

Nonetheless, imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain’s seat. Although weather reports state this was not the case, let’s say Hanjour was lucky enough to experience a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet -- 7 miles -- below him, a murky brownish-grey-green landscape, virtually devoid of surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).

In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather conditions that day), he would likely have seen clouds below him completely obscuring the ground he was traversing. With this kind of “situational non-awareness”, Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan—he wouldn’t have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was.

After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there’s little point in looking outside—there’s nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed.

Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to his instrument panel, where he’d be faced with a bewildering array of instruments. He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position!

After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target.

It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn’t have known where to begin.

But, for the sake of discussion let’s stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that Hanjour—whose flight instructor claimed “couldn’t fly at all”—somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by themselves before.

Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly-changing position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes—remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).

In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to how to plug information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.

To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This still wouldn’t relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let’s assume Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the aircraft to its intended—and invisible—target on instruments alone until such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. (This portion of Flight 77’s flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio, but let’s not mull over that little point.)

According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his life depended on it).

The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.”

And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him.

But even that wasn’t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).

I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.)

Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.

The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.

Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.

At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.

In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles—and the Global Hawk.)

The very same navigational challenges mentioned above would have faced the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too, would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their “final approach” maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft.

Conclusion
The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers “took control” of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to the official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they’d realize the absurdity of this kind of reasoning.

In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH — and all this under extremely stressful circumstance

Tue., November 22, 2005

Nila Sagadevan (Audio)

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg/0511/20051122_Tue_Greg.m3u

Dark Circle under Tail (Refueling Boom Removed?)
Note that there is no such mark, tail skid, or avionics blade antenna at that location for a normal Boeing 767-200, and therefore nothing else to account for this perfectly circular blemish visible in both the still photo and the CNN freeze frame.
http://www.letsroll911.net/images/unders.jpg
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2001/trade.c...maginable/2.jpg

This post has been edited by Sun Zoo on May 15 2006, 07:56 PM

Apples and oranges.

How is that apples to oranges? A relatively weak object (the straw) and penetrate a relatively strong object (the wood pole) if at the right speed and angle. Sounds just like the plane/building senario to me...

The plane was maxed out - and probably past its performance envelope if it was 400+mph. At that speed, that plane has built up a tremendous amount of kinetic energy. Those wings would slice right through those perimeter columns - not the other way around.

What are you suggesting? That a plane did not hit? That shape charges formed the outline of a 767? Come on now.

-Ryan

Many calculations have that plane clocked at 560-590MPH believe it or not. At THAT altitude, rapidly maneuvering? Impossible, perhaps by any human pilot.

Speed and maneuvering
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/11/exc...sh.cnn.med.html

Speed of Plane (575MPH) Long Approach
http://www.vialls.com/wtc/radiocontrol.html

I spoke with my brother, who flys jets, and mentioned the Nila Segadevan interview that was posted above. Now, me, being a 9/11 truter, was trying to state some of these facts that Nila had mentioned.

My brother stopped me at the statement of "it's impossible to fly a commercial jet 20ft off the ground at 400+mph". He said that while the 400mph speed seemed a bit high (as it was above the 350mph performance limitations of most commercial airliners), that it was entirely possible to fly as low as 20ft off the ground. When I mentioned the downwash sheet and wintip vortices, he said that "actually in low wing-loaded aircraft, those effects only come into play at LOW speeds. Wingtip vortices are created when the plane is "dirty", i.e., "shit out" - flaps, landing gear, etc. He said the downwash sheet would not limit the plane to 60 ft.

Then again, he's a fairly young pilot who has never flown a 757 (he flys G3's and Lears). And of course, he's arguing with Nila, who has an aeronautical engineering degree, and far more flight experience...

I just thought I'd throw this up, as proof that some pilots dont think it's so impossible - but I tend to agree more with Nila ;-)

-Ryan

The plane was a hardened military reconfigured varient, of the 767, in this case a 767-300, as opposed to a 200, zipping in seemingly well beyond the farthest limits of that plane's (the regular commercial version) performance envelope, at 575MPH (ave of extimates) - and you are wondering how is sliced through the perimeter steel beam framework?

This post has been edited by Sun Zoo on May 15 2006, 09:32 PM

Reply to the original post:

It's not titanium or pentanium or alien-inium or any other exotic nium. The wingtips knocked off a piece of exterior aluminium alloy sheathing, they didn't go through the steel columns.

Look closely and you'll see.

This post has been edited by EOR on May 15 2006, 10:06 PM

Apples and oranges.

Um, no. Apples and apples.

Fact: The 767 hit the tower. Fact: The picture of teh side of the tower shows the planes entry into the building. What part can't you comprehend?

But can the straw SLICE through a piece of wood like the wings sliced through all the steel girders. That is my point.

I'm not questioning that the fuselage wouldn't penetrate through, just the further you get to the tips of the wings and tail.

Well, it obviously did slice through right?

Something looks as if it did. You 100% sure it was the wings and tail of a 767? I'm not, but I can't prove it wasn't either.