Established Member
There exists a popular conspiracy theory claiming that the Pentagon was struck by something other than Flight 77 on Sept 11. I've just published an analysis of the Pentagon attack that presents a logical explanation for the alleged "anomaly" that leads many to reject the official story:
911: Pentagon Crash Analysis
Established Member
Some interesting info there. Of course, you're preaching to the choir here...
Order of Kilopi
The 9/11 hoax theories hold the record for worst JPEG artifact analysis ever, as most of them analyse internet stream video.
On one WTC crash videoan see something extending from the wing/fuselage intersection right before the plane hits the WTC. Woo-woo tells it's a missile pod. Right.
It happens to be the fact that the plane at that point makes such a steep turn you actually see it deform(wing bends upwards, tail vibrates), and what is seen at the wingbox is simply a landing gear bay door which swings open under the massive G forces. Even such a simple thing is enough to make ridiculous claims of missile hardpoints being installed on a commercial airliner, and no one commenting the "modification" when boarding the plane or seeing it take off. (a biiiiig conspiracy of course)
Some claim according to 1 white JPEG pixel in front of a plane right before it hits the WTC that that is a missile being launched. Light reflection (or just an artifact of the video) is a bit too difficult.
Well some even say it were only missiles, cloaked by some projection of a plane. Of course, and the next thing I know mummy woke me up.
The "best" (worst) thing I've come up with was (i forgot the source) someone who compared lots and lots of crashes with the WTC events to conclude that no plane could ever do such damage. All his crashes were runway misses, overshoots, approach ground hits and other crashes where the pilot anticipated on the crash to minimize the impact, where the fuel load was quite small and where the damage done was in lots of cases larger than claimed by the author. His most convincing argument was comparing with the cessna which struck a building several days later. 3kinetic energy" is unknown to the man I guess? So is fuel explosions?
If someone would have shot a missile from more than a hundred tons at several hundred km/h into the towers, containing tens of tons of explosive fuel, no woo-woo would ever say it couldn't do that damage. But this were just tiny toy planes touching the building's facade...
What I do find strange (but not suspicious) is that the B-24 (?) bomber which hit the Empire State Building somewhere after WW2 didn't do an awful lot of damage. Of course, it is a slower and lighter plane, which makes some difference, and the way it impacts certainly does too. No 2 crashes are the same. But if I look at the Bijlmermeer crash in Amsterdam about 10 years ago, the WTC does not surprise me. I was kind of surprised the towers didn't tip over or break up right ahead.
Established Member
Hey, Cessna, 757-- they're all just planes, right??
Order of Kilopi
Indeed. We are investigating plane crashes and planes is what they are.
..ar what they APPEAR TO BE.... 8-[
[X-Files jingle][/X-Files jingle]
Vulcan Administrator
I'm continually amazed at how many people are certain they know exactly what would happen if a plane hits a building at flight speed.
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Established Member
I think the lack of fuel is the key thing. It was the burning fuel which brought down the towers.Originally Posted by Nicolas
Keep in mind that momentum has to be conserved. It would have taken a whole lot of mass to push the towers over.
Which begs the question -- is steel more likely to fail under tension or under compression (any Civil engineers out there?) You could invision that with a big enough whack on the north side of the building (as with WTC1), the steel at the bottom of the north side is temporarily under extreme tension stress, while the steel at the bottom of the south side is under compressive stress. If the north side steel ripped apart, the tower might have fallen backward. That would have made the conspiricists rabid.
Order of Kilopi
Nice Site Ian. =D>
Order of Kilopi
Indeed. Even if the situation is very comparable, sometimes you're "lucky" and sometimes you're not. This "luck" often has an explanation (hit a soft spot which lessened the G load, got its fuel tanks flung far away, didn't hit perpendicularly etcetc) but to say this in advance....
If all crashes were perfectly predictable they would teach me at college exactly what and where I had to design into future planes to cope exactly with the results of a crash. But no, the ignorants are just teaching me some general precausions because they fail to see exactly how any crash develops. Amateurs I tells you!!! :roll:
At another site, someone could tell me by looking at photos whether a plane would have a big radar return or not. He had comments like "there you see smooth curved parts, which is radar time baby!!!" indeed, the F-117 (which isn't THE stealth but a plane with stealth properties for the zillionth time) hasn't got any curves, but the B2.... They use Crays to calculate stealthy geometry, and that guy sees it with his eyes in 1 second!! What a mind, amazing... :roll: (I get dizzy from rolling my eyes)
If the world would be so obvious and predictable as they claim it is, engineers would have an easy task...
Order of Kilopi
Some things got posted while I replied, so here are my answers: as a good estimate, steel as a material is about equal in tensile as in compressive properties. For structural beams this is about the same. For concrete it is extremely different, concrete is only strong on compression, therefore it is strengthened with steel.
What I was talking about when I said "tipping over" I wasn't thinking of exchanging enough momentum to tip it over due to an excerted force, but to have it collapse at the instant due to the breaking of essential structural members upon impact. Something like crashing down a large tower of wooden toy blocks by throwing something at it (another block) with lesss force than required to tip over the tower as a whole, so reducing its structural integrity directly upon impact. With the WTC this wasn't the case, the secondary damage due to the flames destroyed the structure.
If I remember correct, the B-24 got lost in the mist when finding his landing airport after a mission, so it probably was low on fuel, which indeed limited the amount of secondary damage an awful lot. The Empire State did suffer some damage ( a lot more than the Cessna building) but obviously it was still repairable. The B-24 wasn't.
Established Member
I'm waaaay out of my league here, but I'm supposing the Empire State building, being much older, was probably constructed with much more ridigy (i.e. it was more structurely sound than the WTC's). The later was all steal beams and glass for the most part, right? Isn't the ESB more stone (or cement) and steal instead?
Established Member
Kudos to Ian for a thoughtful, well-thought-out analysis of that terrible event. Being somewhat of an aircraft afficiando, I was thinking that something as he describeshad to be the explanation. However, my gut feeling has no merit unless backed up by solid, credible research such as his.
=D> =D> =D> =D>
C>
Order of Kilopi
The ESB uses a stone facade, and is built more massive. Moreover, the WTC had a hanging metal construction. I'd say, for normal daily use they were both more than strong enough, capable of living trough extreme tornadoes and things like that. If the ESB would have had a fire as large as the WTC had, probably the steel would have weakened, the concrete broken and teh building would eventually collapse too. Of course I can't say this with certainty as I haven't tested it. (not intending it either)
So the WTC is indeed built lighter, but the fact that it could withstand the initial impact is some measure for its strength. Added weight isn't necessarily added strength, the contrary is often true. Fire is very dangerous to steel and reinforced concrete structures. Firemen prefer going into (massive) wooden buildings than steel ones in a fire, as the former has a better resistance to collapsing iin fire. At least that's what the firemen told us when we were living in a chalet.
Order of Kilopi
While I agree that the fuselage made the hole, this exploding wing theory is unappealing. The wing tanks, even after one is ripped open, don't exactly contain a stoichiometric fuel/air mixture capable of exploding. I think there just wouldn't be enough oxygen inside the tanks. And liquid fuel doesn't burn. Only vaporized fuel burns.
And, is anyone else troubled by the "explosion" depicted jumping from the starboard wing tank to the port? That doesn't seem right. Anyone more knowledgable about this?
I'd expect that maybe some of the 9/11 jet wing was broken off before impact with the Pentagon; some fuel spilled, vaporized, and burned; but some major portion of the wings still hit the building, and subsequently burned, but without the momentum/area sufficent to penetrate the walls like the fuselage did.
But, exploding wings? I'm not convinced.
Order of Kilopi
It depends on how badly the wings would have ruptured. The ones that hit the WTC immediately blew up because the whole fuel storage wasw torn all over the place. I don't know about the pentagon, the wings could have partially borken off, bended or otherwise deformed, anyway a 90 feet hole from a 125 feet plane doesn't seem strange to me anyway, even without the fuel tanks completely exploding outside. The explosion going from right to left is indeed a bit uncertain, with the wing box side walls in between. What can have happened, is that the wings broke (partially) off when hitting the facade, and were "left outside" where they exploded (all in a short period of time of course). The explosion doesn't necessarily have to start at only 1 place and time.
Established Member
Yeah, well, I'd just love to see some of these conspiratwerps say that in person to some people I know who spent that day pulling pieces of 757 out of the Pentagon.
Ian, nice work indeed.
Established Member
http://www.jimloy.com/history/empire.htm
The B-25 has an empty weight of ~10 standard tons, carries a maximum of 1000 gallons of gasoline, and cruises around 250mph. The plane was undoubtably under fueled and underloaded.Mitchell Bomber vs. Empire State Building
© Copyright 1999, Jim Loy
On Saturday, July 28, 1945 (a few days before the Atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima), a B-25 Mitchell bomber ran into the Empire State Building, then the tallest structure in the world. The bomber, piloted by Lt. Colonel William F. Smith, was flying under clouds, from Massachusetts to New Jersey. At about 10 A.M., the bomber hit the 79th floor, killing the three men aboard instantly. One of the two engines went through the building and out the other side, and through the roof of a 20-story building on the other side of 34th Street, starting a fire. The other engine, and part of a landing gear entered an elevator shaft and fell to the basement, onto an unoccupied elevator. Two women in another elevator fell 75 stories, and survived with serious injuries. Eleven people died in the fire on the 79th floor.
A 767 has a Maximum Takeoff Weight of 198 standard tons, a Maximum Fuel Capacity of 23,980 gallons (it is estimated that there was over 10,000 gallons onboard at time of WTC impact), and cruises at over 500 mph.
Over ten times the mass, ten times the fuel, and twice the speed. Go figure.
Established Member
FYI, the wingspan of a B-24 is 110 feet. That hole looks to be a lot less than that. Obviously the B-24 crash was a conspiracy to make the 9-11 attack on the Pentagon more believable.
Order of Kilopi
Could it not be simpler to say that even under a missle hit, the damage to the building would not be as extensive over such a long period?
I mean there is more than amplke evidence for the planes hitting. But going the other way could you also say that there is no way that a single (or multiple) missle hit could cause the long term damage that eventually did cause the towers to fall?
Established Member
In regards to the left wing question: IIRC, the plane actually hit the ground first (bellyflop) and then slid into the Pentagon. If so, than I can see the left engine being smashed up into the wing, rupturing the fuel tank and igniting the fuel.
Also, on the zoomed in part on your main page, the three guys in the center, isn't the one on the left sitting on a wheel assembly? Those two round objects close together... I can't remember how big the wheels are on this type of plane.
If you've discussed that on the page sorry, in a bit of a hurry and didn't get a chance to completely puruse your site, very nice from what I've seen though. =D>
Established Member
The most popular current theory at Nutcase Central (GLP) is that the WTC towers were pre-wired with explosives. The charges were detonated when the planes (or, according to some, holograms) hit, and caused the collapse, not the aircraft!
The work is generally "credited" to the famous CDI demolition company, based in Baltimore.
#-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o
Administrator
As I understand it (and I'm not a mechanical engineer), the other big difference is that the ESB has the classic skyscrapper construction, where there is a 3-D lattice work of steel that carries the load and the facade is essentially decorative. So the load is spread essentially over the entire cross-section of the building. The WTC had most of the load in the outer steel work. The downside of the ESB type of construction is you have interior load-bearing columns that limit your open space within a floor; the WTC construction allowed wide-open spaces on a floor.
On one of the TV programs (probably the NOVA) that looked at the WTC, I remember the comment from the engineers of the WTC that they did model the effects of a plane striking one of the towers (which in the model it survived). Given the time the buildings were built (late 1970's), they modeled something like a 707 or 727, which was smaller, lighter, and carried a lot less fuel. The 757s proved to be too much.
A personal aside: a former boss of my mom was working a couple of blocks from the ESB on the day the plane hit (it was a Sunday). Some debris (I think it was one of the engines) hit the roof of the building he was in. I believe one of the non-crew fatalities was someone in one of the ESB elevators; one of the plane's engines went down that elevator's shaft.
Vulcan Administrator
Those NWO folks sure know how to plan ahead, don't they?FYI, the wingspan of a B-24 is 110 feet. That hole looks to be a lot less than that. Obviously the B-24 crash was a conspiracy to make the 9-11 attack on the Pentagon more believable.
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Established Member
FYI, the wingspan of a B-24 is 110 feet. That hole looks to be a lot less than that. Obviously the B-24 crash was a conspiracy to make the 9-11 attack on the Pentagon more believable.
Argggggh. B-Twenty FIVE MITCHELL, not a B-Twenty FOUR LIBERATOR. A B-25 has a 68 foot wingspan, and TWO engines.
Order of Kilopi
Swift, the difference you describe between the ESB and the WTC was what I meant with the hanging metal construction of the WTC: a central column on which the outside metal construction is "hung" (don't take this hanging to literally, it is a way of describing). The ESB indeed has more spread out load paths.
I'm quite into planes, but I didn't know that the B-25 (as it appears to be, my B-24 was just a (close) guess) was such a "light" aircraft. But the mass, speed and fuel explains it all to me. Less explosive, lots less kinetic energy, hence still an ESB. Still it was a hard crash when I read the description.
The other way round, looking at the damage the B-25 did (an engine went right through) it isn't a surprise that the WTC came down.
Impressive photo of the ESB. The place where the picture was taken shows that part of the right wing must have been cut off already, as there is a protrusion in teh ESB there.
Established Member
Thanks for the good words and constructive feedback! I cover several of the points raised here in the discussion section, such as that the engine on the left wing also hit something outside and that could have shoved supporting structure up into the left-wing fuel tank. Also note that the illustrated scenario is just one of several possible scenarios involving wing disintegration outside the Pentagon I mention in the discussion section. I wish we knew more about the B-52 crash seen above. Notice the right wing may have been shorn off entirely first.
Back the Flight 77, note that wing pieces reportedly fell around a witness who was outside the Pentagon according to the American Society of Civil Engineers report. That suggests wing fragmentation occurred outside in such a way as to throw wing fragments some distance from the impact. But I may at least need to tighten up some of the presentation based on points raised here. The bottom-line point is that the wings were destroyed outside the Pentagon by some means (perhaps simply that the outer lengths of wings don't carry enough momentum to punch through a stone wall).
Please offer any more suggestions or critiques you may have.
Order of Kilopi
Just for the good order, as there is some confusion already:
B-25 is correct.
B-24 was my wild guess, B-52 is probably your typo. I don't think the ESB would like to see a B-52 coming towards it...
Established Member
Yeah, I've got a HB at work who believes the trade centers were deliberately imploded after the crashes. He reads some conspiracy website about it, which apparently has daily video news about the thing. They claim that the owner of the buildings admitted to doing it on video (which, from what I heard, was taken blatantly out of context) and should be prosecuted for the deaths of the firemen inside. :^o
Moderator
How come when I first asked if we could have a thread to discuss 9-11 conspiracy theories it was locked by BA
I thought that this was a subject we were not allowed to discuss? :-?
Banned
Holograms?
Here's some Hologram names for flight UA175 (United employee's that died that day).
Flight Attendant Alfred G. Marchand
Flight Attendant Alicia N. Titus
Flight Attendant Amy N. Jarret
Flight Attendant Amy R. King
Flight Attendant Kathryn L. Yancey Laborie
Customer Service Representative Marianne MacFarlane
Jesus Sanchez
Flight Attendant Michael C. Tarrou
First Officer Michael R. Horrocks
Flight Attendant Robert J. Fangman
Captain Victor J. Saracini
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote