PDA

View Full Version : 911: Pentagon Theory Debunked



Ian Goddard
2004-Nov-23, 07:33 PM
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 (http://users.erols.com/igoddard/pentagon.htm)

pghnative
2004-Nov-23, 07:40 PM
Some interesting info there. Of course, you're preaching to the choir here...

Nicolas
2004-Nov-23, 08:07 PM
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.

pghnative
2004-Nov-23, 08:13 PM
Hey, Cessna, 757-- they're all just planes, right?? :o :o

Nicolas
2004-Nov-23, 08:15 PM
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]

ToSeek
2004-Nov-23, 08:16 PM
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.

pghnative
2004-Nov-23, 08:23 PM
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. I think the lack of fuel is the key thing. It was the burning fuel which brought down the towers.


I was kind of surprised the towers didn't tip over or break up right ahead.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.

Tensor
2004-Nov-23, 08:28 PM
Nice Site Ian. =D>

Nicolas
2004-Nov-23, 08:28 PM
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...

Nicolas
2004-Nov-23, 08:36 PM
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.

Wally
2004-Nov-23, 08:43 PM
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.

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?

crateris
2004-Nov-23, 08:47 PM
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>

Nicolas
2004-Nov-23, 08:52 PM
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.

01101001
2004-Nov-23, 09:09 PM
911: Pentagon Crash Analysis (http://users.erols.com/igoddard/pentagon.htm)
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.

Nicolas
2004-Nov-23, 09:19 PM
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.

sts60
2004-Nov-23, 09:31 PM
There exists a popular conspiracy theory claiming that the Pentagon was struck by something other than Flight 77 on Sept 11. ...
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. :evil:

Ian, nice work indeed.

Bozola
2004-Nov-23, 09:40 PM
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.


http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatebldgcrash.jpg

http://www.jimloy.com/history/empire.htm



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.


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.

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.

pghnative
2004-Nov-23, 09:48 PM
http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatebldgcrash.jpg


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. :o :o :o

Humphrey
2004-Nov-23, 09:56 PM
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?

Captain Kidd
2004-Nov-23, 10:14 PM
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>

Sammy
2004-Nov-23, 10:19 PM
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

Swift
2004-Nov-23, 10:57 PM
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)...

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.

ToSeek
2004-Nov-23, 10:58 PM
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. :o :o :o

Those NWO folks sure know how to plan ahead, don't they? ;)

Bozola
2004-Nov-23, 11:06 PM
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. :o :o :o


Argggggh. B-Twenty FIVE MITCHELL, not a B-Twenty FOUR LIBERATOR. A B-25 has a 68 foot wingspan, and TWO engines.

Nicolas
2004-Nov-23, 11:09 PM
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.

Ian Goddard
2004-Nov-23, 11:11 PM
Thanks for the good words and constructive feedback! I cover several of the points raised here in the discussion section (http://users.erols.com/igoddard/pentagon.htm), 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.

Nicolas
2004-Nov-23, 11:16 PM
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...

Kesh
2004-Nov-24, 01:07 AM
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

Sticks
2004-Nov-24, 06:48 AM
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? :-?

Candy
2004-Nov-24, 07:24 AM
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 Holograms? :o

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

01101001
2004-Nov-24, 07:32 AM
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? :-?
I think your question in this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=272356) "Can we have a BA treatment of the 9-11 conspiracy theories?" was taken by the BA to mean a treatment by the BA -- and he responded that he wouldn't treat it unless something about it was astronomy-related.

Also, it didn't help that you started out mentioning a certain US president, as that naturally prompted replies of a political nature, helping the thread to its quick demise.

kucharek
2004-Nov-24, 07:36 AM
It was also in the "Against the mainstream"-forum. But the subject there must be astronomy-related, not simply being against any mainstream.
Also, the thread you started looked like to going into the politics of the attacks, while this thread deals with some technical aspects.

Harald

AstroSmurf
2004-Nov-24, 08:34 AM
Ian, any relation to dr. Robert Goddard? :)

FWIW, the swedish paper 'Ny Teknik' (New Technology) ran an analysis after the crash, pointing out the technical reasons for the collapse. Guess they're part of the conspiracy as well...

sarongsong
2004-Nov-24, 09:10 AM
The most popular current theory at Nutcase Central (GLP) is that the charges were detonated when the planes (or, according to some, holograms) hit, and caused the collapse, not the aircraft!
Or just a bit later (http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/close.htm).

Morrolan
2004-Nov-24, 12:26 PM
Ian great analysis! =D>
i immediately sent this to a friend who two weeks ago sent me the link to one of the woo-woo sites presenting the fever-dream version of events...

Swift
2004-Nov-24, 02:32 PM
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
The "owner" of the WTC was the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a semi-independent government agency created by the states of New York and New Jersey. They are also in charge of such things as bridges and port facilities. I suspect there is an agency chief executive, but I would not call them the owner, any more than George W. Bush is the owner of the United States. I want to see the video where someone from the Port Authority admits to blowing the WTC up. :roll:

Fortis
2004-Nov-24, 03:40 PM
The most popular current theory at Nutcase Central (GLP) is that the charges were detonated when the planes (or, according to some, holograms) hit, and caused the collapse, not the aircraft!
Or just a bit later (http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/close.htm).
Another popular theory is that one of the aircraft fired a missile into one of the towers just before it hit, and that this was supposed to set off previously hidden explosives in the building. This has got to be one of the most Heath Robinson ways to set off demolition charges. (Had the conspirators never heard of wireless triggers?) The aircraft are also claimed to be remote control cargo aircraft, because "you can't see any passenger windows". So the conspiracy is capable of flying 2 remote control cargo aircraft, armed with missiles, into two explosive laden buildings, but is clearly so inept that it didn't bother to paint the aircraft so that they looked liked their respective passenger jets. Ho hum...

kucharek
2004-Nov-24, 03:45 PM
C'mon! Every self-respecting nutty conspiracy theory has more holes than cheese!

PS: And then there are the theories which leave no cheese at all, they are just fabricated from connected holes.

Swift
2004-Nov-24, 06:46 PM
PS: And then there are the theories which leave no cheese at all, they are just fabricated from connected holes.
:lol: =D>

Thumper
2004-Nov-25, 12:04 AM
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 Holograms? :o

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




:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:


I realize that these theories have to be debunked carefully and factually. And we get a little enjoyment making fun of the woo woos. But Candy is right. All those people that never came home that night. Where'd all those people go?

The conspiracy theories, the ones that claim that planes with innocent passengers weren't used are sick.

And to add a little more clarification:

The planes that hit the towers were 767's, wide bodied two aisle heavy planes. The one that hit the pentagon and the one that crashed in PA were 757's, not quite as big with only one aisle and 3x3 seat configuration but still plenty big.

Kesh
2004-Nov-25, 03:19 AM
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
The "owner" of the WTC was the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a semi-independent government agency created by the states of New York and New Jersey. They are also in charge of such things as bridges and port facilities. I suspect there is an agency chief executive, but I would not call them the owner, any more than George W. Bush is the owner of the United States. I want to see the video where someone from the Port Authority admits to blowing the WTC up. :roll:

Basically (from what I understand), there's a video of this person using a technical term to describe... well, I'm not sure if it's what the Port Authority ordered or what they observed the buildings do. Either way, I gather it was a technical term used in building demolitions... so the HBers ran with that claim, saying that the Port Authority ordered the buildings demolished while there were still folks inside. :^o

Ian Goddard
2004-Nov-25, 04:08 AM
Ian, any relation to dr. Robert Goddard? :)
Yeah, since I understand his great, great, ... grandparents were also Adam and Eve. :lol:


Ian great analysis!
i immediately sent this to a friend who two weeks ago sent me the link to one of the woo-woo sites presenting the fever-dream version of events...
Thanks, and that's an interesting way of seeing the sites that promote the "fever-dream version of events." I ran into a wild one (http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf) yesterday. It's sad to see and hard to believe such efforts going into getting people to believe such nonsense. On Sept 11 I saw several witnesses on local (DC suburb) stations interviewed who saw and described Flight 77 in detail, as other witnesses do here (http://users.erols.com/igoddard/pentagon_witnesses.htm).

For the moment I've taken down the report since I'm persuaded by good critique here that the specific wing-destruction scenario I highlighted in an animation is too speculative. What matters is the evidence I presented indicating that there were jumbo-jet sized wings that ruptured just outside the Pentagon. Exactly how they ruptured is beside the point, that they ruptured outside is the point and resolves the width discrepancy between wingspan and impact hole.

It's interesting to note that one witness, Tim Timmerman, himself a pilot, said "The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball." It might be that the long thin wings of a jumbo jet would "jack knife" forward as the nose smashes into a stone building since the fuselage is suddenly and violently slowed down but these long wings want to keep going forward at the velocity they've been traveling. The possible results of that possibility are sufficiently complex that the whole exact-scenario question should have to be answered by a crash test or extremely sophisticated computer modeling, not speculation. The point again is that there's both witness and physical evidence that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and that the wings were demolished on the outside accounting for the width discrepancy. And then the most obvious question is: if something else hit the Pentagon, what happened to Flight 77? ](*,)

PhantomWolf
2004-Nov-25, 10:49 AM
A couple of things I didn't see mentioned in here.

The WTC Twin Towers had a unquie construction. They were tubular buildings with the suport structure being the outside walls. This means that they were without the normal steel grid, something that made them incredibly strong, and ultimately resulted in their destruction.

The buildings weren't inherantly unstable, or even badly planned, though in hindsight things could have been better. They were designed to withstand a strike from a slow flying 707, though according to the designers, the fuel load was not taken into account in this.

The reason that the buildings still stood after being hit was entirely due to the way they were constructed, their tubular sheath of steel holding them in place when a more tradition grid structure may well have failed immediately. Unfortunately that very cnstruction was about to spell their doom.

The massive, around an acre, floors were held up on steel trusses. While they were adaquate for the job and they added to the tower's strength, they were also poorly covered in fire retardant. With 20 acres of fire blazing out if control, there trusses become the Arcillies heel of the WTC. Steel weakens under heat, and with the fire retandant missing in lot of places over the truss steel, these started to sag under the weight. Unfortunately a trusses weakest point is where it breaks, and when it breaks, the entire truss fails. With the floors failing, the outer tube was losing its strength because nothing was holding it together. The Southern tower has sustained the greatest damage, it twisted and the top fell crushing the floors below. As the air was compressed from each floor crashing into the next, it peeled the outer structure like a banana, something that you can quite literally see in the images of the collapse.

The Northern Tower central elevator core was the point which was most compromised inside of it, and with the fire raging, the lack of fire retardant in these shafts (it had fallen off of rust covered steel) lead to the central core collapsing. As the core fell it took the floors and the outer shell with it dropping directly down.

Looking back we can see how the Towers failed, and why. Unfortunately, like the the Titanic, Apollo 1, Challanger and Columbia, we can't go back and change it (See you knew I had to get space in there somewhere.)

As to the Pentagon attack there are many things that show it was indeed a 757. I'm not sure about the idea of the wings exploding though. Witnesses stated that the wings appeared to fold back as the plane went into the building. I beleive that much of the wreackage that was scattered abut the area come from the tail and upper fuselage, both of which would have been shredded as it impacted and entered through the hole.

The CT's often talk abut the unbroken windows. Funny that they tend to forget that the glass in these windows was 4 inch thick armoured glass rather then your everyday window panes. I have yet to see any credible evidence that smething that is basically flimsy aluminium could actually do serious damge to one. The hole itself was highly capable of allowing the plane's body to pass through it and slightly more.

A last couple of things. On the order to "pull it" prior to WTC 7's collaspe. This discusion has been taken out of context by the CT's and the actual statement was refering to the Fire control mission, not the building. It was decided that after several days they weren't wining the battle and that the building was becoming unstable from the fire, hence they "pulled" the fire fighting crews. A very wise decision considering that it dropped shortly after the evacuation.

Finally there were arguments that they should have used coppers to lift people off the roof. This was never an option though because the roof doors had been locked and chained to prevent access, and the rooves were littered with obstacles to prvent a copper landing. This was done sometime after the '93 attack to prevent terrorists from landing on the roof and entering the buildings. The workers were never told this however, and many in the Southern tower attempted to get to the roof losing time in locating the north stairs, the only unblocked way out. Had they been told, it's probable that more would have found this way down and escaped prior to the collaspe.

There are a lot more things but I think I have covered the main ones here.

Nicolas
2004-Nov-25, 11:26 AM
Phantomwolf, what you described in detail was what I meant with teh difference in structure between the WTC and the ESB. Thanks for the details.

With "coppers" I think you refer to helicopters? It's just that I only know "coppers" as police men, and "copters" as helicopters. As you used it twice, I wonder if it is an abbreviation used more often than I know about?

About the helicopter rescue, landing wouldn't be necessary. Winching is a very common practice, landing only happens when there is plenty of time. Of course you need to be able to reach the roof in order to be winched, and the helicopters might have had problems due to the smoke.

kucharek
2004-Nov-25, 11:29 AM
About the helicopter rescue, landing wouldn't be necessary. Winching is a very common practice, landing only happens when there is plenty of time. Of course you need to be able to reach the roof in order to be winched, and the helicopters might have had problems due to the smoke.

I guess, the strong wind would also have prevented any attempt. Look at the photos; the smoke is carried away nearly horizontally.

Nicolas
2004-Nov-25, 11:32 AM
I hadn't paid attention to the wind conditions. People get winched from boats in severe storm conditions however (not that the pilots feel very comfortable when doing this). And I believe the WTC had some nasty pointy antennas on top of it too? Not good for a helicopter.

sarongsong
2004-Nov-25, 01:55 PM
...It was decided that after several days they weren't wining the [Building 7] battle and that the building was becoming unstable from the fire...
"...Building 7 underwent a total structural collapse at around 5:20 PM. [2] Although there were few people in the area to witness its destruction, several videos captured the event. Like the collapses of the Twin Towers, the collapse of Building 7 commenced suddenly and was over in seconds..."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html

Metricyard
2004-Nov-25, 03:25 PM
Hello one and all.

Here's a great link that discusses the Twin Towers from inception to creation to destruction.

World Trade Center (http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc.htm)

Hope this helps.

Sticks
2004-Nov-25, 05:47 PM
It was also in the "Against the mainstream"-forum. But the subject there must be astronomy-related, not simply being against any mainstream.
Also, the thread you started looked like to going into the politics of the attacks, while this thread deals with some technical aspects.

Harald

When I started that thread it was the technical stuff I was thinking of, NOT the politics, perhaps I was not as cautious in describing what the CT's were claiming as I should have been, as on some of the UK forums they did mention him by name. :roll:

I thought the against any mainstream section was for discussing all CT's

Apologies if this caused confusion or offence #-o

One of the theories that was put out, and I can not remember where it crawled out from, was that the planes were crashed by remote control after overiding the fly-by-wire system

There was also discussion on one UK forum as to whether mobile phones would have opperated at the altitude the planes were flying at when they were hijacked.

Kesh
2004-Nov-25, 09:00 PM
Oh, by the way, on Tuesday November 30, the show Seconds From Disaster will re-air its episode on the 9/11 Pentagon attack. I've seen it before and it's very good. The show is on the National Geographic Channel, if your provider carries it.

Captain Kidd
2004-Nov-26, 03:11 AM
I thought the against any mainstream section was for discussing all CT's

Apologies if this caused confusion or offence
There is fine print below the forum titles, for the AtM section it's (emphasis mine):

Post here if you want to discuss a theory that goes against the astronomical mainstream. Have a beef with relativity, heliocentrism, the Big Bang? This is the place.

But hey, np, I wasn't offended; however, I have been accused of staying in a state of confusion. :D :D

(And a minor nitpick, its Against the mainstream not "any".)

[Edit, after about 50 times I think I finally have it correct!]
[Edit: 51 #-o ]

paulie jay
2004-Nov-26, 04:03 AM
Just on the Empire State Building vs WTC issue - I'm sure I read somewhere that the WTC was designed with the Empire State Building crash in mind. Although it was never envisaged that a plane of that size with a full fuel load would be deliberately flown into one of the towers at high speed, the design did include safeguards against a minor collision. This may explain away some people's surprise that the towers didn't collapse immediately.

sarongsong
2004-Nov-26, 05:24 AM
...The "owner" of the WTC was the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a semi-independent government agency created by the states of New York and New Jersey...I want to see the video where someone from the Port Authority admits to blowing the WTC up. :roll:
"The developer [Larry Silverstein] who led the group that purchased the World Trade Center's 99-year lease in July 1999 for $3.2 billion from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said he is committed to helprebuilding the center..."
http://money.cnn.com/2001/09/14/news/silverstein/
"World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein suffered a court defeat Thursday that means he won't get his $3.5 billion insurance policy paid twice over...bound by a form that defined the Sept. 11 terrorism as one event..."
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/05/Silverstein_010504.html
What is the color of burning jet-fuel smoke?

enginelessjohn
2004-Nov-26, 09:17 AM
There was also discussion on one UK forum as to whether mobile phones would have opperated at the altitude the planes were flying at when they were hijacked.

Things to remember. The USA uses a number of incompatible systems, for mobile phones, such as CDMA and GSM1900. As I'm UK based all of my experience was with GSM of some form, specifically from designing handsets for 4 years.

Now GSM phones do work in planes, which I can confirm, as I have had my phone ring while circling a glider at 2500 ft. Forgot to switch it off.... Doh #-o

Anyway, what happens is, mobile phone masts use antennas that have a doughnut shaped transmission pattern, as opposed to an isotropic one. This means that directly overhead of a mast you will receive almost no signal. However, at altitude, some distance from the antenna you should receive some signal. Additionally the theoretical maximum range is about 30 km, determined by the repetition rates from the timeslots.

The reason network operators don't like it is you confuse the network by talking to more than just a couple of cells. Phones normally only talk to one cell, and have two or so others in reserve to switch to when they get stronger.

The reason airlines don't like it is that dumping large amounts of RF energy inside a metal tube can cause all sorts of curious effects, putting noise spikes on signal lines (warning lights for example).

I have no idea what the maximum altitude you could make a call at is, and I suspect the answer might be "it depends". However I wouldn't be surprised if it was in excess of 10000 ft.

Cheers
John

Laguna
2004-Nov-26, 09:27 AM
What is the color of burning jet-fuel smoke?
Black

Nicolas
2004-Nov-26, 12:57 PM
Just on the Empire State Building vs WTC issue - I'm sure I read somewhere that the WTC was designed with the Empire State Building crash in mind. Although it was never envisaged that a plane of that size with a full fuel load would be deliberately flown into one of the towers at high speed, the design did include safeguards against a minor collision. This may explain away some people's surprise that the towers didn't collapse immediately.

The WTC was indeed designed to withstand a plane impact, and the ESB crash is the most realistic casus on this subject (Bijlmermeer was a much lower building, and more like the pentagon crash)

The WTC design accounted for smaller planes (hence less kinetic energy, less fuel, smaller damaged area to tower too perhaps), flying at lower speeds (as is normally the case when you're trying NOT to hit the towers).

However, planes have gotten bigger with time, and in the WTC crash the hijackers tried to make the impact as hard as possible. On some videos you could see parts of the planes and other debris fly straight through the (64meter) tower!! I do believe the plane crash envisioned in the design was the very ultimate load the tower should possibly withstand, therefore I was somewhat surprised that initially it seemed to do quite well under a substantially larger impact and explosion. I know that the nuclear power plant reactor buildings are designed to withstand midsize commercial liner crashes (like the ones envisioned in the WTC design) but that even the guarantee for this crashes isn't close to 100%. Jet fighter crashes (not accounting bombs) and small plane (up to 50 pers) it will quite certainly survive (where "survive" means staying airtight here!), medium airliners probably too, but nowadays large planes or multiple planes probably not. And these buildings are massive reinforced concrete domes. The impact of the planes into the WTC buildings was just so massive, that seeing the towers (partially) collapse very shortly after impact wouldn't have surprised me a lot.

My opinion is that the WTC proved to be a very strong design, and that it's eventual collapse shouldn't be used as critic on the WTC design, but as input for new designs which will be even safer. (I'm not talking about faults like not informing people that the roof wasn't accessible, but the main structural construction).

sarongsong
2004-Dec-14, 07:22 AM
Anybody see/remember Fox TV's The Lone Gunmen's "Pilot" Episode (http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/lonegunmen.html)?

russ_watters
2004-Dec-14, 01:33 PM
Anybody see/remember Fox TV's The Lone Gunmen's "Pilot" Episode (http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/lonegunmen.html)? Clancy's "Debt of Honor" ends with a 747 crashing into the Capital Building.

Kesh
2004-Dec-15, 04:15 AM
And Stephen King's "The Running Man" (book, not movie) ends with a man piloting a jumbo-jet into the side of a skyscraper.

Yeah, it's not a new concept. I was actually surprised it hadn't been attempted sooner, though I was quite shocked at the coordination and planning involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

That said... this thread is still off-topic for the board. ;)

sarongsong
2004-Dec-15, 04:46 AM
How do you figure?
"...BABBling is a forum for members to chit chat about various non-astronomy topics. I do strongly urge people to avoid contentious topics such as religion and politics. All other rules in the FAQ apply..."
The National Security Advisor (http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/002112.php), April 2004
"...No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon -- I'm paraphrasing now -- into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile..."
8-[

russ_watters
2004-Dec-15, 05:13 AM
What's your point, sarongsong?

sarongsong
2004-Dec-15, 06:52 AM
I just made it :roll:

pghnative
2004-Dec-15, 11:21 PM
Well I for one don't get it. You were either saying that

a) Kesh was wrong for saying that this thread violates the FAQ. I will prove this by quoting the FAQ about how we are strongly urged to avoid politics. Then I will remind everyone that the National Security Advisor has testified that no one anticipated terrorists using planes as missiles

or

b) The National Security Advisor should read Stephen King novels and adjust policy accordingly.

Or perhaps you were saying something else entirely -- please enlighten us.

Kesh
2004-Dec-15, 11:32 PM
Actually, this thread was in Against the Mainstream originally and, I believe, still was when I posted that. Now it's in BABBling.

Plus, yes, it's venturing towards the politics of the matter, rather than the conspiracy hoax. I think the hoax itself has been exhausted as a topic, unless someone comes up with more, so...

sarongsong
2004-Dec-16, 01:39 AM
"9-11 conspiracies" remains locked in Against the Mainstream since last January, as that forum is for astronomical themes only.
The NS Advisor said "No one could have anticipated...", BTW, according to the transcript.

russ_watters
2004-Dec-16, 02:12 PM
The NS Advisor said "No one could have anticipated...", BTW, according to the transcript. ....and that means what? You're making an insinuation: make a point.

Do you believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy?

russ_watters
2004-Dec-16, 02:14 PM
On a related note, the sky is blue.

Nicolas
2004-Dec-16, 02:16 PM
good point, though it is dark grey here :D

sarongsong
2004-Dec-16, 03:59 PM
The NS Advisor said "No one could have anticipated...", BTW, according to the transcript. ....and that means what? You're making an insinuation: make a point.

Do you believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy?
Well, I don't consider quoting the NS Advisor verbatim an insinuation. I'm disappointed in that statement, considering the position represented by its speaker and how easily it was just disproved. I have not reached a conclusion on your second question.
The sky is blue here also.

Captain Kidd
2004-Dec-16, 04:40 PM
Those were examples of fiction writers coming up with the ideas. Their very job is to be imaginative (some doing it far better than others). While I haven't worked with any threat analysists personally, from my experience I can see how certain people responsible for coming up with possible scenarios might not have thought of it even though fiction writers did years earlier or deciding it was too implausible to seriously consider. (Unfortunately I can see myself getting trapped in the box also.)

Also, this is a kind of Monday morning quarterbacking, should another attack, god forbid, happen using yet another unanticipated mechanism this same discussion will yet again ensure. You can't protect against every possible scenario as some are just too wild to imagine or you'll end up having to either so over-engineer the item that it's physically/economically unachieveable or it'll never get out of drafting as all of the what ifs bog it down.

tofu
2004-Dec-16, 04:54 PM
Well, I don't consider quoting the NS Advisor verbatim an insinuation.

That's because you don't understand what insinuation means.

Your point is that the NS advisor was a) incompetent and should have known in advance that 9-11 was going to happen, and b) is now lying to cover that incompetence.

It is an insinuation because you didn't just come right out and say it. Instead, you danced around it.

My response by the way, is that you are playing monday morning quarterback. It's easy to look at september 11th (or for that matter the Madrid bombings) and say, "they should have known!" It's much harder to say that on September 10th. You could get killed on your way home from work today. A car could lock its brakes on an icy road and plow right into you. I could then say, "sarongsong wasn't a good driver. He should have recognized the danger of icy roads." But that would be rather petty of me, and more importantly it would deflect blame from the person who actually killed you.

russ_watters
2004-Dec-16, 05:10 PM
Well, I don't consider quoting the NS Advisor verbatim an insinuation. From dictionary.com:

- insinuation: "an indirect (and usually malicious) implication"
- point: "A significant, outstanding, or effective idea, argument, or suggestion."

Since none of your recent posts contained statements, ideas, arguments, or suggestions of any kind from you (except where you stated that you made your point), none contain a point as to why you asked the question or why you posted those quotes. So we are left to guess as to why you asked the question and why you posted the quotes and asked the question. Given your historical leanings and the topic of this thread, it is logical to conclude you probably mean to imply something negative here.

So I ask you again: what is your point?

"We are more ready to try the untried when what we do is inconsequential. Hence the fact that many inventions had their birth as toys." -Eric Hoffer, 1902-1983

sts60
2004-Dec-16, 05:15 PM
As Captain Kidd pointed out, the fictional examples weren't much use to the passengers or crew, who all initially thought that these were the usual hijackings-for-hostages. Certainly a good number of those passengers had read The Running Man or Debt of Honor, neither of which involved a conspiracy to use commercial airliners full of passengers. But their reactions to the hijackings did not change according to those stories. Only the passengers on Flight 93 were able to get the intelligence as to what was going on and figure out the real story, then take action.

sarongsong
2004-Dec-16, 06:57 PM
...So we are left to guess as to why you asked the question...
I asked the question
Anybody see/remember Fox TV's The Lone Gunmen's "Pilot" Episode? because I did not catch that episode when it aired nor remember any publicity about it at the time. Simple as that. The only insinuations I see are not coming from me.

SciFi Chick
2004-Dec-16, 07:16 PM
...So we are left to guess as to why you asked the question...
I asked the question
Anybody see/remember Fox TV's The Lone Gunmen's "Pilot" Episode? because I did not catch that episode when it aired nor remember any publicity about it at the time. Simple as that. The only insinuations I see are not coming from me.

Yes, but if someone asks you to clarify a statement and you refuse, and you insist that it's perfectly clear, what are people supposed to do?

You were asked several times what your point was, and you refused to clarify. That leaves people no choice but to guess what you mean.

It makes me wonder at your motives, since the moment they do guess what you mean, you pounce on them and claim they are the ones insinuating. It almost seems like a setup.

sarongsong
2004-Dec-16, 08:46 PM
Motives...insinuations...Monday-morning quarterbacking---stick with the subject, please. Did anybody see or hear of "Pilot", or not?

pghnative
2004-Dec-16, 08:55 PM
[playing along] No, I didn't.

SciFi Chick
2004-Dec-16, 09:15 PM
Motives...insinuations...Monday-morning quarterbacking---stick with the subject, please. Did anybody see or hear of "Pilot", or not?

No. Why do you ask?

russ_watters
2004-Dec-16, 09:53 PM
...So we are left to guess as to why you asked the question...
I asked the question
Anybody see/remember Fox TV's The Lone Gunmen's "Pilot" Episode? because I did not catch that episode when it aired nor remember any publicity about it at the time. Simple as that. The only insinuations I see are not coming from me. And then you posted a quote and made no statement whatsoever about it. Is there a reason you posted the quote?

The polite thing to do when someone asks you to clarify your point is to clarify your point.

sarongsong
2004-Dec-16, 09:59 PM
Because the series (http://www.xfiles.stylicious.com/lonegunmen/index.php) (an X-Files spin-off) would seem to have been of interest, yet no one I know remembers it. Thanks for asking :wink:
(Here's that particular episode (http://www.xfiles.stylicious.com/lonegunmen/1aeb79.php), BTW.)

sarongsong
2004-Dec-16, 10:07 PM
(My above response was to SciFi Chick)

The polite thing to do when someone asks you to clarify your point is to clarify your point.
Okay, okay---the Empress wears no clothes!---is that clear enough?

pghnative
2004-Dec-16, 10:33 PM
Because the series (http://www.xfiles.stylicious.com/lonegunmen/index.php) (an X-Files spin-off) would seem to have been of interest, yet no one I know remembers it. Thanks for asking :wink:
(Here's that particular episode (http://www.xfiles.stylicious.com/lonegunmen/1aeb79.php), BTW.)


(My above response was to SciFi Chick)

The polite thing to do when someone asks you to clarify your point is to clarify your point.
Okay, okay---the Empress wears no clothes!---is that clear enough?

Well, we have at least three fictional accounts of terrorists crashing airliners. Perhaps I'm obtuse, but I still don't see what your point is.

Is it:

a) Fiction writers thought of it, so therefore the NS Advisor lied in stating (and I paraphrase) that no one could have anticipated such an attack?

b) because fiction writers thought of it, the NSA, CIA, FBI, et al, should have anticipated it?

c) something else entirely different???