9/11 - what happened to the planes?

[myyve]

Thinking on from that awful day after the anniversary yesterday, one thought has come to mind.

What happened to the planes and those onboard, once they were flown into the twin towers? I know this probably does sound silly and I'm so sorry if it comes across as ignorant, but I truly do not know, and the internet doesn't mention anything, either..

Did they come to a crash landing afterwards? Or did they continue flying? What actually happened to the plane and those poor souls on board?

Yes sorry my mistake there, box cutter knives. I didn’t realise that these were as sharp as Stanley knives. Im amazed that even on domestic flight in the US before 911 they were allowed to take them on board?

They certainly went through metal detectors and were even searched with a wand. Im amazed that this wasn’t picked up- along with mace spray which I think is CS gas.

As for the terrorists passport being intact, I’ve heard this too and I’ve no idea how that was possible.

One of the pilots had a wedding ring that survived - Leroy Homer. It was returned to his wife ( flight 93 I think). Although the difference was this didn’t crash into a building so items were more likely to be recovered.

@BMW6 that seems inexplicable to me though, although of course it must be the only conclusion to draw (without going into conspiracy theory territory obviously).

Pre-9/11 any blade less than 3" was allowed, like Swiss Army knives et al. Unfortunately box cutter blades are under 3".

More worrying, two weeks after 9-11 was going through security and the guy in front of me said, "You will find a gun in there" as he put bag on belt. Operator calls over supervisor and says found a gun. Passenger says, "Good job, you passed the test" collected bag and left - without ever showing ID or other to prove it was a legit test!😯I know they routinely test but unless they knew him personally - no identification?????

I agree about Come From Away. It is really moving, and incredibly well done, just 12 people, 12 chairs and a couple of very minor costume shifts- a jacket, a hat. I watched it with Dd , 16, and we both cried.

My late father was a frequent flyer in the USA pre-9/11. He used to say that internal flights were treated pretty much like getting on a bus or train in this country, similar relaxed security and humdrum complacency. Also, in some airports, you'd go through security and baggage-checks, into the pre-boarding area where there'd be shops (like Boots or the equivalent) selling razor blades, nail scissors, etc.

I believe that in some of the CCTV stills from that morning the boxcutters are actually just about visible, sticking up from the hijackers' trouser pockets just after they'd been through security.

I remember seeing a documentary a few years after 2001 where they interviewed one of the employees on the airport security desk that some of the terrorists had been through. He was utterly beside himself with guilt, self-recrimination and wretched grief. But the poor guy hadn't really done anything wrong - he'd just followed the same routine and procedures he'd carried out for years prior. I felt so sorry for him.

The reference to butter knives may have come from the accounts surrounding United Airlines Flight 93. In some of the call transcripts from passengers on the flight, when they were planning their fight-back, at least one stewardess was recorded as saying that there were butter knives in the galley that might be useful.

Ive seen some of the interview from that guy mentioned. He worked on the check in desk- I’m not sure he was security. He checked some of the terrorists in at this particular small airport- but they had to connect at Boston airport. So they had to pass through another airport’s security in any case.
The guy didn’t really do anything wrong but he apparently suffered from PTSD as a result because he feels he should have raised more concerns about these ‘Arab’ men. But they had everything in place.

No one ever thought that a terrorist would ever use a plane to use as a suicide plane. I’m pretty sure that pre- 911 the procedure to deal with hijackers was to allow them to do what they want , although the pilots were not usually killed because they were needed to fly the plane.

Lots of people boycotted airlines, some went bust and many people left the industry as a result of 911. I’m sure there’s people who still don’t fly as a result.

Yes historically hijackers would demand the pilot land at whichever airport they wanted them to. They almost seem like the good old days in comparison 😞

Thoughts still go out to the families

Correct, they had box cutters with them and said they were wired with bombs. They even figured out who was the US Marshall on the one flight and dispatched him right away. I always have wondered how they knew.

I believe that the answer you seek is in the thread.

Are you being ironic?

You think the plane would "come out" the other side of the building after hitting it at that speed and loaded with aviation fuel??? Seriously???

🙄

Have you read the thread?

Just on the off chance you're being serious here, the impact of planes loaded with enough jet fuel to cross the country from Boston caused immediate fireballs that consumed the planes, the people on board, and all the people and objects in the floors where the planes hit.

HTH.

Go get your car. Drive it as fast as you can in to a brick wall.

Do you think your car would come out the other side?

Planes travel much faster than cars but are not designed with crumple zones as they should not ever be flown in to buildings.

Thy are mostly made of aluminium.

Go make a paper plane, then make one with kitchen foil and 'fly' them in to a wall. Which do yu think will be stronger?

Sometimes it hard to grasp when things are so big.

Imagine throwing an egg at a wall.
The egg is going to break because it has a weak shell.

Then imagine throwing a TV at a wall.
The TV is much stronger and so you need to throw it harder for it to smash against the wall.
But it’s likely that if you throw it hard enough it will smash when you throw it at a wall.
The same with your phone, a plate, a toy etc.

These planes were going fast and had a lot of force behind them.
They are made of string materials and smashed into a building made of strong material so you know the impact would have been huge.
It would have been similar to you throwing something really hard at your wall in your own home.

The same reason the plane didn’t come out, is the same reason the building was damaged, because of the impact.
Planes also have fuel which is flammable and like cars can burst into flames.

@Angledeest234 scientific explanation for the hard of comprehension. Big bang. Massive fire. Hope that helps.

the building was much stronger than the plane. Aircraft are mainly v.light aluminium. Some bits eg engines are heavier (think one engine was in the street) but basically the aircraft broke into 1000s of bits and the fireball vapourised everything susceptible to flame. metal melts at those temps.

@Pedallleur is right, @Angledeest234. Part of the engine from United Airlines Flight 175 crashed through the building on impact and landed on the corner of West Broadway and Murray Street. A further fragment of the fuselage landed on the roof of Building 5 Word Trade Centre. I think these were the largest parts recovered. There were many charred, fragmented but still recognisable pieces of debris, personal effects and human remains of varying sizes scattered about the area during and after the attacks (from the World Trade Centre site and from the plane that was flown into the Pentagon and from United Airlines Flight 93 which was crashed into a field in Pennsylvania following passenger attempts to regain control of the cockpit from the hijackers), but it was physically impossible for the entire plane to travel through the building and emerge intact the other side. The explanations on this thread both before and since you posted your question are correct. The attacks were planned and timed so that the planes involved would be carrying full loads of fuel to cause maximum devastation. Which they did.

I hope your demand for a "scientific answer" to what is very obvious and self-explanatory isn't borne from a basis that the attacks were somehow faked or contrived. Some of us continue to suffer and grieve deeply for what happened on that day, despite it being over 20 years ago. If that is, unfortunately, the case then I am sorry and think that perhaps @newnamethanks's explanation is the one you will find most helpful.

There was a US Marshall on board one of the 911 planes ? I didn’t know that

Most flights in the US have one. It goes back to the time when hijacking flights to Cuba was a thing.

I don't think there was I think before 9/11, they were exclusively on international flights, considered at higher chance for hijack. Which presumably contributed to the reason the 9/11 attackers chose longish internal flights enough fuel to make a big explosion, but without the extra checks or security of international flights. I used to be gobsmacked when I first lived in the US in the mid-90s, how cavalier security was on internal flights. Someone who wasn't flying could go right to the boarding gates without a ticket, for instance.

Sorry, accidental strike-through.