It's unbelievable, but even when looking at these pictures, and watching the impact on video over and over, there are still a shit load of people who believe this WAS NOT a civilian airliner. Some believe it was a military 767 refueling plane loaded with fuel and flown by remote control in order to set off the explosives that were planted throughout the buildings. And that the "pod" you see against the belly of the aircraft in some of the pictures is either a missile, or perhaps where the controls for remote flight have been hidden.

Others believe it was a cruise missle and that the vehicle was cleverly edited by someone, reshaped to look like a jetliner, then shown to networks simultaneously as if it was actually taking place.

If that doesn't deserve a facepalm, I don't know what does.

 

I firmly believe it was a Boeing 767, operated by United Airlines, hijacked in midair, and flown into Tower 2 of the WTC in NYC.

And below I will prove it. (if the picture on the right isn't enough evidence for you)

 

For me the first taste of controversy came when people started questioning if there were actually civilian jets used.
And I found that to be quite a shock. That people who witnessed it actually challenged the validity of what they saw that day.
And I'm fairly sure it all started when wrongful reports were being televised, and when the first person began to wonder:

"How can a civilian airliner, made from aluminium, bring down a building made of steel?"
My investigation began right there.

Because that person had a point: how could it?
As a material, aluminium is much softer. That's what I was taught in school, and metallurgical books will agree with that statement. 

But, it's really not that simple. It's certainly not open and shut.
"Aluminium can't break steel, so it wasn't an airplane.

Conclusion: it had to have been a bomb or a missle and the images we saw were fake."

But people seem to forget that it happened LIVE. On international tv no less! And there were people down on the streets who saw the airplanes as they impacted those buildings.
The most brilliant piece of evidence of the validity of what happened in New York that day, was the impact of United 175.
Why? Because that impact was caught on video, from 43 different angles. Filmed by 43 different people. From 43 different locations.

Some professional filmers, some amateurs who had begun to film Tower 1 smoking like a chimney and then caught the second impact live as it happened.

​

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

​

For me one important question remains unanswered: if the force of the impact was great enough for the airplane to penetrate through the steel, why didn't at least the wingtips snap off?
The impact zone of the aircraft was duped "a roadrunner-type cut out".

But what were people expecting? A really round hole like in the Terminator movies?
This is real life and things happen as they happen.
But like I said earlier, physics came into play that day.
So, let's look at the physics.
I'll start with a few modest examples. (this is very rudimentary stuff)

 

A 1 inch thick pane of glass will not stop a car at full speed.
10 panes of 1 inch thick glass which are spread apart will not stop a car at full speed, but it will cause decellaration.
10 panes of 1 inch thick glass which are pressed together will stop a car at full speed, causing rapid decellaration.

 

Rock, paper scissors: “paper wraps rock”. Fine. But rock DOES break through paper.
A sheet of paper held tightly spread between two people: you can lay a brick on top of this sheet of paper.
Hold the brick a few inches above the paper and let it go. The paper may not break, but there will be massive resistance.
Hold the brick a few feet above the paper, and the brick will go through it with minimal resistance.

 

Now exchange the brick with a very sharp knife. The knife will meet little to no resistance because the mass of the object in motion has changed to such a degree that it meets little air resistance, and can therefore reach a higher velocity.

 

Let the investigation begin.

 

So now we take the next step, by answering the next question: How can an aluminium aircraft destroy steel?
Well, in order to answer that we need to answer this question first: What forces, and/or elements, are needed to cut steel with aluminium? I’m also interested in finding out what it takes to snap steel in half, and for that we need to know the type of steel.

 

Queue the science geeks! (which I say with the utmost respect, since they are making this possible)

 

Well the answer is … kinetic energy and momentum!
The faster an object is travelling, the more force it has.

Aluminium travelling at 500 mph becomes a very powerful force. (think of that knife again)
 

Here’s another example: water. 
Dive into a river from a height of 15 feet, and you can score points.
Dive into a river from a height of 200 feet, and you will injure yourself.
Dive into a river from a height of 1000 feet, and you’re dead.
The higher your velocity (momentum) becomes, the harder your body will impact the water.

The kinetic energy from 1000 feet at a free fall speed might even result in you becoming a very bloody mess.

 

We can hang on Newton’s Law’s of Physics all we like, but keep in mind that his theories, although hardly ever challenged, are over 300 years old. They come from a time when the term “fusion” wasn’t invented, when “kinetic energy” was unknown, and when the fastest things they had to test with were little round bullets fired from carbines. Oh and of course arrows.

Two pieces of metal can fuse together when they are brought together by a high enough velocity.

Newton may have understood this principle, but did he ever put it into practice?
Sure it’s strange that the entire wing sections disappeared into that building, but also remember that the cockpit came out the other side. It disintegrated in the explosion before gravity had a chance to take hold of it, and that's how fast this plane was travelling. 

But that is how the laws of physics changed that day, and I think it’s time Newton’s laws of motion are revisited and brought into this century. 18th century physics just doesn’t apply anymore.

One thing that really woke me up was a slow motion, zoomed in, version of the impact of UA 175: the top of the tower shook! 
Well, I would now like to point your attention to the following:

Excerpt from   www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/The-Law-of-Action-Reaction-(Revisited)

 

Velocity = speed + direction
Momentum = mass x velocity   (amount of resistance needed to stop an object in motion)
Force = mass x acceleration

 

Science is pretty cool, isn’t it?

UA 175 (weight 286.000 lbs ie. .. 286 tons) collides with WTC 2 (weight 5.000.000 lbs ie. 500.000 tons) at 500 mph.

The building core didn’t shatter during impact, but it was violently hit, sending an oscillation through the building like you would experience with a tuning fork. The momentum and the release of the kinetic energy from the impact caused the top of the building to oscillate upward and downward. But it was only seen at the top of the building. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHVDMJ7Dgzg
The aircraft mass of 286.000 lbs travelling at 500 mph and colliding with a motionless building weighing 5.000.000 lbs will create so much force, that the kinetic energy released through the momentum caused is enough to create extensive damage.
In fact, had that center structure not been there, I think the aircraft would have cut right through the building entirely and ended up in WTC 5 and 7. However, UA 175 did NOT cut the center structure in half. But it probably weakened it greatly.
All this tells us is that the heavy aircraft (people tend to focus on the material it was built from) collided at high speed with a motionless object, and the massive kinetic energy released did a whole lot of damage to the aircraft and the building.
In no way was it enough to bring the building down, but it DID weaken the interior structure enough to at least order an evacuation of the building.

 

The calculation on www.easycalculation.com/physics/classical-physics/force.php gives us the following equation:

 

 

Force:                                          Mass:                                         Acceleration:

                                                                                                     

 

 

(m= Mass, a= Acceleration, F= Force)

 

First I had to make the conversion from mph to m/s2 (500 mph = 223.52 m/s2), then I had to convert the mass of UA 175 from lbs to kg (286.000 lbs = 129.727 kg). The aircraft impacted WTC 2 with 28.996.579.04 N of force.

 

Now we look at the amount of kinetic energy that was displaced:

 

Kinetic Energy:                                       Mass:                                                      Velocity:

Ek = ½ mv2                                            m = Ek / ½ v2                                          

 

(m = Mass, v = Velocity)

 

Again the mass of the aircraft in kg (129.727 kg) and the velocity (223.52 m/s) = 3240657673.51 KE.

 

Momentum = mass x velocity         (286.000 lbs x 500 mph = 1.430.000 N s) or 129.727 x 805 kph = 10.443.023 N s)

 

Now those are some HUGE numbers!

But what do they tell us? Well, that more force was applied to the steel of this building than it was designed to cope with.

Now please read this:

 

Oh, and I just want to clarify that the weight of the building has nothing to do with anything, as the aircraft only impacted a fraction of the side. It didn’t contend with the weight, but with the mass and the tension strength of the material used.

 

“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such a collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” - Frank DeMartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center after the 1993 bombing, and who died in WTC 1 as it collapsed, trying to help save lives.

​

However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.

So all these years people have said “ Yeah, the engineers said it could take the impact of a 707.” , but now it seems this information from the structural engineers is somewhat fabricated if there is no way to tell just HOW they made their findings!

In their analysis, the engineers said it could withstand impact of a B-707 or DC-8 at 600 mph.

But with that they meant that the buildings wouldn’t collapse. They never said it couldn’t break through the outer structure of the building.

In their words “It would be like a pencil hole in a mosquito netting.”  The latter is an actual quote by Frank DeMartini.

Well, if we compare the "road runner cutout" to the above statement, I think we can safely say it was more like a circular saw cutting through the mosquito netting.

What kind of steel was used for the outer frame? Hot rolled or cold rolled steel? Or something else entirely?

So there lies part of the problem that we face in order to get an answer to our question. Once we know that, we can figure out what it would take to break it, and from there we can find the proper formula.

 

Let's let the experts fill us in with all the technical details:

 

“As you might imagine would be the case in a complex as large as the original World Trade Center, multiple different grades of steel were used in construction -- 12, in fact. These grades began at a very common type of steel known as A36, which has a yield strength of 36ksi (or kilopounds per square inch), and got progressively stronger -- all the way up to steels that had yield strengths of 100ksi."

[source: FEMA]

 

The major structural material employed in the towers was A36 structural steel, although higher strength steel was used in the lower elevations of the structure. Except for some selected floors, for which normal strength concrete was employed, the composite slabs were made of a 21MPa (3ksi) lightweight concrete.
[source - http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20VI%20Materials%20&%20Structures.pdf]

​

The yield strength assigned to any grade of steel is the point at which it will bend and not regain its original shape. So A36 steel -- a mix of carbon and iron, like all steels -- can handle 36,000 pounds per square inch (36 kilopounds) of pressure before it begins to deform.
[source - https://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/grade-of-steel-used-in-world-trade-center.htm]

​

"The yield strength assigned to any grade of steel is the point at which it will bend and not regain its original shape. So A36 steel -- a mix of carbon and iron, like all steels -- can handle 36,000 pounds per square inch (36 kilopounds) of pressure before it begins to deform.

In the external walls of towers one and two of the World Trade Center, the steel also varied by thickness to allow for different pressure loads at different levels. In the lower levels, the thickness was most frequently around 4 inches (10 centimeters), while at higher floors, it could be as thin as 0.25 inch (0.64 centimeter)." [source: FEMA]

​

"In the construction of the floors themselves, a mix of A36 and ASTM A 242 steel was used. ASTM A 242 is what is known as a high-strength, low-alloy (HSLA) steel, which means that it was extra-strong, allowing less of it to be used which makes for a lighter building. Overall, 200,000 tons (181,436 metric tons) of steel were used to build what were, at the time of their construction, the largest buildings on Earth." [source: Ross https://www.infoplease.com/world-trade-center-history]

​

"Next, find out what happened to all that steel on Sept. 11, 2001. One of the most consistently used facts by 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that the grade of steel used in the World Trade Center simply couldn't melt at the temperatures fires created when jetliners slammed into the structures. And they're right. Steel's melting point is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit (1510 Celsius). Yet jet fuel only burns between 800 and 1500 degrees Fahrenheit (426.7 and 815.5 Celsius). [source: Popular Mechanics]

​

"It's important to also note that other items would have caught on fire in the buildings in addition to the jet fuel, and could have contributed to higher burning temperatures. But according to a multi-year study carried out by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) even these fires combined with the impact of the planes would not have been enough to bring the buildings down. Their report concluded that the real culprit was the fact that fireproofing materials were dislodged during the impact and this in turn exposed vital structural components to the heat. As these components lost strength, the floors began to sag, pulling the weakened columns inward and leading to a chain reaction that had floor collapsing upon floor until the buildings no longer stood." [source: NIST]

 

NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), who were in charge of coming up with an explanation as to why those three buildings fell, said:

“Finally, as NIST has noted in the frequently asked questions page on the NIST WTC website, http://wtc.nist.gov, NIST did not test for the presence of explosive residue as such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive.”

Dr. John Gross of NIST has even been heard saying:  

“We didn’t test for explosives in the WTC buildings because there was no evidence of explosives used there.”

Gross also said:

“There were no witnesses who heard any explosions, we don’t see any evidence of explosions in the footage we’ve seen, so we concluded no explosions took place, and therefore didn’t test anything for explosives residue.”
 

Ladies and gentleman, boys and girls … this is the kind of thing that would be said during a cover up.
Especially since NIST lead investigator, Shyam Sunder, said pretty much the exact same thing.

Now, I'm not suggesting that NIST was involved in the attack, or even that the US Government was involved in the attack and that NIST was ordered to conceal that, but why the hell lie about it? Why cooperate in a bullshit investigation you know is going to hound you?

​

Anyway, what the techs are saying is that it was a tough building. It was tough enough to hold its own weight upright and not cave in on itself, but flexible enough to withstand the impact of an airliner without the building collapsing. Theoretically, anyway.

Think of tossing a knife into a tower of Jell-o.
The lower floors were built with thicker steel than the upper floors, and the weight was evenly distributed through the outer frame. 

This took strain from the inner colums, which were designed to house the many elevators.
Now, look at the impact pictures again.

Does it appear the entire building was cut in half to such an extent that the upper floors could have pancaked down on the rest of the building, enough to cause a chain reaction of pancaking, and with enough force to completely pulverize the cement into dust BEFORE it impacts the ground?
The answer? No.

The upper part could never have achieved enough momentum, let alone kinetic energy, to push the first few floors it met down to the remaining floors, and so on.

But this is exactly the explanation NIST fed to the public. And the stupid ones bought it. Hook, line, and sinker.

​

The girders may have been weakened by the heat, even NIST confirms that the temperature wasn't high enough to bring the building down, but it wasn't enough to weaken the girders further. So NIST claims that the protective materials became dislodged, which exposed the vital structural components, etc etc blah blah. We're supposed to just believe their conclusion while they also stated:

"NIST did not test for the presence of explosive residue as such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive.”
 

Half-baked work leads to half-baked conclusions.
They didn't test, because they knew damn well they would have found it. That finding would then have been documented one way or the other, and it would have left them standing there holding their dicks, or each other's dicks ... who knows, if those documents were ever leaked to the public.
So how do you hide the truth? How do you cover up the fact that you don't really have an explanation?

You release a stupid conclusion and top it off with silly graphs and 3D models, get some government official to approve and sign your conclusion, and watch it baffle people.

But it's the persistent people who will eventually find out what really happened that day.

So I decided to continue my research on the steel and this is what I managed to find:

​

The Twin Towers were made of 12 different grades of steel; the lowest grade was A36 and the highest was A100.
A36 has a yield strength of 36ksi (kilo pounds per square inch) whereas A100 has a yield strength of 100 ksi.

http://www.matweb.com/
This website allows you to research any known building material, showing tensile strength etc.

Bethlehem Steel ASTM A36, 3/16 to 3/4 inch thick as-rolled steel plate was the steel I began to look for.
(as-rolled steel = Cold Rolled. Cold rolled steel is essentially hot rolled steel that has had further processing. 
The steel is processed further in cold reduction mills, where the material is cooled (at room temperature) followed by annealing and/or tempers rolling.)

http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=27beeb9d544d4061b5930ff6768839f7

​

        Bethlehem Steel ASTM A36, 3/16 to 3/4 inch thick as-rolled steel plate

Physical Properties                              Metric                             English                        Comments
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density                                              7.80 g/cc **                    0.282 lb/in³                 Typical of ASTM Steel

​

** g/cc = Grams per Cubic Centimeter

​

Mechanical Properties                          Metric                             English                        Comments

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hardness, Brinell                                 119 - 159                       119 - 159                     based on conversion from tensile strength
Hardness, Rockwell B                           67 - 83                          67 - 83                         based on conversion from tensile strength
Tensile Strength at Break                     400 - 552 MPa                58000 - 80000 psi    
Tensile Strength, Yield                         >= 248 MPa                   >= 36000 psi    
Elongation at Break                             >= 18 %                        >= 18 %                      in 8"
                                                         >= 21 %                        >= 21 %                      in 2", > 24" W
Bend Radius, Minimum                        0.50 t                             0.50 t                           ≤3/4" W; ASTM A6 PARA. S14
                                                         1.0 t                               1.0 t                             >3/4 to 1" W; ASTM A6 PARA. S14
                                                         1.5 t                               1.5 t                             >1 to 1-1/2" W; ASTM A6 PARA. S14
                                                         2.5 t                               2.5 t                             >1-1/2 to 2" W; ASTM A6 PARA. S14
                                                         3.0 t                               3.0 t                             >2" W; ASTM A6 PARA. S14
 

Component Elements Properties           Metric                             English                         Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carbon, C                                          <= 0.25 %                      <= 0.25 %    
Copper, Cu                                        >= 0.020 %                     >= 0.020 %    
Iron, Fe                                             >= 99.24 %                     >= 99.24 %    
Phosphorous, P                                  <= 0.040 %                     <= 0.040 %    
Silicon, Si                                          <= 0.40 %                       <= 0.40 %    
Sulfur, S                                           <= 0.050 %                     <= 0.050 %    

​

If this was really the type of steel used in the upper floors, then it absolutely didn't have the strength to withstand or contend with an impact from an aircraft weighing 286,000 lbs travelling at 500 mph which eventually released 28.996.579.04 N of Force / 3240657673.51 KE of Kinetic Energy.

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is how aluminium was allowed to cut through steel.

I'm not saying that inferior material was used. Far from it.
The buildings were built to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707, but the 757 and 767 planes used during the 9/11 attacks were slightly bigger, heavier and faster. The buildings coped with the impacts, but barely.
I'm suddenly curious what would have happened if a 747 impacted each tower, or if the buildings had been constructed just a few years later and built to withstand the impact of a 747. Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?

​

So in the above overview we see 400-552 MPa (58000 - 9000 psi) Tensile Strenth at Break.

For example, a tensile strength of a steel that can withstand 40,000 pounds of force per square inch may be expressed as 40,000 PSI or 40 KSI (with K being the denominator for thousands of pounds). 
The tensile strength of steel may also be shown in MPa, or megapascal.

I'd say 28.996.579.04 N of Force is well over the maximum allowed tension strength at breakpoint here.

​

​

•    Here’s something else many might not realize; the WTC area, Ground Zero as it was later called, was essentially a crime scene.

And it should have been treated as such. That whole area should have been cordoned off, and investigative teams of the FBI, the NTSB, FEMA, NSA, NIST, and whomever else, should have examined every little bit of evidence found there. It’s the law!
If anything, structural engineers and architects would have loved to have known what happened to those buildings in order to make future designs that much safer. But no, Mayor Guliani (probably by order of those above his paygrade), ordered the area to be cleaned up and everything shipped to China, where the steel would be recycled. Why China anyway?? Was US-China relations in trouble?
Can you imagine a detective picking up a knife at a murder scene, giving it to a recycle company before it’s dusted for prints and checked for DNA, and telling them to make a ball point pen out of it? Wouldn’t he be in serious trouble if he did that?

So how did the American Government get away with it?

 

The official conclusion was that the Twin Towers, as well as building #7 fell due to damage caused by fire.

​

•    Philidelphia 1991 (One Meredian Plaza) and Madrid 2005 (Windsor Tower) saw two sky scrapers engulfed in flames for 17 and 20 hours respectively. In both cases the fire was hotter than at the WTC in 2001, they burned much longer, but they still stood. 

And they were both rebuilt, and they're both still in use today.

My conclusion: bullshit!

Either they have no clue as to how these buildings came down the way they did, or they DO know and just won't tell anyone.
 

The picture below shows the remains of some of the columns at Ground Zero. The top left insert is an example of how preperations are

made for some types of demolition. How many readers find the similarities a bit too creepy?

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

 

In the dust samples that were taken from around Ground Zero, microscopic spheres were found, and these spheres where in fact created by nano-thermite as it melted through steel. It's what happens when steel melts. Little spheres of iron residue fall to the ground.

Anyone who has ever welded will tell you that. Anyone who has ever worked in a steel mill, or a foundry, will tell you that.

 

 

​

​

 

 

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The investigators who found the nano-thermite spheres in the dust have also all come to the conclusion, that the thermite was military grade. It's not the kind of material just anyone can create in their sheds or basements.

 

•           Thermite = Aluminium Powder + Iron Oxide    (but can often consist of other components)

•           Thermate = Sulfur + Aluminium Powder + Iron Oxide

•           Military grade Thermate (TH3) = Thermite + Sulfur + Barium Nitrate + PBAN binder

 

Each leaves its own chemical signatures when used, and the latter of the above left such a signature at Ground Zero and around WTC7.

The downside of using ignitors with the above incendiaries, is that the ignition sometimes fails.

The upside is that it doesn't require oxygen to burn, and can therefor be used for underwater welding or cutting.

The latter explains the molten steel that poured like a small river under ground zero, even after being completely flooded.

Ground Zero workers described seeing a red hot river under the wreckage, much like a river of lava, and video footage of the towers themselves showed molten steel dripping from them before they collapsed.

Jetfuel does NOT get THAT hot!

​

I know that a lot of Americans put a lot of faith into their firefighters, and see the FDNY as absolute heroes, with which I actually have to agree, so maybe they'll believe THEIR statements when THEY say how THEY witnessed pools of molten steel at the base of Ground Zero.

And how it took them three months to extinguish it.

Even after that area became flooded.

Jet fuel absolutely doesn't burn underwater, and it certainly can't cause small rivers of molten steel to pour from a building.

Jet fuel just can't get hot enough. If it could, it would destroy the engines it is supposed to propulse.

 

So can you think of any other reason why this crime scene was cleaned up so swiftly?

Certain areas of one of the Twin Tower buildings was under construction for a few weeks, and the weekend before the attacks the security in Tower One was almost non-existent due to problems with power (if I'm correct), so demolitions equipment could have easily been snuck into this building.

 

But American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175 DID impact those two towers.

The fact that more heinous acts took place at those locations won't change that.

​