PDA

View Full Version : 911: The Black Boxes



Pages : [1] 2

mutineer
2005-Feb-01, 01:10 AM
I have had an interest in history that goes back a long time. One of the things I have learned is that it has often taken a long time for the truth to emerge – and the main reason has lain with powerful interests that preferred to obscure the facts. There are World War II files at the Public Records Office in Kew marked “Not to be opened before 2045”. When they are opened, history will change – just as it did when the truth about the Enigma code breakers was revealed, decades after the war was over. However, the truth about many things may never be known. (What became of Kurt Maass?)

I believe conspiracies happen. No! I know they happen. I know that kids in different countries are fed entirely different versions of historical facts. I even half believe that there’s a conspiracy to undermine conspiracy theories by promoting really silly ones. Hoagland is doing a favour to some really powerful interests!

A couple of months ago, Ian Goddard introduced a thread with the sentence: “There exists a popular conspiracy theory claiming that the Pentagon was struck by something other than Flight 77 on Sept 11.” That is pretty easy to debunk – and it was pretty clear from some of the posts that followed that every other conspiracy theory involving 9/11 was viewed with contempt.

There’s quite a lot of stuff about 9/11 on the web that I find difficult to evaluate. But there is one thing above all others that arouses my suspicion. Other BABBers may have more knowledge than I do. (I last worked in the aircraft industry in 1973!)

I refer to the failure to discover the black boxes from either of the planes that flew into the WTC. You see, in contrast to the complexities, connections, suppositions, and possible coincidences involved in other matters that give rise to suspicion, this is a simple matter involving relatively few variables.

Well, what do I know? The Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder are located in the rear of an aircraft where impact damage is likely to be least. They are designed to withstand shock of enormous G forces, and to survive in extremely high temperatures for an extended period of time. They will also survive extreme high pressure.

What do I think I know, but you may know more than me? The boxes are usually located a few feet apart, increasing the probability of one or other of them surviving. They are almost always recovered, and very rarely damaged to the point of uselessness. The rare cases where they are not found tend to be where wreckage was scattered over an extended area of seabed.

What do I want to know? How often, when an aircraft has crashed into a surface land object, has there been a failure to find even a trace of either black box? What was the chance of any one of the four black boxes at the WTC being subjected to the prolonged high temperature conditions that would have entirely vaporised it?

What don’t I give a damn about (at least for the present)? The fact that there are supposed eye-witnesses to the discovery of the black boxes. Why they have been spirited away.

Enzp
2005-Feb-01, 02:38 AM
They usually find them because planes usually crash in the open.

If I put one dime in a gallon jar full of pennies and then spill it on the patio, chances are good I will find the dime. If however I take my jar up in a helicopter and dump it over a landfill, I theoretically could still find it, but probably will not.

Those black boxes and everything else were in a huge multithousand ton heap of debris. They hauled it away by the truckload, but no one went through every speck of debris. Of the thousands of dumptruck loads of debris, which ones might have held the boxes?

sarongsong
2005-Feb-01, 02:45 AM
"...FLIGHT DATA RECORDER
Time recorded: 25 hour continuous
Number of parameters: 5 - 300+
Impact tolerance: 3400Gs /6.5ms
Fire resistance: 1100 degC/30 min
Water pressure resistance: submerged 20,000 ft
Underwater locator beacon: 37.5 KHz
Battery: 6yr shelf life 30 day operation..."
The Black Boxes (http://www.themedianews.com/DAGGER/Front%20Page/9-11_black_boxes_.htm)

jamestox
2005-Feb-01, 03:33 AM
I imagine both the CVR and FDR were found at the WTC sites and Pentagon. During the recovery, there were people assigned to go through almost all the debris - to the point of finding wristwatches, wallets, and other small personal objects that might be clues as to victims' identies. Whether the CVR and FDR data were usable is anyone's guess at this point. The investigation is still officially open, so whatever data has been recovered is sealed until the case is closed. I think CVR transcripts for the Pennsylvania crash and the comm transcripts between the New York aircraft and ATC have been released, but I'm not sure.

Kesh
2005-Feb-01, 06:29 AM
There are various and sundry people all claiming to have 'seen' the black boxes from the WTC disaster. At least one guy has gained prominence, as he was one of the people helping to clear the debris, and his claims that "FBI agents removed them from the scene immediately" sets off every happy alarm bell for conspiracy believers.

The trouble is, every one of these people claim to be the only ones who know "the truth" and are willing to speak out about it. That there are conflicting stories isn't too surprising.

Is it possible that one of these stories is true? Yes. However, there's no corroborating evidence, so we may never know.

What annoys me are the people who claim that the government either a) blew up the buildings intentionally, while the rescue personnel were inside, b) intentionally flew the planes in themselves, and faked all the other evidence (including phone calls to the ground!), or c) did one of the above, while photos "clearly" show alien craft trying to save people from the towers. #-o

One of the favorites on GLP is a bit of video showing what's obviously a piece of debris flapping in the air, but everyone claims it's a woman waving for help. This always segues into the "US government killed innocent people so we could blame third-world nations and take their oil" nutjob theories.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-01, 06:47 AM
...The investigation is still officially open, so whatever data has been recovered is sealed until the case is closed...
March 6, 2002
"...the concurrent criminal investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a separate investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board further frustrated the building performance investigators..In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA] BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris – including most of the steel from the upper floors – was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S..."
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/charter.htm

beskeptical
2005-Feb-01, 09:59 AM
I looked at several sites on the net and found:

Thursday September 13 7:19 PM ET
© Reuters / By David Morgan
Flight Data Recorder Found at Pennsylvania Crash Site (http://www.september11news.com/Flight93.htm)

SHANKSVILLE, Pa. (Reuters) - A search crew found the flight data recorder on Thursday from the hijacked
United Airlines plane that crashed in Pennsylvania after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon, raising hopes of important new clues to what happened aboard the Boeing 757.

The so-called black box, which was quickly transported to the National Transportation Safety Board in
Washington for analysis, could shed light on what happened aboard San Francisco-bound Flight 93 before
it crashed on Tuesday near a wooded area 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.
as well as a thread on snopes (http://www.snopes.com/message/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/43/t/000815/p/1.html#000011) where a person who seems to have worked at the Pentagon said the boxes were found there as well.

I remember the news report on the PA cockpit recorder.

It is not surprising the WTC plane boxes weren't found if they weren't considering the forces involved in the crushing towers. There were lots of bodies that just did not exist either, they were so completely crushed.

One site (http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=941) said some firefighter saw 3 of the 4 boxes recovered but the FDNY department spokesperson said no. The NTSB site says all investigating was turned over to the FBI.

I just see nothing here folks. What conspiracy is there here? Sorry but it's absurd.

Jason Thompson
2005-Feb-01, 12:02 PM
What don’t I give a damn about (at least for the present)? The fact that there are supposed eye-witnesses to the discovery of the black boxes. Why they have been spirited away.

With all due respect, why do you not give a damn about eyewitness testimony? It's a critical aspect of any investigation to uncover the truth, which you claim is your intention.

If they have been found then the FBI would have secured them as relevant and invaluable evidence. That would be where they are now. Why is this considered odd? Forensic scientists on a murder scene quickly bag up virtually everything in the room and take it off to a lab before anyone can taint it. Why should FBI investigators on 9/11 not be doing the same thing for their investigation?

captain swoop
2005-Feb-01, 01:25 PM
Your seem to be implying that there is something to hide on the flight recorders. Are you saying they have been spiritited away by the FBI to cover up some kind of Govt involvment?
If not I don't see what you are getting at.

jamestox
2005-Feb-01, 04:00 PM
The hijacking/intentional crashings of the 9/11 aircraft pose an unusual situation for postcrash investigation; not only is the NTSB (primary investigators for an airliner crash/accident) involved, but by necessity, so would the FBI (criminal activity resulting in massive death/destruction). NTSB would be primarily responsible for recovering whatever useful data the CVR and FDR contained, the FBI would be involved in "securing" the data as criminal evidence, and BOTH agencies would have to maintain a strict "chain of custody" on the recorders AND data until the investigation is officially ended.

To my knowledge the NTSB's current report status on all four aircraft "crashes" is preliminary, which means that the investigation is still ongoing. The final report will be issued when the investigation has officially been closed.

My guess is that the investigation is being held open so possible criminal indictments can be processed on organizations/individuals closely associated with - or giving support to - the hijackers, either personally, "professionally", or financially. The number of "charitable organizations," individuals, and bank accounts that have been arrested, seized or "frozen" since the attack would tend to bear this out. In other words, the system is working, just not at a very high visibility. Truthfully, it may be years before the investigation is officially closed - in the meantime, the evidence remains "secured."

mutineer
2005-Feb-01, 04:05 PM
sarongsong, thanks for your information. I found similar info about black boxes. They are impressively tough pieces of equipment, and I believe they have survived in cases where most of the fabric of an aircraft has been utterly destroyed and the body of the pilot vaporized.


With all due respect, why do you not give a damn about eyewitness testimony?
Well, Kesh has already answered that one for me:

There are various and sundry people all claiming to have 'seen' the black boxes from the WTC disaster. At least one guy has gained prominence, as he was one of the people helping to clear the debris, and his claims that "FBI agents removed them from the scene immediately" sets off every happy alarm bell for conspiracy believers.

The trouble is, every one of these people claim to be the only ones who know "the truth" and are willing to speak out about it. That there are conflicting stories isn't too surprising.
I have an open mind about conspiracy (or about the hiding of information, if you prefer), but I would not like to place much trust in the evidence of people presenting themselves as eye-witnesses.


One site said some firefighter saw 3 of the 4 boxes recovered but the FDNY department spokesperson said no.
The FDNY denial is my own source of information. I understood this to be both the “official” version of events and the received wisdom as to how the matter stood. The American public has been given to understand that the black boxes were not found. No higher authority than the FDNY has spoken out to correct this impression.

Well, on the one hand I have beskeptical expressing the view that

It is not surprising the WTC plane boxes weren't found if they weren't considering the forces involved in the crushing towers.
On the other hand, there is Jason Thompson suggesting that there would be nothing odd about the FBI having the boxes and saying nothing about it. I presume he thinks they would have handed the information over to the NTSB, who are therefore being equally tight-lipped. I don’t know what to make of this suggestion, but welcome the thoughts of others.


Your seem to be implying that there is something to hide on the flight recorders. Are you saying they have been spiritited away by the FBI to cover up some kind of Govt involvment?
No. I am saying, let us entirely abstract ourselves from any such concerns for the present, and simply discover whether the vapourizing of all four black boxes at WTC was a likely circumstance. Here are some reasons why it is seems unlikely:
1: Black boxes have a good survivability record.
2: All four of the black boxes needed to have been right at the centre of the inferno to have been vaporized.
3: Artefacts (even passports) from the interiors of both aircraft did survive the inferno.
4: Commentators at the time, fully cognisant of the degree of destruction, spoke or wrote of the expected recovery of the boxes.
Some BABBers have shown themselves knowledgeable about various aspects of the aircraft industry in past threads, it may be that they have knowledge or insights that elude a non-expect like myself. Someone may know something of the temperatures generated in the inferno relative to the survival specification of the boxes. I am hoping someone might have one or two hard facts, rather than speculation, that I can add to my store of knowledge.

Then I’ll take care of the speculating on my own! :D

captain swoop
2005-Feb-01, 04:25 PM
Paper and passports survivew because paper and passports are just that, paper. Paper tends to float away, metal boxes attached to an aircraft embedded in a building would tend to stay in the building.

Nicolas
2005-Feb-01, 04:35 PM
..or be crushed by tens of floors of skyscraper, made unrecognisable by deformation, fire, dust and some thousands tons of other debris next to it.

If some of the boxes are found, it still is a question whether the tapes can be read. Once the box is cracked and severe heat gets in, nothing is left of the data. There is a chance the boxes survived and were found of course, though I wouldn't say it was a 100% chance.

Nicolas
2005-Feb-01, 04:39 PM
Added to that, I don't believe in a conspiracy. The "evidence" from the video "analysis" on several websites is ridiculous. The damage to the pentagon can also be explained without having to use "holographic projections and missiles" or things like that. Apart from the lack of evidence, I see no reason to do a thing like that (whether that be a moral reason or not). If they wanted to "create" a reason for war, they could have made a political coup or something like that. And wouldn't Al Qaida be screaming that they are innocent?

beskeptical
2005-Feb-01, 07:23 PM
...
To my knowledge the NTSB's current report status on all four aircraft "crashes" is preliminary, which means that the investigation is still ongoing. The final report will be issued when the investigation has officially been closed.

...Actually, the NTSB site says they won't be issuing a report, it's all in the FBI's realm now. But that doesn't change the non-event conspiracy hype, IE there is no reason to see this as odd.


The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and this material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.

All four crash reports say the same thing. Put in 09/11/2001 on both dates in the search query (mid page) and hit enter. (http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/query.asp)

beskeptical
2005-Feb-01, 07:44 PM
....
No. I am saying, let us entirely abstract ourselves from any such concerns for the present, and simply discover whether the vapourizing of all four black boxes at WTC was a likely circumstance. Here are some reasons why it is seems unlikely:
1: Black boxes have a good survivability record.
2: All four of the black boxes needed to have been right at the centre of the inferno to have been vaporized.
3: Artefacts (even passports) from the interiors of both aircraft did survive the inferno.
4: Commentators at the time, fully cognisant of the degree of destruction, spoke or wrote of the expected recovery of the boxes.
.... I am hoping someone might have one or two hard facts, rather than speculation, that I can add to my store of knowledge.

Then I’ll take care of the speculating on my own! :DRe #1: What other boxes were recovered from the same circumstances? The assumption you are making isn't valid.

Re #2: And you know this because?

Re #3: Those artifacts you speak of were loose and could have been ejected out in all directions. I believe there was at least one body recovered, that of a stewardess. For all I know they recovered more. But in the collapsing towers there was a tremendous force. I was totally amazed at the dust size particulates that remained of many many things in those towers. The fact some things escaped the pulverizing does not mean everything would have escaped.

Have you tried to calculate the force needed to pulverize a black box vs the forces generated in the collapse? How about the force of the towers' collapse vs. the force of a typical jet crash? I'm sure you could find that info somewhere on the net if you looked hard enough. I'm not going to bother as I have no conspiracy concerns other than the one we know about, al Qaeda.

Re #4:Oh ya, like 'commentators' knew what the tower collapse forces would be off the top of their heads. :roll:

Cougar
2005-Feb-01, 08:23 PM
"...FLIGHT DATA RECORDER
...Fire resistance: 1100 degC/30 min...
It is my unstudied understanding that the towers collapsed because the steel columns in the area of the crashes degraded from the extreme heat. Most steel melts at around 1370C. I expect everything on the crash floor and nearby floors was pretty much vaporized within 10 or 20 minutes.

ktesibios
2005-Feb-01, 08:27 PM
I don't quite understand what the relevance of the flight data recorder data would be. The FDRs record technical information like control inputs and instrument readings to help in sorting out the causes of an accident. This isn't a case where it's necessary to figure out why the planes crashed; there's plenty of reason to infer that they were under control and flown deliberately into the buildings. What would be the gain in having a record of the hijacker-pilot's technique?

The time interval between the hijackings and the crashes were approximately 30 minutes for AA11, 16 to 21 minutes for UA175 and 43 to 46 minutes for AA77, so it's possible that in the first two cases the cockpit voice recorders could have shed some light on the hijackings themselves (CVRs, IIRC, record in a 30-minute loop, with the recording at any given instant erasing the recording from 30 minutes previously). The CVR and FDR from UA93 were recovered and the CVR did contain an audio record of the hijacking.

The thing is, airphone and cell phone calls from people on all four flights provided quite a bit of information about the hijackings, so once again it's hard to see how the "black boxes" would do more than to fill in some of the details.

All in all, it seems to me that raising a hue and cry because the recorders weren't found after having been mixed in the wreckage of two giant buildings is basically a red herring.

jamestox
2005-Feb-01, 09:20 PM
I think the issue is that the conspiracy-seeker will look for any perceived (to him, anyway) departure from what he/she would consider the "norm" on the investigation and "run with it" regardless of any additional solid fact or evidence.

"It wasn't an airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, but a guided missile - where are the airliner's wings??"

Never mind that many eyewitnesses said it was an airliner....
Disregard the notion that debris consistant with an airliner was in the impact area....
And that fire that smelled like Jet-A that burned for so long (obviously some sort of advanced thermal explosive....)
What about KNOWN passengers aboard that flight....

"The WTF attacks are SUSPICIOUS - the 'black boxes' were never found/destroyed/taken away by the FBI/NTSB/the 'Greys'/Mamma O'Leary's Cow...."

Like the "Apollo Hoaxers," these people can't let facts get in the way of a good story.

mutineer
2005-Feb-01, 09:33 PM
OK, I am not sure where we go from here because I had taken it as a fact that the American public had been informed that the WTC black boxes had not been found. As indeed they were told, so far as I can tell, by the FDNY. I thought it was that simple. OFFICIAL: Black Boxes not found. Not a thing I had to dig deep on.

There’s not usually any problem telling the public about the discovery of black boxes. As regards the Washington attack, I understand the Pentagon quickly announced that the boxes had been found and the FBI had taken possession. As regards other major terrorist-related incidents such as Lockerbie (PanAm 103), a straight-forward announcement as soon as the boxes were recovered. The Press want to know; it is something within the understanding of the general public; and yet Jason Thompson and jamestox are both happy to believe that the FBI have the boxes but will not announce the fact until they make their final report – and they are not regarded as having deceived the public through failing to correct the belief that the boxes were not found.

From this side of the pond, I just find that VERY ODD!

So is this the consensus of opinion? “No problem if you don’t think conditions at the WTC would have vaporised all the black boxes out of existence, mutineer. The FDNY statement doesn’t amount to anything anyway.”

Or is the consensus that there’s no way the boxes would have survived, as others argue?

Or is the main thing that YOU ARE WRONG, mutineer!!! :evil: :evil: :evil:

Doodler
2005-Feb-01, 10:01 PM
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020123X00104&key=1

Thats from the NTSB website, the official report listed for one of the Twin Tower planes. They provided tech support to the FBI during the inestigation, but it wasn't their baby. The FBI's website will take a bit more to work something out of. Needless to say, if its critical evidence, they aren't obligated to say anything to anyone if they think it could compromise the integrity of an investigation.

jamestox
2005-Feb-01, 10:02 PM
There’s not usually any problem telling the public about the discovery of black boxes. As regards the Washington attack, I understand the Pentagon quickly announced that the boxes had been found and the FBI had taken possession. As regards other major terrorist-related incidents such as Lockerbie (PanAm 103), a straight-forward announcement as soon as the boxes were recovered. The Press want to know; it is something within the understanding of the general public; and yet Jason Thompson and jamestox are both happy to believe that the FBI have the boxes but will not announce the fact until they make their final report – and they are not regarded as having deceived the public through failing to correct the belief that the boxes were not found. Indeed, usually there isn't a problem with announcing the discovery of the FDR & CVR, and in both of your examples presented, (Pentagon and Lockerbie) the recorders were found and useful data were downloaded. However, in the case of the WTC attacks, where nearly 3000 people were killed, we're faced with an extraordinary problem: despite having entered the top third of the skyscrapers, both aircraft were completely destroyed by impact, fire, and finally crushing from the collapse of the buildings. The recorders are rated for 3400G impacts, and 30 minutes in a 1000 degree fire - protected by the same insulation technology used on the Shuttle Orbiter. If they survived at all, what additional information could they tell us? We already know through secondary evidence of how many and who the hijackers were; we know where the aircraft came from, we have eyewitnesses that saw the attacks - we even have video from personal camcorders. But the recorders are still evidence, as much as any surviving 'boxcutter' with Mohammad Atta's fingerprints on it. Until the investigation is officially closed, such evidence - should the recorders have survived - is secured.
In a postcrash investigation, the NTSB is the primary investigational organization - it is the NTSB labs that recovers the data from the recorders. In this case, the FBI are involved in the investigation because of the criminal nature of the crashes.

From this side of the pond, I just find that VERY ODD!
So is this the consensus of opinion? “No problem if you don’t think conditions at the WTC would have vaporised all the black boxes out of existence, mutineer. The FDNY statement doesn’t amount to anything anyway.”
Or is the consensus that there’s no way the boxes would have survived, as others argue?
Or is the main thing that YOU ARE WRONG, mutineer!!! :evil: :evil: :evil:

My point is that it doesn't much matter whether the recorders from any of the 9/11 attacks survived; they would've added more evidence if they all had, but there were secondary sources of evidence that named the perpetrators anyway that turned up in old-fashioned detective work.

paulie jay
2005-Feb-01, 10:36 PM
Quite frankly I don't think that the public has the right to hear these tapes (if they did survive) anyway. How would you like the last moments of your husband/wife/son/daughter's life broadcast over the airwaves for people to to goggle at? I know I wouldn't like it. [-X

Doodler
2005-Feb-01, 10:40 PM
Quite frankly I don't think that the public has the right to hear these tapes (if they did survive) anyway. How would you like the last moments of your husband/wife/son/daughter's life broadcast over the airwaves for people to to goggle at? I know I wouldn't like it. [-X

Those data recorders wouldn't have that. They would have the crew's words and the telemetry of the plane itself. There are no microphones in the passenger cabin.

FYI, some 911 calls from cellphones were released eventually, so its not like its never been done before.

paulie jay
2005-Feb-01, 10:49 PM
Yes, but are the pilots not still somebody's father/husband/son/brother etc....??

Doodler
2005-Feb-01, 10:53 PM
Yes, but are the pilots not still somebody's father/husband/son/brother etc....??

That's a call for the families to make. Some of them will allow it, some won't. Personally, I am curious. Does that make me some kind of monster?

paulie jay
2005-Feb-01, 10:57 PM
I'm not saying that. I just don't think that it's a right of the general public to be entitled to listen to it, that's all.

Van Rijn
2005-Feb-01, 11:49 PM
So is this the consensus of opinion? “No problem if you don’t think conditions at the WTC would have vaporised all the black boxes out of existence, mutineer. The FDNY statement doesn’t amount to anything anyway.”

Or is the consensus that there’s no way the boxes would have survived, as others argue?


Just curious - why do you focus on the boxes vaporizing as the only reason we wouldn't find them? I don't have enough knowledge myself to evaluate the various reasons they may or may not have been found, but it is clearly far more complex than that.

The WTC buildings themselves were thought to be able to survive this impact - and they did, for awhile. The problem was that the impact had torn the heat insulation off the remaining metal support, and the heat from the fire softened the metal. The black boxes had to face the initial impact AND the initial fire AND being buried in the small mountain of debris that destroyed subsurface structures and several surounding buildings AND the smoldering fire that went on for days. By chance they might have ended up somewhere where they wouldn't be destroyed and could be found, but on the other hand, I don't find it too hard to believe they could have been crushed beyond recognition. I don't assume they were vaporized, but I don't see that as an issue.

jamestox
2005-Feb-02, 01:56 AM
I'm not saying that. I just don't think that it's a right of the general public to be entitled to listen to it, that's all.

One notable exception to the 9-11 CVR "blackout" is the Pennsylvania crash of United flight 93; families of the passengers and crew were invited to listen to the audio and view an overhead projection transcript of the airliner's CVR. (http://www.alpa.org/alpa/DesktopModules/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentId=338) The FBI took great pains to ensure the families' privacy in the matter, and the transcript has not been made public.

Musashi
2005-Feb-02, 02:04 AM
You can listen to the ATC tape of flight 93, however.

Also, there are CVR tapes and transcripts available for quite a few flights, if anyone is interested (and ATC tapes too).

Fortis
2005-Feb-02, 02:27 AM
"...FLIGHT DATA RECORDER
...Fire resistance: 1100 degC/30 min...
It is my unstudied understanding that the towers collapsed because the steel columns in the area of the crashes degraded from the extreme heat. Most steel melts at around 1370C. I expect everything on the crash floor and nearby floors was pretty much vaporized within 10 or 20 minutes.
I think (and I remember looking it up somewhere once) that steel rapidly loses its structural strength quite a bit below the melting point. (There was a guy using the melting point of steel to argue that there must have been demolition charges as the fire wouldn't have been as hot as this.) Even so, the flight recorders were going experience pretty extreme conditions.

People use the absence of the flight recorders as evidence of the "conspiracy", but don't seem to consider that a conspiracy as great as they hypothesise should be able to fake up a few flight recorders ahead of time.

Musashi
2005-Feb-02, 02:32 AM
Eutitic mixture (or something like that). Jay has been talking about it on and off at Apollohoax for a year or so.

kanathan
2005-Feb-02, 02:49 AM
If I'm not mistaken, pilots can turn off the flight recorders. If the government really was in a conspiracy, couldn't they have just told the hijackers to turn the recorders off? They wouldn't have to worry about hiding the black boxes, and it's not a huge stretch to think that terrorists would want to turn the recorders off. I recall that before we recovered the two black boxes, there were some people who were actually concerned that the terrorists had turned off the recorders in flight.

beskeptical
2005-Feb-02, 03:54 AM
......
From this side of the pond, I just find that VERY ODD!

So is this the consensus of opinion? “No problem if you don’t think conditions at the WTC would have vaporised all the black boxes out of existence, mutineer. The FDNY statement doesn’t amount to anything anyway.”

Or is the consensus that there’s no way the boxes would have survived, as others argue?

Or is the main thing that YOU ARE WRONG, mutineer!!! :evil: :evil: :evil:Now I resent this a tad. I went to the trouble to address your points one by one. Instead of a reply, it sounds like you are claiming a personal attack rather than a disagreement on the issues.

So start with replying to my points if you will.

I(we) don't find the status of the black boxes suspicious one way or the other, given the enormous amount of information available about the attacks. Just what is it you think is or is potentially being hidden? And besides the speculation about why there are no boxes, (from the WTC anyway), what other tiny shred of evidence supports any information is being covered up as you imply?

In other words, what conspiracy scenario could this seemingly irrelevant piece of information represent given the mountain of other evidence available?

skrap1r0n
2005-Feb-02, 04:06 AM
the black boxes were whisked away by <NTSB/FBI/CIA>

well, what else would they do with them? hang out with them? Take them to dinner?

sarongsong
2005-Feb-02, 04:11 AM
...what conspiracy scenario could this seemingly irrelevant piece of information represent given the mountain of other evidence available?
That the cockpit pilots were not controlling the 2 planes.

Sammy
2005-Feb-02, 04:29 AM
...what conspiracy scenario could this seemingly irrelevant piece of information represent given the mountain of other evidence available?
That the cockpit pilots were not controlling the 2 planes.

Based on everything that we known, the planes were controlled by the hijackers, not the crew.

Are you intimating that flight was under some kind of remote control?

sarongsong
2005-Feb-02, 04:58 AM
She asked for "what conspiracy scenario". By cockpit pilots, I mean whoever was sitting in the pilot seats at the time of impact.

beskeptical
2005-Feb-02, 09:02 AM
She asked for "what conspiracy scenario". By cockpit pilots, I mean whoever was sitting in the pilot seats at the time of impact.I don't get it, sarongsong? You'll have to fill in the scenario a bit more.

The recordings show there really weren't any hijackers? Well since a lot of passengers called people on cell phones, that's not likely.

There were hijackers but they really didn't want to crash the planes? Well the boxes were recovered from the PA flight and according to the posts here, the FBI allowed family members to listen to them.

If you want to realistically speculate on some secret conspiracy, there can't be hundreds of people involved. In the case of these 4 planes, there are hundreds of family members. Where would they get all these people and how would they keep each and every one from selling their story to the tabloids or calling their congress person to expose the thing?

You really do have to consider the real world vs the TV world here. X-files conspiracies just don't succeed in the real world. If the government were that competent, I think we'd know about it. :P

Nicolas
2005-Feb-02, 09:48 AM
1)
If I'm not mistaken, pilots can turn off the flight recorders. If the government really was in a conspiracy, couldn't they have just told the hijackers to turn the recorders off? They wouldn't have to worry about hiding the black boxes, and it's not a huge stretch to think that terrorists would want to turn the recorders off. I recall that before we recovered the two black boxes, there were some people who were actually concerned that the terrorists had turned off the recorders in flight.

It is my believe they surely can't switch off all black boxes, like instrument readings. Maybe they can switch off the microphones during cruise, but I have doubts about that. I'd have to look that one up. But switching off instruments seems really weird to me, why would they?

2)
The WTC buildings themselves were thought to be able to survive this impact - and they did, for awhile.

As far as I understood from the other 9/11 thread, the WTC towers were calculated to withstand a (70's) medium sized commercial jet having an emergency crash into the towers, but not a 21st century larger jet, topped with fuel, flying as fast and as hard as possible into the towers. That used to be an unrealistic scenario...

3)
I think (and I remember looking it up somewhere once) that steel rapidly loses its structural strength quite a bit below the melting point. (There was a guy using the melting point of steel to argue that there must have been demolition charges as the fire wouldn't have been as hot as this.) Even so, the flight recorders were going experience pretty extreme conditions.

Thath is true, steel gets soft before its melting point, hence looses it's structural strength. As for the black boxes: first they had a really massive impact. Then they were laying in an inferno, (supposed they didn't leave the building), hence loosing strength (if not being destroyed already due to cracks). Then, they were crushed once again, after which teh inferno continued. I'm not saying they definately got destroyed, but this definately is beyond the design limits of the boxes. I give them only a small chance to have survived with readable info. And indeed, what extra important info could they give?

points 1 and 2 are addressed from memory, please correct where needed..

captain swoop
2005-Feb-02, 11:23 AM
It's one of the main 9/11 conspiracy 'theories' that the jets didn't contain hijackers and they were taken over and controled remotely by [insert your fave acronym here].

Some add in the Hijackers were there but couldn't fly, others that the planes were empty and the phone calls are all fake.

Anyway the cockpit voice recordings would reveal that the crew weren't in control at the time of the crash.

Nicolas
2005-Feb-02, 12:34 PM
It's one of the main 9/11 conspiracy 'theories' that the jets didn't contain hijackers and they were taken over and controled remotely by [insert your fave acronym here].

Some add in the Hijackers were there but couldn't fly, others that the planes were empty and the phone calls are all fake.

Anyway the cockpit voice recordings would reveal that the crew weren't in control at the time of the crash.

"crew" meaning pilots or hijackers? Because if you mean pilots, then the real (as I shall refer to the common story :)) story confirms that...

Swift
2005-Feb-02, 01:45 PM
It's one of the main 9/11 conspiracy 'theories' that the jets didn't contain hijackers and they were taken over and controled remotely by [insert your fave acronym here].

Some add in the Hijackers were there but couldn't fly, others that the planes were empty and the phone calls are all fake.

Anyway the cockpit voice recordings would reveal that the crew weren't in control at the time of the crash.
Of course, the next question is why?

I'm going to guess one idea was so evil George Bush would have an "excuse" to invade Afganistan and Iraq. I'm not trying to get this locked for politics, but I don't think Bush needed the excuse. Again, real world versus TV world.

What are the other crazy ideas for why?

Waarthog
2005-Feb-02, 05:32 PM
If I'm not mistaken, pilots can turn off the flight recorders.

Thay can't turn them off. A while back they could is erase the tape. But only on the ground as the erase mechanism is tied to a squat switch in the landing gear. This was to protect the crews privacy when nothing had gone wrong. I do not know if this is still possible.

As to the recorders being destroyed, look at the pictures of the WTC rubble. There are hardly any identifiable artifacts you would otherwise find in such an office structure. They were destroyed by the tremendous forces that came into play during the collapse. Flight recorders are built to be very robust but are still not indestructible. For them to have been pounded into unrecognizability like most of the rest of the things (including people) is not a stretch by any means.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-02, 09:10 PM
As to the recorders being destroyed, look at the pictures of the WTC rubble. There are hardly any identifiable artifacts you would otherwise find in such an office structure. They were destroyed by the tremendous forces that came into play during the collapse. Flight recorders are built to be very robust but are still not indestructible. For them to have been pounded into unrecognizability like most of the rest of the things (including people) is not a stretch by any means.
There must be someone on this board who would have an idea how to calculate those forces. Unfortunately, that person is not me. But I think I remember from somewhere that the mass of each tower was around 500 million kg. And I also think I heard that the speed of the collapse was close to free fall. Even to an ignorant layman such as me, this suggests forces far beyond the kind of events the black boxes were designed for.

Swift
2005-Feb-02, 09:34 PM
As to the recorders being destroyed, look at the pictures of the WTC rubble. There are hardly any identifiable artifacts you would otherwise find in such an office structure. They were destroyed by the tremendous forces that came into play during the collapse. Flight recorders are built to be very robust but are still not indestructible. For them to have been pounded into unrecognizability like most of the rest of the things (including people) is not a stretch by any means.
There must be someone on this board who would have an idea how to calculate those forces. Unfortunately, that person is not me. But I think I remember from somewhere that the mass of each tower was around 500 million kg. And I also think I heard that the speed of the collapse was close to free fall. Even to an ignorant layman such as me, this suggests forces far beyond the kind of events the black boxes were designed for.
IIRC, the towers collapsed as the floor supports on the floors where the planes and fire were, softened, that floor fell as basically a single sheet, landed on the floor below, that floor failed from the combined weight, etc. So even if the planes' recorders were sitting completely undamaged on the floor where the plane hit, I would guess that they were smashed flat like the filling in a sandwich.

Doodler
2005-Feb-02, 09:48 PM
2)
The WTC buildings themselves were thought to be able to survive this impact - and they did, for awhile.

As far as I understood from the other 9/11 thread, the WTC towers were calculated to withstand a (70's) medium sized commercial jet having an emergency crash into the towers, but not a 21st century larger jet, topped with fuel, flying as fast and as hard as possible into the towers. That used to be an unrealistic scenario...


Actually, they were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the Boeing 757 and 767 that hit the towers was not substantially larger than the 707. Had it not been for the fires, those towers would not have collapsed. Sprinkler failure allowed the building's structure to be exposed to heat long enough to soften the steel (not melt it, you don't have to melt steel to compromise its structural capacity) that the added weight of the destroyed planes overloaded it and collapsed them. (think about it, you think the 30 or so tons of material that was the plane just up and vanished because they were shredded? That's a LOT of live dynamic load added to the structure)

And the scenario isn't as unlikely as you think. The Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 at one point, so the WTC towers were designed with the unthinkable (at the time) in mind.

Doodler
2005-Feb-02, 09:49 PM
Stupid internet connection, this was a double post, if the BA would care to remove this one. Sorry guys.

Nicolas
2005-Feb-02, 10:08 PM
2)
The WTC buildings themselves were thought to be able to survive this impact - and they did, for awhile.

As far as I understood from the other 9/11 thread, the WTC towers were calculated to withstand a (70's) medium sized commercial jet having an emergency crash into the towers, but not a 21st century larger jet, topped with fuel, flying as fast and as hard as possible into the towers. That used to be an unrealistic scenario...


Actually, they were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the Boeing 757 and 767 that hit the towers was not substantially larger than the 707. Had it not been for the fires, those towers would not have collapsed. Sprinkler failure allowed the building's structure to be exposed to heat long enough to soften the steel (not melt it, you don't have to melt steel to compromise its structural capacity) that the added weight of the destroyed planes overloaded it and collapsed them. (think about it, you think the 30 or so tons of material that was the plane just up and vanished because they were shredded? That's a LOT of live dynamic load added to the structure)

And the scenario isn't as unlikely as you think. The Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 at one point, so the WTC towers were designed with the unthinkable (at the time) in mind.

The unthinkable scenario I referred to was the terrorist making the planes hit as hard as possible into the towers, instead of doing everything they can to avoid them or minimize speed.
The 707 is comparable to the 767 indeed. I did not knwo it was designed for a 707. Well, the impact resistance proved it could handle the dynamic load itself (which is amazing IMO). The B25 is a whole other story however (much lighter, slower plane, flying slow through fog and with little fuel due to already being in landing approach). These things were discussed in the earlier 9/11 thread.

Steel indeed weakens under the melting point already (I thought I posted that myself? :)) How come did the sprinkler installations in both towers not work? due to the impact I can imagine, but were they shut down or something?

Kebsis
2005-Feb-02, 10:11 PM
I don't think the videos of 'Ground Zero' really did the scope of the rubble justice. You had to see it in person to understand the vast amount of crap that had to be dug through. Finding black boxes in that would be like finding a crushed pea in a haystack.

Doodler
2005-Feb-02, 10:49 PM
Steel indeed weakens under the melting point already (I thought I posted that myself? :)) How come did the sprinkler installations in both towers not work? due to the impact I can imagine, but were they shut down or something?

Yeah, they were disabled by the damage. You did mention the steel weakening, though I added that it was more than just the softening, but the additional mass of the plane's wreckage that contributed just as much to the collapse. Each alone is bad, put them together and its catastrophic.

mutineer
2005-Feb-03, 12:08 AM
Just curious - why do you focus on the boxes vaporizing as the only reason we wouldn't find them?
Fair point. I wanted to emphasise the fact that we were dealing with objects that had not simply been destroyed, but with objects of which all trace had disappeared. Now I agree there is the possibility that there was a discoverable remnant (however deformed) if the search has been more detailed. I do not entirely know how to evaluate this possibility, but I should imagine that there would have been clues as to where best to concentrate the search for what would have been top of any “must find” list. Ergo, I suspect a very careful and detailed search. If there was absolutely no discernible remnant, then actually I do believe that pulverization from high pressure would provide a better explanation than vaporization or complete disintegration from high temperature.



Or is the main thing that YOU ARE WRONG, mutineer!!! :evil: :evil: :evil:Now I resent this a tad. I went to the trouble to address your points one by one. Instead of a reply, it sounds like you are claiming a personal attack rather than a disagreement on the issues.
I began composing my last post before seeing yours. I was very aware that BABB was the last forum that a sensible person should choose for making the flicker of a suggestion of conspiracy – unless he enjoyed being set upon!

But anyway I am still unclear about the officialness of the denial that black boxes were found – which I took to mean in any condition: working, damaged, or deformed. Being on this side of the pond, I may not be correctly tuned in on this. If there is NO official position on the black boxes, then I am pretty sure most of them WILL have survived and the FBI will let us know in due course. No cause for suspicion; no conspiracy.

What is your understanding on this, beskeptical?

See, I’m a simple sort of chap. I have heard about the “indestructable” black boxes – and I have heard the joke, “So why don’t they build the whole aircraft out of the same stuff?” I know they are not indestructable, but from what I hear and read, they are pretty tough. When I hear a denial that even a single one out of four black boxes has been found, I am surprised. It is the surprise of a simple old chap whose academic qualifications are in economics, psychology, and statistics rather than in physics and chemistry. Even if there is a two-in-three chance of each one of the boxes being destroyed beyond recognition, there is still a four-in-five chance that one would survive. I can do simple arithmetic, and this fact makes an impression!

I accept the points that you and others have made about the pressures involved, as well as the needle-in-a-haystack aspects. The truth is that these things are extremely difficult to evaluate. I do not claim to have any clinching argument; nor am I entirely persuaded by the arguments of others. On the whole, I would put finding out more about what HAS survived from within the two aircraft ahead even of careful physical calculations. I am not sure what has been learned about the DNA of passengers, for example.

For a skeptic, your view of the impossibility of deception by a US Government agency shows a certain lack of open-mindedness, beskeptical. But I have always considered myself to be the more skeptical of us – in the true sense! I see that even the National Security Archive now admits that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/essay.htm) was a put-up job assisted by the CIA. The first people to suggest that were dismissed as conspiracy theorists!

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-03, 12:22 AM
Now I agree there is the possibility that there was a discoverable remnant (however deformed) if the search has been more detailed. I do not entirely know how to evaluate this possibility, but I should imagine that there would have been clues as to where best to concentrate the search for what would have been top of any “must find” list. Ergo, I suspect a very careful and detailed search.
The black boxes are only useful if their data are recoverable. If the searchers decided that the boxes were most likely damaged past the point of usefulness, then they may not have looked for them at all. Combing through several hundred thousand tons of rubble to find a few flattened scraps of material is just not worth it.

jamestox
2005-Feb-03, 01:20 AM
That's a call for the families to make. Some of them will allow it, some won't. Personally, I am curious. Does that make me some kind of monster?

No, that doesn't make you a monster - that makes you human. Having flown myself, I am also curious about the fates that pilots can meet and do read some CVR transcripts - mainly to learn from other pilots' situations (there is an old saying, "Learn from the mistakes of other pilots; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself"). Here (http://aviation-safety.net/cvr/transcripts.shtml) is an excellent resource for anyone who flies, whether as PIC or passenger. There's more there than just CVR transcripts, too.

beskeptical
2005-Feb-03, 08:35 AM
For a skeptic, your view of the impossibility of deception by a US Government agency shows a certain lack of open-mindedness, beskeptical. But I have always considered myself to be the more skeptical of us – in the true sense! I see that even the National Security Archive now admits that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/essay.htm) was a put-up job assisted by the CIA. The first people to suggest that were dismissed as conspiracy theorists!It's hard to reply to this without getting into politics. Just because I don't think a conspiracy involving hundreds of people, not just lying but actually acting out parts, is highly unlikely doesn't mean I don't think the people in government can be deceitful.

In the normal process of politics, control and manipulation of information is the business of the day. The Gulf of Tonkin incident (which has been a known fraud for decades if you meant to say it was just now coming to light), can probably be compared to the WMDs today which weren't real either. But these actions are just not on the scale of faking the 9/11 attacks. In order to carry out one's goals one might be putting the deaths resulting from a war out of one's mind, but 3,000 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was nothing like that.

So do governments and politicians lie, cheat and manipulate events on a regular basis, yes. Are there big conspiracies involving hundreds of people, or are there secret world governments like the Trilateral Commission was supposed to be, no. There is a huge difference in scale and competency needed. One is common. People are easy to manipulate. The other is waaay too far fetched. With too many people involved, someone will always screw up or give the scheme away.

The Gulf of Tonkin, the Pentagon papers, the Richard Clark book today, are examples of, or reveal government conspiracies if you want to call them that. They are relatively small scale, involving few people in the know, they work in limited ways but not for very long, and as history shows, they don't stay secret very long.

Clearly there's a point where a conspiracy reaches the level of absurdity. And there are conspiracies as tiny as the one in the news today of planting a reporter 'actor', Gannon, in the WA press corp to ask questions like, "Mr. President, How are you going to work with Democrats that aren't in touch with reality?" On one end of the spectrum it is not just believable, but actually revealed. On the other end is something so far fetched even the folks on GLP would reject it. Somewhere on that continuum there is a dividing line where you've gone beyond realistically possible. Some conspiracy hypotheses are just beyond possible.

Now you may see that dividing line in a different place than I do. And that's fine. But in addition, in this case, you are taking some little thing and building a case for a big conspiracy around it. Consider all the other information about 9/11 available to the public, to the news media, to family members of those on the planes that got phone calls which probably disclosed as much as the boxes could anyway. With that much information out there, the idea some secrets are hidden in the boxes becomes ludicrous.

mutineer
2005-Feb-03, 01:47 PM
The black boxes are only useful if their data are recoverable. If the searchers decided that the boxes were most likely damaged past the point of usefulness, then they may not have looked for them at all. Combing through several hundred thousand tons of rubble to find a few flattened scraps of material is just not worth it.But have we not learned that what survived or did not survive was a matter of tremendous chance. A matter of luck one way or the other. I find it inconceivable that the black boxes would have been written off in the manner you suggest.

The hundreds of thousands of tons of rubble WERE combed through -- for human remains (perhaps human remnants would be the better expression) and the DNA samples that could be taken from them.

mutineer
2005-Feb-03, 02:09 PM
Well, beskeptical, actually there must have been substantial numbers of people who knew that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a fraud at the time – i.e. at the time that Congress took it at face value. Again, many hundreds of people were involved in the wartime decoding of Enigma data at GCHQ, yet historians were ignorant for decades of this aspect of WWII. (Some were permitted to know but not to reveal – and did not.)

I must admit a special fascination in secrecy for family reasons. My grandmother was engaged in some form of “war work” about which she was told never to speak. About ten years after WWII, her husband (a prominent Birmingham businessman) died. The task began of assessing his estate for death duty – fairly penal like all British taxes in those days as war debt was repaid. Almost all the family assets were in my grandfather’s name except for one substantial financial investment in my grandmother’s name. This last represented the entire invested proceeds of my grandmother’s “war work”. It had all been saved; there wasn’t a lot you could buy during the war. The tax authorities asked her to account for the source of this investment.

My mother (my grandmother’s only child) having died when I was ten, I was the nearest person my grandmother had to turn to – although by this time I was no more than thirteen. She was clearly agitated and worried. She had never mentioned her “war work”, and the only inkling I had of it were a couple of jokes about it by her sister on one occasion, to which she had responded with silent disapproval. Now she laid open to me the substance of her disquiet. She was quite unable to reveal the source of her investment, so the tax authorities were treating it as part of my grandfather’s estate. She never afterwards mentioned the matter again. As far as I know, fifty percent or more (as the marginal rate may have been) of her hard-earned investment was taken by the tax authorities. Small wonder, then, that I am fascinated by the power of authority to impress the obligation of secrecy upon people!

However, I digress. Most of what you have to say, beskeptical, is as cogent and sensible as I have come to expect. But here is where we part company:

I am asking the question: is it credible/feasible that all four black boxes at the WTC site would have been destroyed beyond identification? This is, so to speak, a self-contained question about physics and chemistry. As such, it exists in isolation from such things as witness statements and motives for things disappearing (as I suggested in my original post).

Black box recorders are sealed in thick slabs of the toughest, most heat-resistant specialist steels, enclosed within layers of the best insulation materials science can devise. Anyone sitting with one in front of him/herself would be inclined to the opinion: this is not readily going to go up in smoke like aluminium or a human body; this is not readily going to be reduced to dust like stone or concrete.

I might just be persuaded that the pressures involved in the collapse of the WTC towers were such that a black box could be powdered; that my intuitive doubt was misleading me because my experience is untouched by conditions as extreme as existed on that occasion. The fact that the two aircraft crashed into the upper parts of the buildings and that the greatest pressures would have been exerted at the base counts for something. The fact that there were, after all, FOUR black boxes is the strongest factor that recurs in my thoughts. I allow my intuition to guide me, but do not dismiss the possibility that I may be mistaken.

Where I cannot go is to accept that the destruction of the black boxes must be admitted as a fact simply because of the total implausibility of most of the numerous conspiracy theories. Their degree of absurdity is not a factor in evaluating the disappearance of the boxes. You say I am building a case for a big conspiracy – but I have not the least idea of the size or shape or motive of any deception that may have taken place. (The official version about the nineteen arabs has elements that are almost as implausible as the other conspiracy theories – but that is a separate issue.)

Swift
2005-Feb-03, 02:11 PM
<skip>
I do not entirely know how to evaluate this possibility, but I should imagine that there would have been clues as to where best to concentrate the search for what would have been top of any “must find” list. Ergo, I suspect a very careful and detailed search. If there was absolutely no discernible remnant, then actually I do believe that pulverization from high pressure would provide a better explanation than vaporization or complete disintegration from high temperature.

I don't know, but I have several questions about these statements. First, why would they have been on a "must find" list. At the time of the event and about the first week, the "must find" was possible missing survivors, and after that it was probably bodies. After that, the main investigation was why did the towers collapsed, not what happened on the airplanes. It's not like we didn't know why the planes hit the WTC; what is so important about the black boxes?

What do you mean by a very careful and detailed search? The site was extremely well searched for the reasons I just gave. But we are talking about literally 1,000,000 tons of debris, not a single airplane that hit the ground like in Pennsylvania.

You seem to think there is no state between vaporized and "discernible remnant". As an EMT I saw cars after a crash and fire that were hardly discernible remnants, but didn't look like cars any more. When you say "vaporized", I think literally turned to vapor. It would seem very likely that a better descriptions of what happened to the boxes might be "torn to shreds".

By the way, this (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html) is a web copy of an extremely good article on why the towers collapsed, from the Journal of Materials, a very good peer-reviewed journal.

captain swoop
2005-Feb-03, 03:02 PM
Slabs of steel?

How big and heavy do you think the recordrs are? remember where they are used!

Fram
2005-Feb-03, 03:24 PM
Some info on black boxes can be gotten from this article about flight 93 (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010914blackbox0914p3.asp), including size and materials used. It's not a technical article though, so it may contain errors and simplifications.

Wally
2005-Feb-03, 04:00 PM
Here (http://aviation-safety.net/cvr/transcripts.shtml) is an excellent resource for anyone who flies, whether as PIC or passenger. There's more there than just CVR transcripts, too.

Very interesting webpage. . . Kinda macabre in a way to sit here and read it, but fascinating stuff nonetheless.

Question: the accident descriptions talk about the "stickshaker" kicking on/off. Is this some kind of safety device that actually vibrates the yoke when near stall speeds or something? I haven't been able to find a description anywhere (yeah, I'm too lazy to google. . .).

Nicolas
2005-Feb-03, 04:17 PM
Yep, the stickshaker shakes the control stick when the plane gets in a near stall situation (stall is initiated by local wing angle of attack, not by speed. What you call "stall speed" is the minimum speed for which the plane can stay in level flight. Below that speed, generated lift of the wing is less than weight, the plane starts to descend, which increases the angle of attack, stall occurs, lift completely drops and so does the plane. A plane can stall at high speeds as well, if pulled up far and fast enough in order to create an angle of attack which is large enough to cause flow separation on the upper wing surface, thereby destroying the lift force.). On top of that, there is also a stick pusher, which automatically pushes the stick forward in the beginning of a stall. Both systems are triggered by angle of attack, and not by speed, hence they allow to warn and recover from all stall situations, not only reaching stall speed.

I don't know what the situation today is like, but in the past the pilot could switch shaker and pusher off. This resulted in the Trident crash near London. I think today the pilot can still choose to switch it off, as the design philosophy of aircraft today still is that ultimately, the pilot should be in control.

jamestox
2005-Feb-03, 04:35 PM
Very interesting webpage. . . Kinda macabre in a way to sit here and read it, but fascinating stuff nonetheless.
Question: the accident descriptions talk about the "stickshaker" kicking on/off. Is this some kind of safety device that actually vibrates the yoke when near stall speeds or something? I haven't been able to find a description anywhere (yeah, I'm too lazy to google. . .).

Macabre? Yes, in a way it is. However, in the case of crashes with little-known circumstances, the CVR and FDR (mainly the FDR) are invaluable investigational tools in evaluating the actions and reactions of the aircraft in-flight, along with the crew's control inputs and interaction (communication with each other, signs of situational awareness - or lack thereof, evidence of proper procedures; "...flaps five, check stab for takeoff trim...").

Yes, a "stickshaker" is a mechanical/electrical device that "rattles" the control yokes as the aircraft nears stall conditions (aircraft stall speeds vary according to bank angle, flap configuration and wing angle-of-attack). This mimics an aerodynamic "buffet" experienced in stall conditions with many aircraft using non-boosted, mechanically-linked control surfaces (as opposed to purely hydraulic-linked or electrohydraulic-linked - "fly-by-wire-sidestick" systems like the Airbus series). In some flight emergencies, there could be multiple audible alarms going off, and you have to handle them in the correct order. However, the first priorty of the pilot in any emergency is to keep the airplane flying - and the stickshaker is a tactile, unmistakable form of alarm that immediately informs the PIC that he needs to update his priorities RIGHT NOW.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-03, 08:19 PM
But have we not learned that what survived or did not survive was a matter of tremendous chance. A matter of luck one way or the other.
Have we learned that? I don't think I have. My understanding is that small, light things that could be thrown clear of the towers had a slim chance of surviving. I don't recall hearing of any large heavy objects that survived.

The hundreds of thousands of tons of rubble WERE combed through -- for human remains (perhaps human remnants would be the better expression) and the DNA samples that could be taken from them.
So what? The fact that they were looking for DNA samples does not prove that they were looking for flight recorders. And unless the black boxes were relatively intact, it would have been hard to recognize them unless they were specifically looking for them.

beskeptical
2005-Feb-03, 08:41 PM
Mutineer, you still haven't given a scenario where the contents of these boxes amount to a hill of beans. We have the cell phone call accounts. The whole country watched the purposeful aim of the persons piloting the aircraft.

So the fact you find it plausible the boxes were located and secreted away, and that, to you, is less than plausible than the boxes not being found loses credibility when any potential motive is included in the assessment.

mutineer
2005-Feb-03, 09:07 PM
Hi, swift, interesting Journal of Materials article you referenced. I had begun to work out that the temperatures involved would not have been massively high. Getting involved in this sort of debate can provide quite an education.

I don’t want to give the impression that I underrate the needle-in-a-haystack aspect of finding the boxes. On the other hand, this haystack was better searched than most. One might expect that particular effort went into searching the remains of the two aircraft, which cannot have been altogether randomly dispersed through the rubble, and would have constituted less than 0.1% of the haystack.

I have to take issue with you with you over:
First, why would they have been on a "must find" list. At the time of the event and about the first week, the "must find" was possible missing survivors, and after that it was probably bodies. After that, the main investigation was why did the towers collapsed, not what happened on the airplanes. It's not like we didn't know why the planes hit the WTC; what is so important about the black boxes?
Aw, come on! Sure, finding survivors would have been the immediate priority for the FDNY. Do you suppose that the black boxes were not at the top of the NTSB’s “must find” list – if only out of habit. Do you think they said, “We’ll give that job a miss this time”? Do you think they would not have been extremely interested in precisely how (and from what moment of time) the hijackers flew the planes? Do you suppose that the FBI did not want to pore over every word spoken among the hijackers for references to people, places, events, and any other subject matter that might yield clues about their organisation? Did not want to confirm their identities by any clues that offered themselves? Did not want to know about every interaction that took place between hijackers, flight crew, and passengers?

paulie jay
2005-Feb-04, 01:34 AM
Just a poser -

Is it reasonably possible that parts of the black boxes were found, but just not identified as such? I would imagine a certain amount of tedium setting in whilst sifting through 1,000,000 tons of debris - is it possible that someone picked up a few small pieces of mangled orange metal and just tossed it onto a pile of scrap?

Nicolas
2005-Feb-04, 01:40 AM
Perfectly possible. It is bright orange, with "Flight recorder: do not open" or something like that written over it, but after such an accident, it might as well just be some piece of orange like metal, burned, scarred and broken, amids tons of other construction material in all colours (think of elecator parts, office equipment, all the orange emergency material etcetc) I dno't say it happened, but it seems very well possible to me.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-04, 02:07 AM
...I don?t want to give the impression that I underrate the needle-in-a-haystack aspect...
Would this have helped?
"...Underwater locator beacon: 37.5 KHz..."

frenat
2005-Feb-04, 02:14 AM
The locator beacon would help, if it was still functioning. But that is highly unlikely considering even a part of the damage the boxes were likely to go through. That transmitter is supposed to aid in a search in the event that a plane goes down largely in one piece but in an unknown location. I doubt it ever functioned in the crashes into the towers.

kanathan
2005-Feb-04, 02:37 AM
It is my believe they surely can't switch off all black boxes, like instrument readings. Maybe they can switch off the microphones during cruise, but I have doubts about that. I'd have to look that one up. But switching off instruments seems really weird to me, why would they?


Thay can't turn them off. A while back they could is erase the tape. But only on the ground as the erase mechanism is tied to a squat switch in the landing gear. This was to protect the crews privacy when nothing had gone wrong. I do not know if this is still possible.

I dug around the internet a little, and I found an interesting NTSB article written in April of 2000. Original Article (PDF file) (http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2000/A00_30_31.pdf)


Another issue is the location of the circuit breaker for the cockpit image recorder system. To ensure that the recording of images cannot be selectively disabled (by cockpit crews), the Safety Board believes it should not be possible to access the circuit breaker for the cockpit image recorder system in the cockpit during flight. Initially, it was believed that in order to prevent inflight incidents from being overwritten on the flight recorders, particularly on 30-minute CVRs, that it was necessary to have the flight recorder circuit breakers accessible in the cockpit to allow for them to be turned off to preserve the recorded information.

I realize that the article was written over a year before Sept. 11th, but I'll guess that even if the NTSB made a decision to move the circuit breakers before the terrorist attacks happened, the airlines hadn't done so yet.


EDIT: I also found an accident report written by the AAIU (NTSB for Ireland from my understanding). It mentions that the pilot didn't pull the circuit breaker for the flight recorder, allowing it to record over any useful information about the accident. Article (Also PDF) (http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/4757-0.PDF)

Fortis
2005-Feb-04, 03:48 AM
...I don?t want to give the impression that I underrate the needle-in-a-haystack aspect...
Would this have helped?
"...Underwater locator beacon: 37.5 KHz..."
I believe that this would be an ultrasound pinger, which would probably be great in water, but not so good in the air. (If it were radio, then the attenuation at 37.5 kHz looks like it's roughly 6 dB per metre, which means that it may not be your best choice for a ULB.) I'm not sure quite how bad the relative attenuation would be, so it may not be as bad as I suspect. If you could get coupling to the main part of the structure then that may help, but it is likely to be poor.

Also, I suspect, though I would want it confirmed, that the ULB would only activate if the FDR was immersed in water. Anybody know one way or the other?

tmosher
2005-Feb-04, 04:35 AM
...I don?t want to give the impression that I underrate the needle-in-a-haystack aspect...
Would this have helped?
"...Underwater locator beacon: 37.5 KHz..."
I believe that this would be an ultrasound pinger, which would probably be great in water, but not so good in the air. (If it were radio, then the attenuation at 37.5 kHz looks like it's roughly 6 dB per metre, which means that it may not be your best choice for a ULB.) I'm not sure quite how bad the relative attenuation would be, so it may not be as bad as I suspect. If you could get coupling to the main part of the structure then that may help, but it is likely to be poor.

Also, I suspect, though I would want it confirmed, that the ULB would only activate if the FDR was immersed in water. Anybody know one way or the other?

The beacons on the CVR and DFDR only activate with water immersion.

BTW, the data recorders are not heavy items - typically 10 to 25 lbs depending on the unit.

The dominant manufacturer of them is L-3 Communications (they bought out Fairchild).

L-3 Aviation Recorders (http://www.l-3ar.com/html/history.html)

BTW, I work for one of the L-3 divisions.

Swift
2005-Feb-04, 01:34 PM
Perfectly possible. It is bright orange, with "Flight recorder: do not open" or something like that written over it, but after such an accident, it might as well just be some piece of orange like metal, burned, scarred and broken, amids tons of other construction material in all colours (think of elecator parts, office equipment, all the orange emergency material etcetc) I dno't say it happened, but it seems very well possible to me.
It also seems possible to me that someone found a piece of orange painted metal, figured out it was part of a recorder, handed it to the nearest FBI agent who went "shoot, I guess that means the boxes got shredded".

I still don't get what the lack of existence of the intact recorders proves.

mutineer
2005-Feb-04, 01:35 PM
Just a poser -

Is it reasonably possible that parts of the black boxes were found, but just not identified as such? I would imagine a certain amount of tedium setting in whilst sifting through 1,000,000 tons of debris - is it possible that someone picked up a few small pieces of mangled orange metal and just tossed it onto a pile of scrap?
Absolutely. In fact 1,800,000 tons is given as the weight of rubble carted off to the Fresh Kills landfill site on Staten Island. It does seem to have been sifted with extraordinary care over a period of ten months, by teams manning conveyer belts and wearing respirators. We are told that more than 50,000 "personal items" were found and recorded. There is an exhibition of recovered objects at the New York Historical Society until March 21. It includes items from at least one airplane interior.

This transported rubble accounted for most of the mass of the destroyed buildings, but if the black boxes had been intact they would most probably have been discovered at the Ground Zero site. Most of the stuff in FBI keeping was taken directly from Ground Zero. For example, of the 20,000 body parts found, most were recovered at Ground Zero. The Fresh Kills sifting contributed only 7% of the total.

Yes, it is absolutely possible that the black boxes were all so shredded that the fragments (with their orange colour most likely all gone) would have been overlooked. But is it likely that this fate would have befallen all four? Bear in mind that not everything was flattened or powdered. Safes (size unspecified) were recovered, and there are recorded cases of attempts being made to recover data from computer hard drives. Plus those 50,000+ personal items. The web does not inform me as regards the impersonal items!

It seems reasonable that a black box would have a better chance of escaping total destruction than a human body - yet the expectation is that DNA samples will confirm the identities of most of the victims.

I have learned that Black Boxes have grown smaller since the introduction of solid state technology and that the armourplating has been allowed to become proportionately thinner. It sounds as if they are not as formidable as they used to be. However, the boxes themselves are protected by exterior insulation - though I have not been able to discover much information.

Let's be clear. I do really come to this with an open mind. I do not start out expecting a conspiracy. I sure as hell don't believe one firefighter and his mate found three out of the four black boxes among the vastness of the wreckage.

Maybe it was just a ten-to-one unlucky chance that none of the black boxes were found. I am still open to persuasion by any new facts deserving consideration.

captain swoop
2005-Feb-04, 01:43 PM
Why not ask the FBI?

Nicolas
2005-Feb-04, 02:00 PM
It sounds as if they[the black boxes] are not as formidable as they used to be.

I doubt that. Why would they? They didn't always survive in the past, so now they make them less strong?? If the size gets smaller, you can make the armour thinner while still having more strength left.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-04, 06:36 PM
Yes, it is absolutely possible that the black boxes were all so shredded that the fragments (with their orange colour most likely all gone) would have been overlooked. But is it likely that this fate would have befallen all four? Bear in mind that not everything was flattened or powdered. Safes (size unspecified) were recovered, and there are recorded cases of attempts being made to recover data from computer hard drives. Plus those 50,000+ personal items. The web does not inform me as regards the impersonal items!
Four is not a large number. What fraction of the total number of "personal items" in the Towers do you think those 50,000 represent? I believe about 40,000 people were in the buildings, and since a "personal item" could be something as small as a pen, that could be 50,000 out of 400,000 or more, which would represent a survival rate of 12.5% for "personal items." If the same survival rate applies to black boxes, there is a greater than 50% chance that all four of them were destroyed. I'm not staking anything on these numbers; I'm just using them to show that your estimate of a "ten-to-one unlucky chance" isn't supported by the information you're relying on.

It seems reasonable that a black box would have a better chance of escaping total destruction than a human body - yet the expectation is that DNA samples will confirm the identities of most of the victims.
One little smear of blood is enough for a DNA sample. Flight recorders would need to be far more intact to be identifiable; you can't recognize them from a few flakes of paint.

Let's suppose some pieces of the black boxes were found and identified. Why should we think they would have announced that? The black boxes aren't magic totems; they're only as useful as the information they contain. Broken fragments of material don't contain much information.

Richard of Chelmsford
2005-Feb-04, 06:47 PM
So what will the orange boxes yield when we find them?

Or will that be political?

ktesibios
2005-Feb-04, 07:50 PM
So what will the orange boxes yield when we find them?

Or will that be political?

The CVRs from the planes that hit the towers might shed light on the exact manner in which the hijackings were carried out. That might not contribute all that much to the investigation, but it could be desirable information for people working on improving flight security.

The combination of FDR and CVR data could provide a definitive refutation of the popular conspiracy theory that the planes were under remote control. The CVR recordings from flight 93, some of which are cited in the 9/11 Commission report, demonstrate pretty well that the plane was neither being controlled remotely nor shot down.

This would, of course, have absolutely zero effect on PCTs, who would simply dismiss the evidence as faked. :evil:

mutineer
2005-Feb-04, 08:29 PM
What fraction of the total number of "personal items" in the Towers do you think those 50,000 represent? I believe about 40,000 people were in the buildings, and since a "personal item" could be something as small as a pen, that could be 50,000 out of 400,000 or more, which would represent a survival rate of 12.5% for "personal items."
I cannot find an estimate as high as 40,000. I understand more like 25,000 employees, not all of whom would be present at any given time. Anyway, most evacuated the building, along with their shoes, clothes, wallets, credit cards, cash, brooches, tiepins, keyrings, pens, etc. The number of WTC employees killed was under 2,500. Remaining victims were in the airplanes, or rescue workers.

I suggest survival rate of 22.5% for personal items, with black boxes standing double that chance of survival = 45%. Chance of all four black boxes destroyed is therefore 55%^4. That's to say, a ten to one chance against!

You're not convinced? Well, my guesswork is as likely as yours!

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-04, 09:34 PM
I cannot find an estimate as high as 40,000. I understand more like 25,000 employees, not all of whom would be present at any given time. Anyway, most evacuated the building, along with their shoes, clothes, wallets, credit cards, cash, brooches, tiepins, keyrings, pens, etc. The number of WTC employees killed was under 2,500. Remaining victims were in the airplanes, or rescue workers.

I suggest survival rate of 22.5% for personal items, with black boxes standing double that chance of survival = 45%. Chance of all four black boxes destroyed is therefore 55%^4. That's to say, a ten to one chance against!

You're not convinced? Well, my guesswork is as likely as yours!
Yeah, but on the other hand, mine is as likely as yours. My point is that you haven't got a solid basis for estimating a ten to one chance against. You're just guessing factors that give you the outcome you want, as I was. Suppose we imagine that what determined the survival of objects was how close they were to the outside of the towers. In that case, depending on how far into the towers the airplanes penetrated, their chance of survival could have been virtually zero---or close to 100%.

Given the extreme difficulty of determining the actual odds, I think we should fall back on a standard of plausibility for the moment. Is it plausible that all four were destroyed to such a degree that their remnants would not be worthy of announcement by the authorities? Yes, because there were forces involved in the collapse that went far beyond what these boxes were designed to withstand.

jamestox
2005-Feb-04, 09:37 PM
...(stuff deleted)...
I have learned that Black Boxes have grown smaller since the introduction of solid state technology and that the armourplating has been allowed to become proportionately thinner. It sounds as if they are not as formidable as they used to be. However, the boxes themselves are protected by exterior insulation - though I have not been able to discover much information. ...stuff deleted...

Try this web site (http://travel.howstuffworks.com/black-box.htm). They have a great deal of info on how the recorders are constructed.

jamestox
2005-Feb-04, 09:54 PM
.... You're just guessing factors that give you the outcome you want, as I was. Suppose we imagine that what determined the survival of objects was how close they were to the outside of the towers. In that case, depending on how far into the towers the airplanes penetrated, their chance of survival could have been virtually zero---or close to 100%. - emphasis jamestox

Given the extreme difficulty of determining the actual odds, I think we should fall back on a standard of plausibility for the moment. Is it plausible that all four were destroyed to such a degree that their remnants would not be worthy of announcement by the authorities? Yes, because there were forces involved in the collapse that went far beyond what these boxes were designed to withstand.

Now here is something we can work with. We know that the aircraft hit hard enough to fully enter the buildings (no tail sticking out, etc.) and according to video recordings, very little came out the other side - which means the airliners essentially stopped within the building. Assuming that the forward fuselage acted as a "crumple-zone" - and the FAA and NTSB calculate on just that, placing the recorders in the "most survivable spot", the tail - then the recorders would have been deep within the building when the floors began the "pancake" collapse. The airliners hit approximately one-third the distance from the top of the building, and for the record, at the point where the initial collapse began (the fire zone, where the floor-truss attachments sheared from the inner wallframe).

The crash area was the very first area to be crushed, with floors both above and below "pancaking" to the ground. You tell me - what are the odds of even a flight recorder surviving that?

Superluminal
2005-Feb-04, 10:06 PM
For the people who think the gubmint is hiding what was on the black boxes, because it was the gov. that flew the planes into the buildings in the first place. Wouldn't it be easier to just release a faked tape recording that would confirm that there were terrorists flying the planes? After all, we faked an entire moon program, but we cann't fake a couple of tapes?

mutineer
2005-Feb-04, 11:33 PM
It sounds as if they[the black boxes] are not as formidable as they used to be.
I doubt that. Why would they? They didn't always survive in the past, so now they make them less strong?? If the size gets smaller, you can make the armour thinner while still having more strength left.
The first info I obtained, on a old magnetic tape recorder, referred to half-inch steel casing. captain swoop reproved me: "Slabs of steel? How big and heavy do you think the recordrs are?" Well, I don't think you would have wanted to carry one of those very far, Cap'n!

Thanks for your info, jamestox. I have looked at several sites which indicate that one-quarter inch steel casing is now the norm. I want to be absolutely fair. I have no agenda to promote conspiracy theories. I revise down slightly my estimate of their survival chances.

As for the other recent comments, I don't think I have anything really fresh to say. Clearly neither side has convinced the other. But I do still believe there may be information in the public domain that might call for a revision of opinion. It would certainly be useful to get a better idea of what has survived from within the fuselages. Sufficient, I believe, to identify at least a few of the passengers.

I believe that the majority of the WTC victims have now been identified. Moreover, I understand that dental records as well as DNA have played a role. A human jaw is a fragile thing compared with a black box, and it would be instructive to know more about the state of the evidential remains which have supported dental investigation.

(What I am really hoping is that after all of you have convinced yourselves there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of any of the boxes surviving, the FBI comes clean and says it's got them all! :D :D :D )

jamestox
2005-Feb-05, 01:53 AM
Thanks for your info, jamestox. I have looked at several sites which indicate that one-quarter inch steel casing is now the norm. I want to be absolutely fair. I have no agenda to promote conspiracy theories. I revise down slightly my estimate of their survival chances.
You're welcome. I'd found that page while searching for something else entirely, but bookmarked it as an interesting site to read.

As for the other recent comments, I don't think I have anything really fresh to say. Clearly neither side has convinced the other. But I do still believe there may be information in the public domain that might call for a revision of opinion. It would certainly be useful to get a better idea of what has survived from within the fuselages. Sufficient, I believe, to identify at least a few of the passengers.
I doubt that anything of much use from the airliner survived the crash, jet-fuel fire, and crushing of the collapse. Oddities do occur, as some of the peculiar things we see in the aftermath of a tornado.

I believe that the majority of the WTC victims have now been identified. Moreover, I understand that dental records as well as DNA have played a role. A human jaw is a fragile thing compared with a black box, and it would be instructive to know more about the state of the evidential remains which have supported dental investigation.
Unfortunately, in the wake of the WTC disaster, one of the most effective means of determining the victims' identities is finding out who no longer sits at the dinner table; for the sake of discussion, we've been treating this as an academic problem, but the real "bottom line" is that 2700+ people died as a result of terrorist action on American soil. If you want the numbers, go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/Casualties). Just remember that each one of those numbers has a name - and you can find the "confirmed dead" identities there as well; no matter what happened to the recorders, no matter whether the data were usable, no matter whether they were recovered, those people - those citizens - those mothers/fathers/sons/daughters/aunts/uncles/nephews/nieces/friends

died that day.

(What I am really hoping is that after all of you have convinced yourselves there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of any of the boxes surviving, the FBI comes clean and says it's got them all! :D :D :D )
Do you know what I hope? I hope, I really hope that we never see this kind of thing ever again.
:cry:

Fortis
2005-Feb-05, 04:18 AM
For the people who think the gubmint is hiding what was on the black boxes, because it was the gov. that flew the planes into the buildings in the first place. Wouldn't it be easier to just release a faked tape recording that would confirm that there were terrorists flying the planes? After all, we faked an entire moon program, but we cann't fake a couple of tapes?
That's the thing that I don't understand. The conspiracy is usually seen as simultaneously very able and competent, but also amazingly incompetent and inept. If you believe some sites, the conspiracy is sophisticated enough to rig up remote control multiengine jets to crash into the WTC, but is unable to paint the aircraft with the correct paint scheme, or paint windows on the side.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-05, 07:28 AM
"... The two black boxes for Flight 93 are found...not one of the four black boxes for these [WTC] two airplanes are ever found... The two black boxes for Flight 77 are found..."
Center for Cooperative Research (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=black+boxes&events=on &entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&pr ojects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&se arch=+Go+)

Careless
2005-Feb-06, 08:08 AM
On the other end is something so far fetched even the folks on GLP would reject it.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
That's simply not possible

mutineer
2005-Feb-06, 01:47 PM
I have refrained until now from speculating as to why anyone would want to keep info from the boxes secret. After all, we should be able to evaluate the chances of all the boxes being destroyed from the dispassionate perspective of the forensic scientist, concerned only with the physics and chemistry of the issue.

Perhaps it would be more sensible for me to continue to refrain from speculation. After all, I have not the least clue. But here are my top two guesses as to what one or other of the CVRs might have revealed. 1: some information that the FBI would not want Al-Qaida to know they had learned. 2: some information that suggested an embarrassing degree of incompetence by one of the US security services over some matter.

I would not for a moment try to defend either of those guesses – or a half dozen others I could offer. Point is, there are plenty of reasons to quietly secrete the boxes that do not involve the bizarre flights of fancy of some of the conspiracy theorists.

I clearly do not feel the same degree of hostility towards conspiracy theorists felt by many BABBers. The first people to begin to unravel many frauds have been so described. One thing they feed on, undoubtedly, is the fact that truth is often stranger than fiction, and the true story does sometimes tax credibility. To that extent, of course, they mislead themselves – but can scarcely be blamed for it.

Now, may I change tack? I think I should probably not open up a separate 911 thread, as I am not jumping to entirely new subject matter. The reasons for the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 have already been touched upon. Swift indicated a good Journal of Materials article (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html). From it I take this quotation:
The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors.
From all the stuff I have read in this past week, I find the greatest mystery to be the collapse of WTC7. No Molotov cocktail there. Why would it collapse? On no other matter do I find the official version (the FEMA version, for example) so short of providing a satisfactory explanation, and the questions of dissident voices more unanswered. Does anyone have any thoughts on this aspect of 911?

sarongsong
2005-Feb-06, 10:19 PM
"World Trade Center Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties due to this collapse...As you can see from the above animated-gif, the collapse of WTC 7 certainly has the appearance of a controlled demolition..."
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/WTC7Fairytale.htm
Got gold?
"There are rumors that $160 billion in gold bullion was stored under the World Trade Center. Yet the only published articles about recovered gold mention only around $200 million..."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html

Musashi
2005-Feb-07, 09:48 AM
The End.

captain swoop
2005-Feb-07, 11:15 AM
Controlled demolition?


I see.

Time to bail out

Metricyard
2005-Feb-07, 03:13 PM
Controlled demolition?


I see.

Time to bail out


I was doing some googling to see if could find some info on WTC 7.


After finding information that put UFO sightings over the tower, :roll: I pretty much gave up. People have way too much free time on their hands.

Metricyard follows captian swoop, drifts saftely back to reality.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-07, 11:37 PM
Okay, but there are videos in the 4th paragraph of the first link. :)

Gillianren
2005-Feb-08, 01:41 AM
WTC 7 collapsed because they let the fire burn, in hopes of instead finding survivors in the wreckage.

and really, mutineer, what evidence would it take to convince you? you say you just want information, but you keep getting given that. and as to your personal items theory, do you really believe that everyone who was evacuated had time to get all of their personal items? what about people who hadn't come in to work yet? they probably had personal items, too. you're assuming one personal item per person, as near as I can tell. have you ever worked in an office? cubicles filled w/the stuff.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-08, 02:13 AM
WTC 7 collapsed because they let the fire burn, in hopes of instead finding survivors in the wreckage...
Not clear on what you are saying here.

mutineer
2005-Feb-08, 11:11 AM
and really, mutineer, what evidence would it take to convince you? you say you just want information, but you keep getting given that. and as to your personal items theory, do you really believe that everyone who was evacuated had time to get all of their personal items? what about people who hadn't come in to work yet? they probably had personal items, too. you're assuming one personal item per person, as near as I can tell. have you ever worked in an office? cubicles filled w/the stuff.
Why are you hostile to reasoned investigation?

I am grateful to those people who have contributed to the thread in the spirit of properly assessing the facts in regard to the Black Boxes. Metricyard says he "drifts safely back to reality". There is nothing I ask more than that people exercise their sense of REALITY - whether they are examining the claims one way or the other.

Now the true picture about WTC1 and WTC2 is that far from everything was reduced to dust. Mercifully, a handful of people were rescued from airpockets. The identification of bodies is not a pleasant business, and let us not disrespect the dead in delving into this matter dispassionately. But I have learnt that, in the first six months of investigation after 9/11, more than two-fifths of the identifications were made by dental records. This was in addition to about a hundred bodies where identification was fairly straight-forward from the start.

Bear in mind that DNA testing was going on at the same time as checking dental records. One deduces that the use of dental records indicates the survival of a substantial part of a jaw. But a human jaw is a much more delicate thing than a Black Box - and we are led to believe that all of those were destroyed. We should jump to no conclusion too readily, but the total destruction of all four boxes seems an unlikely thing to have happened.

Different people will assess the odds differently, but some BABBers seem to hold the opinion that anyone who regards the circumstance as an unlikely one probably belongs to the deranged class of people who have been aboard imaginary UFOs. As regards the number of personal objects, I did not really want to follow W.F. Tomba into guessing. I hope people realised that the 22.5% figure I presented was meant to be taken with a pinch of salt.


WTC 7 collapsed because they let the fire burn, in hopes of instead finding survivors in the wreckage.
Hang on to your sense of REALITY! Find and watch the clips! (Google "WTC7" and "clips". You'll track some down.) Now watch them again! You want to tell me a series of fires can cause a building to collapse the way that one did? Where else in the world ever did an office block that size catch fire and just fall to the ground like that? Or do you suspect the clips are fake?

Sammy
2005-Feb-08, 07:37 PM
Mutineer wrote


Hang on to your sense of REALITY! Find and watch the clips! (Google "WTC7" and "clips". You'll track some down.) Now watch them again! You want to tell me a series of fires can cause a building to collapse the way that one did? Where else in the world ever did an office block that size catch fire and just fall to the ground like that? Or do you suspect the clips are fake?

MY sense of reality makers me wonder about yours. I've seen all the clips, and I saw the collapse live on TV and in endless replays. Based on what I've read about the failure mode of that type of constructions, the nature of the collapse is exactly what one would expect.

sts60
2005-Feb-08, 08:32 PM
Hang on to your sense of REALITY! Find and watch the clips! (Google "WTC7" and "clips". You'll track some down.) Now watch them again! You want to tell me a series of fires can cause a building to collapse the way that one did? Where else in the world ever did an office block that size catch fire and just fall to the ground like that? Or do you suspect the clips are fake?

No, I don't suspect the clips are fake. Yes, fire can cause steel buildings to collapse, if the fire is of sufficient intensity, duration, and distribution, and the building is already damaged by debris strikes. The building - contents and hundreds or thousands of gallons of fuel (indeed it was far more than some "Molotov cocktail") - burned for hours with no interior fire attack (due to lack of water from broken mains, etc., fear of collapse, and the loss of and rescue operations for hundreds of firefighters in and around WTC 1 and 2) and minimal suppression from a damaged and poorly supplied (water lack again) fire control system.

My sense of reality has no problem with the official probable explanation (http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm) (see Ch. 5 for the WTC 7 specific part). Nor does that of the overwhelming majority of civil/structural engineers, metallurgists, and firefighters. I'm not a civil or structural engineer - I'm in aerospace - but I have some understanding of the principles involved, and in my volunteer gig I've learned something about how buildings respond to fires and have some sense for how the operations would have evolved that day. Again, it makes sense to me.

It also seems reasonable to me that someone could find it weird the building collapsed primarily due to fire. That's "common sense", but it so happens it's not a very useful guide to understanding what went on with the building. But the reaction is understandable, even if mis- or under-informed.

I'm a little less charitable with the idea some conspiracists have that a major office building in the heart of one of the busiest commercial districts in the world was prepared for demolition without anyone noticing. It's not like Hollywood - you can't just slap a few blocks of C4 here and there walk off whistling with the detonator in your pocket.

Van Rijn
2005-Feb-08, 10:56 PM
Bear in mind that DNA testing was going on at the same time as checking dental records. One deduces that the use of dental records indicates the survival of a substantial part of a jaw. But a human jaw is a much more delicate thing than a Black Box - and we are led to believe that all of those were destroyed. We should jump to no conclusion too readily, but the total destruction of all four boxes seems an unlikely thing to have happened.

(Emphasis added.) I think most folks here grant the possibility that the boxes may have survived intact and been found. However, my impression is that you just don't seem to grasp the scale of the disaster. Some personal items were found. Some human remains were found. But there was the equivalent of many tens of thousands of truckloads of debris. Even if the boxes were intact, they may not have been found. I certainly don't see any reason to assume that some of the boxes (or pieces of them) must have been discovered.


Different people will assess the odds differently, but some BABBers seem to hold the opinion that anyone who regards the circumstance as an unlikely one probably belongs to the deranged class of people who have been aboard imaginary UFOs.

I can't speak for other BABBers, but my position is that, unless there is evidence to present - not just personal assumptions - there really isn't much to discuss. Despite your statements to the contrary, I think you are holding very tightly to the assumption that the boxes must have been found and aren't being made public because somebody has something they want to hide.


Hang on to your sense of REALITY! Find and watch the clips! (Google "WTC7" and "clips". You'll track some down.) Now watch them again! You want to tell me a series of fires can cause a building to collapse the way that one did? Where else in the world ever did an office block that size catch fire and just fall to the ground like that? Or do you suspect the clips are fake?

Now please. The possibility of the boxes surviving is one thing, but this is just going too far. The planes rammed into the buildings at several hundred miles an hour, full of fuel. The issue of metal softening has been widely discussed. This does approach "Planet X" arguments: There is a great deal of information publically available and it was reviewed by engineers and others around the world, especially for new building designs. Yes, I do believe that a massive impact and fires caused the building collapse. Keeping an alternate scenario quiet would have required a worldwide conspiracy, inside and outside of governments.

Nicolas
2005-Feb-08, 11:01 PM
Van Rijn, that last part was about WTC7, which didn't have a plane impact, but suffered "only" from the nearby shocks of impact and collapse, and fires. Still enough for me to explain its collapse.

Van Rijn
2005-Feb-08, 11:09 PM
Oops. My bad. Since you responded to it, I'll leave it uncorrected. I think the main point still stands though: It was hardly hidden from the public, and was reviewed worldwide. Unless this is your field of expertise, it would be dangerous to make "common sense" assumptions.

mutineer
2005-Feb-08, 11:38 PM
Based on what I've read about the failure mode of that type of constructions, the nature of the collapse is exactly what one would expect.
But did you ever know of any other large building elsewhere that collapsed the way that one did? With such suddenness and symmetry? And almost at free fall speed? If so, I want to know.

sts60
2005-Feb-09, 02:03 AM
Plenty of large structures have pancaked without undergoing ordinary demolition. WTC 7 was a big building, but the three WTC total collapses all had extraordinary circumstances (i.e., causes and conditions).

As far as the speed, again, this isn't Hollywood. Real structures can, and do, collapse quite fast.

Why don't you tell us what you're driving at? I have a pretty good guess.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-09, 02:29 AM
Plenty of large structures have pancaked without undergoing ordinary demolition...
Any specific examples come to mind?

Gillianren
2005-Feb-09, 02:41 AM
Plenty of large structures have pancaked without undergoing ordinary demolition...
Any specific examples come to mind?

sure. and I'm not even an engineer. the Cypress Freeway in Oakland, CA. 5:04 PM, 17 October, 1989. very, very famous. one survivor.

oh, you meant buildings? well, I can't name any, I'll admit, but I know they exist. earthquakes pancake buildings all the time.

oh, you didn't mean in earthquakes? it's not as different as I'm sure you think. the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 produced major seismic shocks, and many buildings (no, I can't give exact figures; who can?) do have fires started in them after/because of earthquakes. makes sense to me. then again, I'm just a lowly layperson w/no technical training in engineering. I'm sure you're much more qualified to make such a determination than I.

Musashi
2005-Feb-09, 02:42 AM
Jay Utah talked about one either here, or more likely, at ApolloHoax. I will try and dig up more details. In any case, it doesn't seem odd to me that a building storing a huge amount of combustable liquid qould burn hot enough for long enough to cause a collapse like that.

Sammy
2005-Feb-09, 04:33 AM
Based on what I've read about the failure mode of that type of constructions, the nature of the collapse is exactly what one would expect.
But did you ever know of any other large building elsewhere that collapsed the way that one did? With such suddenness and symmetry? And almost at free fall speed? If so, I want to know.

I'never seen a case where a building designed like the WTC was hit by a large aircraft, loaded with fuel for a trans-continental flight, and flying at 3 or 4 hundred mph.

As for 'free fall," that is EXACTLY the situation. EVERY expert structual analysis says that the combination of impact/heat caused the main structural beams to fail arround the point of impact. The 30 odd stories above above the impact level lost their support and essentially went into free fall, accelerated downward at 32 feet per second per second, and pancaked the structure below it like a hammer driving a nail. It went straight down because there were no significant forces acting to change it's trajectory.

Anything ELSE would be unusual and call for an explanation.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-09, 05:52 AM
...it's not as different as I'm sure you think. the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 produced major seismic shocks...I'm just a lowly layperson w/no technical training in engineering. I'm sure you're much more qualified to make such a determination than I.
Be nice, Gillian, after all, I'm of Welsh descent... 8)
WTC 7 collapsed after 5 PM, the South Tower at 9:59 AM.
Sammy, does this page (http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/law_of_free_fall.htm) on freefall make any sense?

captain swoop
2005-Feb-09, 11:48 AM
Sorry, I can't stay away any longer.

Mutineer, are you trying to say that WTC7 was deliberately blown up by someone?

Why would they do it?

Say what you mean. :evil:

mutineer
2005-Feb-09, 01:30 PM
Yes, fire can cause steel buildings to collapse, if the fire is of sufficient intensity, duration, and distribution, and the building is already damaged by debris strikes.

The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest . . . Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings.
You make it sound like steel buildings have been collapsing from fire damage regularly since 911, sts60. Is that your claim? Or are the debris strikes important?

In any case, you mistake the point I was making - which was about the nature of the collapse. Its speed and symmetry caused news reporters and commentators (including Dan Rather) to compare the collapse with a controlled demolition. Some witnesses including police and engineers apparently thought that was what they had seen.

It is not a claim I make myself. I have seen one major controlled demolition. The collapse was preceded by perhaps forty small detonations, some of them giving off puffs of smoke - the sound arriving a couple of seconds later and echoing off adjacent buildings. I am entirely unconvinced that such detonations occurred at WTC7.

sts60
2005-Feb-09, 01:36 PM
Based on what I've read about the failure mode of that type of constructions, the nature of the collapse is exactly what one would expect.
But did you ever know of any other large building elsewhere that collapsed the way that one did? With such suddenness and symmetry? And almost at free fall speed? If so, I want to know.One that comes immediately to mind is a parking garage in my county. A worker was killed in the lean-to collapse of a top-level slab, then later there was a pancake collapse of some of the structure underneath. Some of the collapse rescue experts mentioned how fast the second fall was - in particular, much faster than they instinctively expected, i.e., they knew collapses could happen like that but the speed still impressed them. From their descriptions, it must have seemed like a pile driver coming down.

sts60
2005-Feb-09, 01:46 PM
You make it sound like steel buildings have been collapsing from fire damage regularly since 911, sts60. Is that your claim? Or are the debris strikes important?
There have been few total collapses of really big steel buildings due to fire damage. However, roof collapses of steel-framed buildings in fires are not especially unusual; I've read of them in firefighter LODD (Line Of Duty Death) reports. The underlying mechanisms (weakening and distortion of steel members and connectors, rather than outright melting) are the same.

The debris strikes were a factor in WTC 7, but certainly would not have brought the building down without the fire and the subsequent (wise) decision not to mount an interior fire attack.

In any case, you mistake the point I was making - which was about the nature of the collapse. Its speed and symmetry caused news reporters and commentators (including Dan Rather) to compare the collapse with a controlled demolition. Some witnesses including police and engineers apparently thought that was what they had seen.

I stand corrected as to your point. I can certainly see why people thought it looked like a controlled demolition.

It is not a claim I make myself. I have seen one major controlled demolition. The collapse was preceded by perhaps forty small detonations, some of them giving off puffs of smoke - the sound arriving a couple of seconds later and echoing off adjacent buildings. I am entirely unconvinced that such detonations occurred at WTC7.

Rightly so. Sorry if I seemed a little touchy. We just went through a long thread on Apollohoax with a WTC hoax believer who was, unsurprisingly, a Holocaust denier as well.

Celestial Mechanic
2005-Feb-09, 01:47 PM
[Snip!]In any case, you mistake the point I was making - which was about the nature of the collapse. Its speed and symmetry caused news reporters and commentators (including Dan Rather) to compare the collapse with a controlled demolition. Some witnesses including police and engineers apparently thought that was what they had seen.
And we all know just how credible Dan Rather is. :roll:

It is not a claim I make myself. I have seen one major controlled demolition. The collapse was preceded by perhaps forty small detonations, some of them giving off puffs of smoke - the sound arriving a couple of seconds later and echoing off adjacent buildings. I am entirely unconvinced that such detonations occurred at WTC7.
I too have witnessed a controlled demolition, the Biltmore Hotel in Oklahoma City in 1978. There may have been a few secondary explosions, but in this case there was one main blast with a strong concussion that I felt a quarter-mile away. If WTC7 had been brought down in such a manner I'm sure more than a few people (many of them more credible than Dan Rather!) would have noticed. I likewise agree that WTC7 was not brought down by controlled demolition.

Sammy
2005-Feb-09, 04:23 PM
...it's not as different as I'm sure you think. the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 produced major seismic shocks...I'm just a lowly layperson w/no technical training in engineering. I'm sure you're much more qualified to make such a determination than I.
Be nice, Gillian, after all, I'm of Welsh descent... 8)
WTC 7 collapsed after 5 PM, the South Tower at 9:59 AM.
Sammy, does this page (http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/law_of_free_fall.htm) on freefall make any sense?

Yeah, NONSENSE!

pghnative
2005-Feb-09, 04:52 PM
...it's not as different as I'm sure you think. the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 produced major seismic shocks...I'm just a lowly layperson w/no technical training in engineering. I'm sure you're much more qualified to make such a determination than I.
Be nice, Gillian, after all, I'm of Welsh descent... 8)
WTC 7 collapsed after 5 PM, the South Tower at 9:59 AM.
Sammy, does this page (http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/law_of_free_fall.htm) on freefall make any sense?

Yeah, NONSENSE!Yup, it's non-sense.

SS, you claimed previously that you were only concerned with Tower 7's collapse Are you now claiming that the collapse of towers 1 and 2 are suspect too?

Your link provides this astounding quote:


It is not even necessary to disprove all of the allegations in the official conspiracy theory. All that is necessary is to disprove ONE allegation to demonstrate the whole to be a lie
So if you find one mistake, you can disprove the other pieces of evidence, no matter how numerous?? This is asinine on its surface. Plus, the "mistakes" identified on the website do not hold up to careful analysis.

1) first of all, I would expect the fall to be close to freefall. Why? Because the floors didn't collapse one by one. The top 1/3 or so fell as a chunk. This is a heck of a lot of weight. I'd expect the supporting steel in the bottom 2/3 of the building to put up negligible resistance versus the dynamic load of a falling ~30 floors.

2) the analysis is un-scientific. The buildings fell in ~10 seconds. About. Can they be more specific? Is it 9.9? Did they round up from 9? Round down from 12. This makes a big difference, as you'll see in point #4.

3) Note that an object in freefall falls 16 feet the first second, 48 feet the second second (total of 64), 81 feet the 3rd second (total of 145), etc. So the analysis that "suppose each floor fell once per 1/2 second" is mindlessly unscientific.

4) continuing the math, an object in freefall falls 270 feet between second 8 and second 9, 310 feet between second 9 and 10, and 340 feet between second 10 and 11. So this business of saying they fell in ~10 seconds is horribly imprecise. Plus, the seismic waves from the start of the collapse should be delayed by about 1 second relative to the waves from the end, presuming that they travelled at the speed of sound through the building. (May be less -- not sure of speed of sound through steel).

5) Put it all together, and it looks like the buildings fell at slightly slower than freefall, as a reasonable person would expect from such a large weight.

sts60
2005-Feb-09, 06:24 PM
All that is necessary is to disprove ONE allegation to demonstrate the whole to be a lie

Since 9/11 conspiracists' claims are basically a giant fetid mound of disproven, unsupported, and/or irrelevant allegations, can we assume the whole conspiracy thing to be a lie?

Well, someone could certainly be mistaken.

Oops, no, no one is ever misquoted, misspoken, misunderstood, taken out of context, or just plain wrong in the conspiracist playbook. Therefore, the conspiracists are indeed lying. QED.

Gillianren
2005-Feb-09, 10:26 PM
out of idle curiousity, how many of you from places other than CA have seen footage of that collapsed freeway? I lived in LA County at the time, and it was all we had on TV for literally days after the quake, which I'm reasonably sure was not the case elsewhere, but I have no way of knowing. I mean, it is very, very famous, right?

Fortis
2005-Feb-09, 10:32 PM
out of idle curiousity, how many of you from places other than CA have seen footage of that collapsed freeway? I lived in LA County at the time, and it was all we had on TV for literally days after the quake, which I'm reasonably sure was not the case elsewhere, but I have no way of knowing. I mean, it is very, very famous, right?
I can remember seeing it on the news in the UK, if that helps.

Swift
2005-Feb-09, 10:33 PM
out of idle curiousity, how many of you from places other than CA have seen footage of that collapsed freeway? I lived in LA County at the time, and it was all we had on TV for literally days after the quake, which I'm reasonably sure was not the case elsewhere, but I have no way of knowing. I mean, it is very, very famous, right?
I certainly saw it on the news and remember it in Ohio. I remember reading/seeing stories about a few people that were rescued. Probably not everyday after the first day or two, but it got a lot of press.

Gillianren
2005-Feb-10, 12:03 AM
right. and like I said, that sure wasn't demolition. I'm also pretty sure I remember news report of buildings pancaking in Mexico City and Kobe. maybe it's just living on the Ring of Fire as I do, but buildings pancaking w/out demolition doesn't surprise me. especially if they've been left to burn for 7 hours or more, too.

[edited to correct an error in how long the buildings burned]

sarongsong
2005-Feb-10, 02:30 AM
...SS, you claimed previously that you were only concerned with Tower 7's collapse. Are you now claiming that the collapse of towers 1 and 2 are suspect too?...Your link provides this astounding quote...So this business of saying they fell in ~10 seconds is horribly imprecise...
If you're referring to me, yes, Tower 7 was the focus. I didn't author that link; simply asked for Sammy's opinion of its freefall stats. Not sure what you mean by "~10 seconds is horribly imprecise"---what are you looking for that would be closer to 'precise'---down to hundredths of a second---or do you feel its many seconds off?

Maksutov
2005-Feb-10, 04:04 AM
Connecticut has had its share of collapsed structures. In these cases poor designs taking on what should have been normal loads or marginal/acceptable designs taking on abnormal loads led to failure. Some examples:

1978 Hartford Civic Center (http://www.eng.uab.edu/cee/reu_nsf99/hartford.htm#causes)
1983 Mianus Bridge-Connecticut Turnpike (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1984/HAR8403.htm)
1987 L'Ambiance Plaza Building (http://www.eng.uab.edu/cee/reu_nsf99/ambiance.htm#collapse)

The last one is a good example of how the collapse of just one level can put a load on the supporting structure that is beyond its design capabilities. All that is needed is one initiating event, such as a shear failure of fasteners in the wrong place, or weakening and distortion of important structural members by heat, such as found in building fires. If the structure has already been weakened by external stresses, then the initiating event may been of a magnitude well below design safety parameters.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-10, 05:11 AM
...All that is needed is one initiating event, such as...weakening and distortion of important structural members by heat, such as found in building fires...
Yes, with exceptions:
Oct 18, 2004 (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1389)
"...A fire broke out in...Venezuela's highest skyscraper... destroying the top twenty of its fifty floors...roared out of control for 17 hours..."
WTC 7 appeared to fall just as quickly as 1 & 2, to this untrained eye, but without the jackhammer effect provided by their (relatively) undamaged upper floors.

Swift
2005-Feb-10, 02:43 PM
<skip>
All that is needed is one initiating event, such as a shear failure of fasteners in the wrong place, or weakening and distortion of important structural members by heat, such as found in building fires. If the structure has already been weakened by external stresses, then the initiating event may been of a magnitude well below design safety parameters.
IIRC, in addition to the uncontrolled fire in WTC7, it was also believed that it was hit with falling debris from the collapse of the towers (I'm talking chunks of metal, not paper), which would have added to the external stresses.

I have a distinct memory of watching news at the time about the fire in WTC7, that the fire department had decided for a variety of specific reasons not to fight the fire, and that there was speculation that the building would fail because of this. So it was not surprise when it did.
I still don't get what is the deal with either the black boxes or the WTC7 collapse, neither seems a mystery to me. :roll:

russ_watters
2005-Feb-10, 03:59 PM
Bah - multi-post.

russ_watters
2005-Feb-10, 04:14 PM
Based on what I've read about the failure mode of that type of constructions, the nature of the collapse is exactly what one would expect.
But did you ever know of any other large building elsewhere that collapsed the way that one did? With such suddenness and symmetry? And almost at free fall speed? If so, I want to know.
I don't have any specific examples, but you can learn some engineering statics pretty easily if you choose to: google for some course notes. Read up a little on stability and you will find that buildings always fall pretty much straight down and they always accelerate near G, because there is no other way for them to fall (and the bigger they are, the straighter and faster they fall). It is a myth that to fall straight down you need a controlled demolition.

For the freefall bit, look up a Charpy impact test. Freefall is an energy event - potential converted to kinetic. While steel can resist a high force, the energy required to break it is actually quite small - smaller even than for aluminum.

Sammy, does this page on freefall make any sense?
See above: they are right about it being an energy event, dead wrong about how much energy it takes. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me (I'm quite certain they didn't).

In any case, you mistake the point I was making - which was about the nature of the collapse. Its speed and symmetry caused news reporters and commentators (including Dan Rather) to compare the collapse with a controlled demolition. Some witnesses including police and engineers apparently thought that was what they had seen.
AFAIK, mutineer, Dan Rather is not a structural egineer or even a man with any technical expertise whatsoever. And random eyewitnesses? Engineers? WHO? C'mon, is this what passes for an informed opinion to you? Do you have any idea how absurd what you are saying sounds?

In any case, if your point was simply that some uninformed people thought it might have been a controlled demolition, its a pointless point. Its worthless. Why are you even bringing it up? You must have a larger point here: make it. These insinuations are just regurgitated idiocy.

mutineer
2005-Feb-11, 02:07 PM
The building - contents and hundreds or thousands of gallons of fuel (indeed it was far more than some "Molotov cocktail") - burned for hours . . .
The Journal of Materials article that has been cited in this thread used the expression "Molotov cocktail" in regard to the fuel aboard the planes which crashed into WTC1 and WTC2. The article questioned whether the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 showed a design or materials failure. Its verdict was that the designers could hardly have been expected to plan for the "Molotov cocktail" that was launched at these two buildings.

Clearly, WTC7 was not subjected to a "Molotov cocktail" of this sort. There were several fuel tanks within the building but by far the greater part of the storage capacity was at ground level, and 98% of the capacity was below the fifth floor – the lowest point at which fires were reported.

I do not believe it has been established that any of the three 275 gallon tanks on the fifth, seventh and eighth floor were directly set ablaze. However, the FEMA report concludes, in regard to one of them, that even if full its contents were “not felt to be enough to threaten the stability of the building's structural elements.”

Beyond that there is the possibility that the fuel pumping system was feeding fuel into one or more of the fires. Aside from the failsafe devices one would expect to prevent this, one would imagine that there would be some manual check to prevent this and similar hazards. The building was not evacuated in haste or panic.


My sense of reality has no problem with the official probable explanation (see Ch. 5 for the WTC 7 specific part).
Well, it would be truer to say that there is an official REPORT than to say that there is an official EXPLANATION. Really, the more one delves into the WTC7 business the more strange so many elements of it seem.

I am sure that there are many BABBers who can read the FEMA report with much more technical expertise than me. On the other hand, I have some experience of reading reports (research audit reports, etc) with my mind running on how much I can infer from “between the lines”; how far I can trace how the author’s mind was working.

Turns out, you do not need my prior experience to see that Chapter 5 of the FEMA Report is the report of four men who have dutifully assembled plenty of facts and pictures, but do not want to say in so many words “well, it’s a bit of a puzzle in many respects” or commit themselves too far.

Here’s some samples: “will require additional study and analysis” -- “the degree of impact damage . . . could not be documented” – “makes it likely” -- “could have accounted” – “may or may not give some indication” – “Currently, there are no data available” – “Currently, there is limited information” – “mode of fire and smoke spread was unclear” – “may have been” – “With the limited information currently available” – “It is currently unclear” – “currently unknown and therefore various scenarios need to be investigated further” – “further analysis is needed”.

Cylinder
2005-Feb-11, 02:43 PM
Here’s some samples: “will require additional study and analysis” -- “the degree of impact damage . . . could not be documented” – “makes it likely” -- “could have accounted” – “may or may not give some indication” – “Currently, there are no data available” – “Currently, there is limited information” – “mode of fire and smoke spread was unclear” – “may have been” – “With the limited information currently available” – “It is currently unclear” – “currently unknown and therefore various scenarios need to be investigated further” – “further analysis is needed”.

Why do you not consider the same verbiage a constraint on expert opinion? In the course of official duties, a right-thinking expert will caveat any minute amount of speculation in the course of an official opinion. I find it hard to reconcile that one familiar with reports of this kind would find it telling (at least in the way you describe) that conclusions contain such caveats. Read through some of the major investigation reports (http://www.ntsb.gov/events/major.htm) at the NTSB site and contrast that language with that cited in your quote. How does that compare?

pghnative
2005-Feb-11, 02:44 PM
...SS, you claimed previously that you were only concerned with Tower 7's collapse. Are you now claiming that the collapse of towers 1 and 2 are suspect too?...Your link provides this astounding quote...So this business of saying they fell in ~10 seconds is horribly imprecise...
If you're referring to me, yes, Tower 7 was the focus. I didn't author that link; simply asked for Sammy's opinion of its freefall stats. Not sure what you mean by "~10 seconds is horribly imprecise"---what are you looking for that would be closer to 'precise'---down to hundredths of a second---or do you feel its many seconds off?
Ah yes, the classic obfuscation tactic. "No, I'm not questioning the tower 1 and 2 collapse. When I linked to it, it wasn't 'cause I agree with it".

I made several points rebutting the webpage -- you've selectively quoted me and only responded to one. To answer you, yes, I think saying "~10 seconds" is imprecise relative to the conclusions made. Objects in freefall fall over 300 feet per second in the 10th second. Therefore I think that providing a time estimate with only one significant digit is too imprecise to conclude that "This is the rate at which nearly ALL of the "falling energy" (kinetic energy from gravity) must deliver the building to ground level ASAP." (quoting the link)

Regarding Tower 7, no one here has even attempted to put pen to paper. The best you can offer is that
WTC 7 appeared to fall just as quickly as 1 & 2, to this untrained eye..
Congratulations -- you've debunked yourself.

captain swoop
2005-Feb-11, 03:31 PM
So Mutineer, what do you think happened to WTC7? you must have your own take on it or you wouldn't be trying to lead everyone here to say that it was somehow deliberate. Cos' that's what it seems to me you want to say.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-11, 03:44 PM
...Regarding Tower 7, no one here has even attempted to put pen to paper...
Well, that certainly clarifies everything. 8)

pghnative
2005-Feb-11, 05:02 PM
...Regarding Tower 7, no one here has even attempted to put pen to paper...
Well, that certainly clarifies everything. 8)
Yes, actually it does clarify. Those of you making accusations (SS, mutineer) aren't backing them up with careful analysis.

And you've again selectively quoted me. My full quote was

Regarding Tower 7, no one here has even attempted to put pen to paper. The best you can offer is what* sarongsong wrote:

WTC 7 appeared to fall just as quickly as 1 & 2, to this untrained eye.
Congratulations -- you've debunked yourself.

* in quoting myself, I've corrected a typo here

sarongsong
2005-Feb-12, 12:55 AM
(sigh)...what accusations do you think I made?...and while you're at it, please explain the phrase:
"...Regarding Tower 7, no one here has even attempted to put pen to paper..."

russ_watters
2005-Feb-12, 03:54 AM
(sigh)...what accusations do you think I made? sarongsong, why are you even posting in this thread?

You post quotes and links without comment and refuse to state what your opinion of them really is. You make backhand insinuations about other people's points. Why don't you make your point? Or is your purpose here simply to provoke reactions without ever making an actual point? If so, that's trolling.

mutineer's purpose here, at least, has been relatively clear....

sarongsong
2005-Feb-12, 05:38 AM
Well, duh'---he opened this thread. :roll: ...welcome to Page Six.

mutineer
2005-Feb-12, 10:53 AM
These insinuations are just regurgitated idiocy.
I am not aware that I have made any insinuations. Please withdraw this remark and apologize.

Gillianren
2005-Feb-13, 09:28 PM
everyone else is aware of exactly what insinuations you've made. you've insinuated that those black boxes were "covered up." for what reason, you have not bothered to say, but you've insinuated that there was a reason, that someone benefitted from it.

you've insinuated that literally thousands of people (any amateur who knows enough to spot the flaws and goes along w/the official story anyway must be included in this, so make it millions) are somehow going along w/whatever it is that you think is happening.

you're insinuating, and not very cleverly, that the collapses must have been caused by outside forces, since the "official story" doesn't satisfy you.

and now, you're trying to convince us that you never meant to insinuate any of this. we know what we've read.

pghnative
2005-Feb-14, 02:49 PM
(sigh)...what accusations do you think I made?...
Well, let's see. First you posted this:

"...FLIGHT DATA RECORDER
Time recorded: 25 hour continuous
Number of parameters: 5 - 300+
Impact tolerance: 3400Gs /6.5ms
Fire resistance: 1100 degC/30 min
Water pressure resistance: submerged 20,000 ft
Underwater locator beacon: 37.5 KHz
Battery: 6yr shelf life 30 day operation..."
The Black Boxes (http://www.themedianews.com/DAGGER/Front%20Page/9-11_black_boxes_.htm)
The link you provide starts "And even if we forget the steel, there's the curious incident of the planes' black boxes - not ONE of the EIGHT black boxes - two per plane - survived! Not just those of the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers, but also of the other two planes! Not even of the one that crashed into the ground in Pennsylvania."

That is a clear accusation that you think the lack of black boxes is suspicious. Otherwise, why link??

Then you say this:


...The investigation is still officially open, so whatever data has been recovered is sealed until the case is closed...
March 6, 2002
"...the concurrent criminal investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a separate investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board further frustrated the building performance investigators..In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA] BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris – including most of the steel from the upper floors – was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S..."
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/charter.htm

which clearly is meant to imply that the black boxes were destroyed after the fact, perhaps through ineptitude, perhaps through purposefullness

Then later you say


...what conspiracy scenario could this seemingly irrelevant piece of information represent given the mountain of other evidence available?
That the cockpit pilots were not controlling the 2 planes.
which is a pretty direct accusation

Then you post this


...I don?t want to give the impression that I underrate the needle-in-a-haystack aspect...
Would this have helped?
"...Underwater locator beacon: 37.5 KHz..."
which appears to imply that the recorders should easily have been found due to their locator beacons. The obvious implication is that since they weren't found, there must be a suspicious reason why.

Then you posted a quote about how only the WTC flight recorders are missing. THis contradicts what you posted earlier, but of course you don't acknowledge this.

The you post this:

"World Trade Center Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties due to this collapse...As you can see from the above animated-gif, the collapse of WTC 7 certainly has the appearance of a controlled demolition..."
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/WTC7Fairytale.htm
Got gold?
"There are rumors that $160 billion in gold bullion was stored under the World Trade Center. Yet the only published articles about recovered gold mention only around $200 million..."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html
which clearly accuses someone of purposefully demolishing WTC7, perhaps to obtain the money underneath.

Then you posted this


Plenty of large structures have pancaked without undergoing ordinary demolition...
Any specific examples come to mind?
which clearly indicates that you are skeptical that a "pancake" type destruction of WTC7 is precendented

Then you post this


...it's not as different as I'm sure you think. the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 produced major seismic shocks...I'm just a lowly layperson w/no technical training in engineering. I'm sure you're much more qualified to make such a determination than I.
Be nice, Gillian, after all, I'm of Welsh descent... 8)
WTC 7 collapsed after 5 PM, the South Tower at 9:59 AM.
Sammy, does this page (http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/law_of_free_fall.htm) on freefall make any sense?
where the link starts off llike this:
"PROOF THE TWIN TOWERS WERE DELIBERATELY DEMOLISHED"
Again, the accusation is clear.

Your claim that you've made no accusations is disingenuous at best.

jamestox
2005-Feb-14, 05:23 PM
In a timely manner, here is the preview of a Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y) article due out in the coming issue regarding many of the things we've been hashing out here.
Definitely interesting reading; it also points out that most of those who question whether the US is a collective victim of our own government are those who do not live within the US. I think this is quite well born-out with our friend mutineer (Cheltenham, England).
In the interest of maintaining civility regarding a very touchy topic, I encourage everyone to read the article, then we can resume discussion, including the information this brings to the table.

Regards,
J.

sts60
2005-Feb-14, 09:34 PM
That's funny. I thought most of the conspiracy theorists were home-grown, either from the anti-American far left wing or from the anti-government far right wing.

But then again, considering the generally low level of popularity of this country right now, I suppose it shouldn't be too surprising that there are plenty elsewhere. Certainly there are many in the Islamic world when it comes to 9/11 and the aftermath, especially because a number of governments and press there (often really the same thing) tend to fan this sort of thing (pretext for oil war, Mossad did it, etc.)

Of course, Popular Mechanics is a pretty woo-woo magazine itself when they leave cabinets, cars, and guns behind. In the PM world, it's only government bureaucrats and pointy-headed academics holding back the glorious fruits of cold fusion-generated electricity and Hf 178 powered personal airplanes. :roll:

sts60
2005-Feb-14, 09:37 PM
Speaking of burning high-rises, it appears, although news accounts are muddled, that some of upper floors of the Madrid skyscraper that caught fire last week have collapsed (http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=39297).

Cylinder
2005-Feb-14, 10:16 PM
Speaking of burning high-rises, it appears, although news accounts are muddled, that some of upper floors of the Madrid skyscraper that caught fire last week have collapsed (http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=39297).

Cover up. We were on to their game, so TPTB manufactured evidence.

sts60
2005-Feb-15, 02:45 PM
Doh! #-o I should have realized that.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-16, 12:32 AM
...it [Popular Mechanics article] also points out that most of those who question whether the US is a collective victim of our own government are those who do not live within the US. I think this is quite well born-out with our friend mutineer (Cheltenham, England)...
You got that from this?
"... As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States..."
Critiques of PM's online article:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html

pghnative
2005-Feb-16, 07:09 PM
(sigh)...what accusations do you think I made?


Critiques of PM's online article:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html
Double sigh.

Let me guess, SS, you're still not making any accusations, huh?

Oh, and by the way, previously you requested of me:

...and while you're at it, please explain the phrase:
"...Regarding Tower 7, no one here has even attempted to put pen to paper..."
When I say, "put pen to paper", I'm saying that none of the accusers (whomever they may be, whether they admit to it or not) have made any calculations, presented any science, etc... the accusation mainly consists of "the collapse doesn't look right to me, and it didn't look right to Dan Rather either"

edited once for clarity

sarongsong
2005-Feb-16, 11:39 PM
...Let me guess, SS, you're still not making any accusations, huh?
Perhaps we disagree on the definition of 'accusation'.
My position is that there are enough inconsistencies in evidence and various accounts of what actually happened, to create doubt; the Commander-in-Chief, for one example:
December 4, 2001 (http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/BushAdmitsSeeingFirstPlaneHitWTC.htm)
"...And another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack? *(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: *Thank you, Jordan. *Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. *I was in Florida. *And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. *I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. *And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. *I said, it must have been a horrible accident.
But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. *And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."
And, Jordan, I wasn't sure what to think at first..."
The only (to my knowledge) filming of the first hit was made by a French crew filming a documentary (http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie.aspx?m=523482) of FDNY's Engine Seven, Ladder One company.
Please explain how the President saw that first impact.

...When I say, "put pen to paper", I'm saying that none of the accusers (whomever they may be, whether they admit to it or not) have made any calculations, presented any science, etc... the accusation mainly consists of "the collapse doesn't look right to me, and it didn't look right to Dan Rather either"
Thanks for clarifying your point as I initially took it to mean that Building 7 hadn't been mentioned in the thread previously.

Musashi
2005-Feb-17, 12:51 AM
He could have meant that he saw the news that a plane hit the tower and a shot of the damage, maybe? As in, "I saw an airplane had hit the tower --"

pghnative
2005-Feb-17, 01:06 AM
...Let me guess, SS, you're still not making any accusations, huh?
Perhaps we disagree on the definition of 'accusation'.
My position is that there are enough inconsistencies in evidence and various accounts of what actually happened, to create doubt;

See, there you go again. "enough inconsistencies to create doubt". You're not bothering to provide another hypothesis, you're not bothering to actually articulate an accusation (thereby avoiding the necessity to provide proof), just saying "hey, this doesn't make sense .... and this doesn't make sense.... and I don't understand this here, either --- therefore I'm right" This is very similar to the Moon Hoax proponents (they never provide proof of their assertions, they just try to poke holes in NASA's story) and proponents of Intelligent design. I'm not impressed at all.


...
the Commander-in-Chief, for one example:
December 4, 2001 (http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/BushAdmitsSeeingFirstPlaneHitWTC.htm)
"...And another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack? *(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: *Thank you, Jordan. *Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. *I was in Florida. *And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. *I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. *And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. *I said, it must have been a horrible accident.
But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. *And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."
And, Jordan, I wasn't sure what to think at first..."
The only (to my knowledge) filming of the first hit was made by a French crew filming a documentary (http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie.aspx?m=523482) of FDNY's Engine Seven, Ladder One company.
Please explain how the President saw that first impact.
I trust that he didn't. This particular president is famous for mis-speaking. Musashi's explanation is most likely. It only requires the president to have slipped and not spoken one little word ("saw that a plane" versus "saw a plane")

Besides, even in the most paranoid conspiracy theory, (let's make one up: Bush ordered the attacks himself to help him win a second term) is it really likely that he would have viewed secret footage of plane#1 hitting the north tower? And even if he had viewed secret footage, how does that support a grand conspiracy theory????

(oh yeah, you're not accusing that a grand conspiracy occurred...)

Van Rijn
2005-Feb-17, 02:12 AM
...Let me guess, SS, you're still not making any accusations, huh?
Perhaps we disagree on the definition of 'accusation'.
My position is that there are enough inconsistencies in evidence and various accounts of what actually happened, to create doubt;

What level of doubt are you suggesting? Given the publicity, given the amount of information available, given that this is only one of many attacks, I think it is very clear that terrorists flew two planes into the buildings and directly caused the destruction thereafter. Could something else have happened? There is a possibility, but it doesn't rise to the level of reasonable doubt. And just what are you suggesting happened?



I trust that he didn't. This particular president is famous for mis-speaking. Musashi's explanation is most likely. It only requires the president to have slipped and not spoken one little word ("saw that a plane" versus "saw a plane")


Bush jokes aside, I think I have a pretty good memory, but in similar situations with a major event, I've found that details in chronology I thought I knew were wrong. I saw those plane strikes dozens, perhaps hundreds of times. That interview was in December? I could have easily said the same thing, even if I had seen the plane strike much later.

Honestly, I don't know what is here to explain. The President gets a detail wrong ... and the point is?

pghnative
2005-Feb-17, 02:29 AM
Bush jokes aside, I think I have a pretty good memory, but in similar situations with a major event, I've found that details in chronology I thought I knew were wrong. I saw those plane strikes dozens, perhaps hundreds of times. That interview was in December? I could have easily said the same thing, even if I had seen the plane strike much later. Agreed --- that's another very likely explanation.


Honestly, I don't know what is here to explain. The President gets a detail wrong ... and the point is?
The (supposed) point was explicitly stated on one of the web pages that sarong linked to:

It is not even necessary to disprove all of the allegations in the official conspiracy theory. All that is necessary is to disprove ONE allegation to demonstrate the whole to be a lie
Of course, I personally could not disagree more with that line of thinking.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-17, 02:48 AM
...I'm not impressed at all...
Nor I; simply looking for why a friend (http://www.legacy.com/kansascity/Sept11.asp?Page=TributeStory&PersonID=114889) was taken out.
Just another "famous for mis-speaking" account?
October 12, 2001 (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2627)
"... Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this [Pentagon] building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center..."

Fortis
2005-Feb-17, 03:23 AM
Perhaps we disagree on the definition of 'accusation'.
My position is that there are enough inconsistencies in evidence and various accounts of what actually happened, to create doubt; the Commander-in-Chief, for one example:
December 4, 2001 (http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/BushAdmitsSeeingFirstPlaneHitWTC.htm)
...I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. *And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. *I said, it must have been a horrible accident..."
Please explain how the President saw that first impact.

Did he say "airplane hit the tower" or "airplane had hit the tower"? That one word would make all the difference in the world. Also don't misunderestimate the possibility that he just mispoke. (Memory can be a strange thing as well.)

Now let's look at this passage from the other position. Let's consider the possibility that it wasn't an error in the transcript, or a slip of the tongue. What does it mean? First of all, it was public knowledge at the time that the footage of the first aircraft crashing was not televised prior to the second crash. If he was deliberately trying to mislead in the quote, then it was a rather poor lie. It would never stand the slightest scrutiny. This does not sound like the work of any competent conspiracy, so I suggest that we can rule out this option.

The second option would seem to be that what he said was an accurate reflection of what actually happened, and that in this quote he accidentally "let the cat out of the bag." For this to be true, he would have had to have seen the first aircraft crash prior to him entering the room. How could he have done that if, as has been stated, the only footage of the first crash was recovered after the second one? The only way for this to happen would appear to be that there was not only a team on the ground filming the crash, but that it was also being linked to a display that he could see outside of the classroom. Where was this display? Was the footage being transmitted via satellite to a van outside of the school and then fed via cable to a monitor in front of him? Could it have been sent to a small handset in his possession? (Presumably it would have been encrypted, as you could not accept the risk that it would be intercepted and viewed by someone else.) Wouldn't he have looked a bit exposed if someone had seen him doing this? Why would he be willing to take this unecessary risk? This just doesn't make sense.

My money would be on one of the explanations in my first paragraph, because the other options don't make seem to make any sense at all.

Going back to your question. Can you explain how the president saw the first impact?

I now see that some of my points have already been covered by other posters. I guess that's what happens when you take two hours to finally submit a post.

Fortis
2005-Feb-17, 03:44 AM
"... Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this [Pentagon] building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center..."
Whilst I can't claim to have the inside track on what he really meant, the aircraft were missiles. A missile is literally "something projected so as to hit something at a distance", and that seems like a pretty good description of the aircraft. Try googling on "aircraft as a missile" to see that there seems to be nothing sinister in Bush's use of the term.

Sam5
2005-Feb-17, 04:21 AM
Take a look at this.

http://www.how-safe-are-we.com/

Cylinder
2005-Feb-17, 04:39 AM
Take a look at this.

http://www.how-safe-are-we.com/

Funny.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-17, 06:09 AM
...there seems to be nothing sinister in Bush's use of the term...That was the Secretary of Defense.

...Did he [Bush] say "airplane hit the tower" or "airplane had hit the tower"?... There is a Listen (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.a.ram) option at the referenced link.
Sure, it could all be mis-speak---but how does one determine what is and what is not...about anything?

...Going back to your question. Can you explain how the president saw the first impact? Nope.

Kesh
2005-Feb-17, 06:27 AM
In other words, nothing is going to convince you.

captain swoop
2005-Feb-17, 10:32 AM
So, let me get this right. You are saying that Bush was responsible for the attack on the WTC and knew all about it?

Or am I missing something altogether?

sarongsong
2005-Feb-17, 11:09 AM
I'm not convinced of anything other than there is an abundance of inconsistencies surrounding 911.
No, captain swoop, I don't think he was responsible, don't know what he knew, and don't know whether you're missing something altogether.

captain swoop
2005-Feb-17, 11:15 AM
Then why keep posting all the links and quotes to sites that support the view that it's all a coverup?

Fortis
2005-Feb-17, 12:48 PM
...there seems to be nothing sinister in Bush's use of the term...That was the Secretary of Defense.

I should have followed the link rather than just assume that the quoted bit was from Bush.

Either way, there still isn't anything sinister about the use of the term. (In fact, as the Sec Def, it seems an even more natural turn of phrase.)




...Did he [Bush] say "airplane hit the tower" or "airplane had hit the tower"?... There is a Listen (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.a.ram) option at the referenced link.
Sure, it could all be mis-speak---but how does one determine what is and what is not...about anything?

If you can't satisfy yourself that it should be taken one way or the other, then why not just go with the straightforward hypothesis that a group of terrorists hi-jacked 4 airliners in order to use them as weapons (missiles.) This seems to be consistent with the information that we have.




...Going back to your question. Can you explain how the president saw the first impact? Nope.
Even within the context of a conspiracy theory?

sts60
2005-Feb-17, 02:01 PM
I'm not convinced of anything other than there is an abundance of inconsistencies surrounding 911.

There are many inconsistencies surrounding any great historical event, especially those which involve conflict and surprise. Why should the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 be any different?

We know exactly what happened, even if some of the details remain unclear. The fact that some details are unclear does not mean four commercial jetliners weren't hijacked and used as missiles. No more than inconsistencies in personal accounts and logs from ships and headquarters mean that D-Day didn't happen.

Surely, sarongsarong, you must be aware that whatever your intention, your posts fit the classic "sneak attack" approach favored by CTs: "oh, I was just wondering what you thought of this..." It's not putting words into your mouth to note the similarities. Perhaps you will enlighten us as to the exact nature of your doubts; so far you've referred to a lot of raving PCT sites which claim 9/11 was a hoax, a gubmint sham, etc. - without further clarification, it's not unfair for us to assume you lean towards those beliefs.

Rich
2005-Feb-17, 03:26 PM
Hey, how about this: I was one of those unlucky enough to actually get to hear the Flight 93 recordings. As part of the job I just left we were able to hear the released recordings around the same time the families of those on board were allowed.

Believe me, hearing what went on in that cockpit was not interesting, tittilating, or any other "good" word of which you can think. Simply put it was horrifying and I'll be quite glad not to have to deal with such material again (hopefully). Suffice it to say the original pilots were not in control of that aircraft as the sounds of them being murdered by the hijackers were quite obvious.

That is one aircraft that was clearly hijacked on that day. And you would have to label not just myself, but every family member who heard it or talked to their loved ones before the brave passengers attempted to retake the aircraft, liars. At least so far as Flight 93 is concerned. But if hijackers were involved in that case you need to explain, satisfactorily, why it wasn't also hijackers on the other aircraft.

(BTW - weren't phone calls made from the other flights as well? I thought we had calls from 3 of the 4? So, then what? Did the big bad CIA get voice immitators for all of those callers (good enough to fool their own families), scam their cell phone numbers to fool caller I.D., and god knows what else including travelling in parallel planes to fool the cell phone companies into tracking the calls across several ground cells? I mean where does this idiocy stop?)

Let's not forget the fact that Osama bin Laden has now clearly and definitively taken credit for the 9/11 attacks. BTW - OBL is now "sorry" that he and his buddies had to take such an extreme step and hope "sincerely" that they don't have to kill more innocents to get the U.S. out of... well wherever they decide they don't want us to be... which seems to be just about any non-European country that has even a single Muslim citizen.

While I understand the need to make sense of such tragedies and the need to place blame... the way this ridiculous conspiracy crap has been handled here so far is simply trash. If you are making accusations - Make Them! Don't play this, "I'm not actually saying anything... I just suspect [blank] " game... it's despicable, not in keeping with the spirit of this board, and not befitted the memory of those who died that day. If you have some accusation to make or suspect something own-up and say it! This dancing around the issue when clearly a couple of folks here have clear opinions that the official version (that of mostly Saudi terrorists hijacking and crashing the planes) is a big lie... needs to stop. State clearly what you think, so you can't continue this lame accusation... "but I didn't really say that..." game.

captain swoop
2005-Feb-17, 03:30 PM
=D>

What he says.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-18, 03:14 AM
I'm not convinced of anything other than there is an abundance of inconsistencies surrounding 911.
I sing in a college choir. We had a rehearsal today. We're singing a piece for double choir, so we're divided into two, and at one point the conductor asked for choir one to sing but gestured to choir two. Why would he say choir one if he meant choir two, especially considering that he had gotten it right just moments before? Meanwhile, the pencil I had put behind my ear mysteriously vanished until after the rehearsal, when I found it under a chair. Why didn't I notice it falling out? Why didn't I hear it hit the floor? Why did it fall out at all, when it has never done so previously? Not only that, but we're going on tour in about a month, and the announcements made about that today are completely at odds with the schedule we were given a few weeks ago. Why was the stop in Milwaukee not listed on the schedule? They've had all year to plan this tour! Furthermore, why were so many people in choir two absent on Tuesday, when no one in choir one was missing? What are the odds of that? Above all, why was I hitting the high notes so well today, when I was dehydrated and hardly warmed up? It's all very mysterious. Not that I'm accusing anyone of anything, of course. All I know is that there is an abundance of inconsistencies surrounding my singing group.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-18, 03:49 AM
...we're going on tour in about a month...Why was the stop in Milwaukee not listed on the schedule?...
Very good W.F. Tomba =D>
Since you are in Iowa, if you're flying parts of this tour and have a cellphone with you try getting a signal, much less a connection.

Obviousman
2005-Feb-18, 04:14 AM
Ooooh! Has this come up again? The mobile (cellphone to you yanks) signal?

I'll state this very clearly:

ANYONE HOW SAYS THAT A MOBILE PHONE CANNOT BE USED IN AN AIRCRAFT IS TALKING ABSOLUTE BALDERDASH!

I've been in aviation for 20-odd years, as a civil pilot, an air traffic controller, and as a radar operator onboard aircraft.

I have used my mobile, inflight, many times. Sometimes when HF comms wouldn't allow us to talk with our base, to tell my girlfriend I'd be home shortly, and numerous times to order a pizza for the crew.

Obviousman
2005-Feb-18, 04:22 AM
I'd better put some qualifications on that before someone jumps on me:

1. You have to be within mobile range of a tower; it wouldn't work in the middle of the Pacific.

2. The aircraft must NOT be EM-hardend. Your mobile wouldn't work in the cockpit of an EA-6B.

3. There shouldn't be sufficient EM interference to block the signal. I've used my mobile from radar aircraft with the radar operating, so there are power levels involved. You might have trouble from an E-2C or a EC-135, but I couldn't say for sure. You CAN transmit from an ordinary airliner.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-18, 04:50 AM
...we're going on tour in about a month...Why was the stop in Milwaukee not listed on the schedule?...
Very good W.F. Tomba =D>
Since you are in Iowa, if you're flying parts of this tour and have a cellphone with you try getting a signal, much less a connection.
I think we're taking a bus, but in addition to what Obviousman has said, I would assume, based on my limited knowledge, that it would be easier to get a signal from an airplane than at many places on the ground, since there is nothing to block the radio waves between you and the tower. (On the ground, cellphones are strongly affected by hills, buildings, etc.)

sarongsong
2005-Feb-18, 07:20 AM
...I have used my mobile, inflight, many times...
Is it GSM or CDMA and at what altitudes?

Rich
2005-Feb-18, 01:03 PM
Am I the only one who had broken the rules and used a cellphone on a commercial flight?

I'll back Abviousman up on that. Better yet, try it yourself sometime Sarongsong. It gets a little tougher when travelling over highly rural areas, but I you can definitely get cell reception on a commercial aircraft.

The FAA and commercial carriers don't want you to because there is a miniscule chance that some cell phone frequencies might overlap or interefere with in-flight comms, though from what I understand from the few pilots I talk to this possibility is less then the chances of actually being in a commercial aviation accident. (And if you think about it, those planes are flying through tons of phone, cell towers, and satellite transmission all day long... how many problems do those external signals cause?) From what I understand the continued emphasis on no cellphones has a lot more to do with lobbying from the phone companies... it puts a much heavier load on their switching system to have you switching cell stations much faster than you do on foot or in a car. They can handle the few rules breakers, but if everyone began doing it the load might cause problems for their network.


Very good W.F. Tomba
Since you are in Iowa, if you're flying parts of this tour and have a cellphone with you try getting a signal, much less a connection
BTW - I love how you are still making implied accusations that allow you to wiggle out of actually taking a stand. Just come out and say what you have to say.

Swift
2005-Feb-18, 01:30 PM
<skip>
From what I understand the continued emphasis on no cellphones has a lot more to do with lobbying from the phone companies... it puts a much heavier load on their switching system to have you switching cell stations much faster than you do on foot or in a car. They can handle the few rules breakers, but if everyone began doing it the load might cause problems for their network.

I also wonder how much that rule is based on them trying to sell their own in-flight phone services? :wink:

pghnative
2005-Feb-18, 02:13 PM
...we're going on tour in about a month...Why was the stop in Milwaukee not listed on the schedule?...
Very good W.F. Tomba =D>
sarongsong
Did you even read what he said? what I've said? what Rich said better than any of us? Did you understand that your posts are being extensively criticized? And yet you have the gall to ignore our questions and comments, and instead continue with the conpiracy mongering:

Since you are in Iowa, if you're flying parts of this tour and have a cellphone with you try getting a signal, much less a connection.
I'm not sure which annoys me more --- the fact that you keep posting these "I'm not accusing"-accusations, or the fact that we keep responding to them.

Gillianren
2005-Feb-18, 10:10 PM
I'm not sure which annoys me more --- the fact that you keep posting these "I'm not accusing"-accusations, or the fact that we keep responding to them.

personally, the accusations annoy me more. they're written in jello. there's nothing substantial there, and when you try to pin them down, they slip away.

however, I am even more angry about the implicit assumption in all these accusations: we are too stupid to have worked all this out on our own. it doesn't matter what our education and experience tell us; we're being lied to by . . . well, fill in agency here, probably in capital letters, and we're falling for it.

Obviousman
2005-Feb-19, 12:19 AM
...I have used my mobile, inflight, many times...
Is it GSM or CDMA and at what altitudes?

GSM. Altitudes ranging from 1000 feet to 25,000 feet.

patrioticamerican
2005-Feb-20, 11:23 PM
Regarding the 9/11 conspiracy freaks, as well as the Apollo conspiracy whackos, as a great man once said "there's a sucker born every minute."

Wolverine
2005-Feb-20, 11:39 PM
And it wasn't P.T. Barnum (http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html). ;)

sarongsong
2005-Feb-21, 12:32 AM
Regarding the 9/11 conspiracy freaks, as well as the Apollo conspiracy whackos, as a great man once said "there's a sucker born every minute."

20 Feb 2005 23:23
So noted.

jamestox
2005-Feb-21, 02:03 AM
sarongsong, many of us that got involved in this discussion have strong emotions regarding 9/11; we all brought different sets of viewpoints with differing levels of knowledge and specialties, as well as different outlooks on the attacks, to this discussion.

One thing that has vexed many of us is your "flexible" stand when it comes to how you view what happened on September 11, 2001 - one moment you backhandedly accuse someone of doing something nefarious with no evidence - aside from hearsay and quotes from conspiracy websites that have been debunked. And that in direct conflict with what - according to eyewitnesses' published reports - actually occurred. The next moment, you play the accused, denying previous statements or claiming to be misunderstood. Here's your chance to make your stand plain to us all.

I have been a silent lurker for a while now, having said my piece earlier, waiting to see what you would do. I challenge you to state clearly what you believe to be your views on the 9-11-01 attacks, and substantiate your claims based on whatever evidence you decide best represents your thoughts, rather than the "jab and run" tactics you've previously used or playing at subtle insults such as your 2-20-05/1932 post. Give us a look into your thought processes and reasoning and let us join in a spirited, INFORMED debate - not some "did not, did, too" argument.

Show the rest of us your convictions and with what information you came to your conclusions. Convince us of your viewpoint based on your best evidence and quit waltzing around the questions and answers. I'm almost certain that if you don't do this - and very soon - you will be the sole remaining poster on this thread.

JT

Sammy
2005-Feb-22, 09:01 PM
Hey Sarong!

Did you forget about this thread? Another fade away?

sarongsong
2005-Feb-23, 05:43 AM
...subtle insults such as your 2-20-05/1932 post...You'll have to be more specific---post numbers update automatically to the current total.
No, Sammy; still here---'til 2012, remember?

Sammy
2005-Feb-23, 05:55 AM
...subtle insults such as your 2-20-05/1932 post...You'll have to be more specific---post numbers update automatically to the current total.
No, Sammy; still here---'til 2012, remember?

You still haven't responded to the SPECIFIC questions posed above, and by several earlier posters. Go back and read them--they are quite identifiable. This still looks like a fade away.

sts60
2005-Feb-23, 02:09 PM
No, Sammy; still here---'til 2012, remember?

Maybe by then you'll tell us if you have something specific on your mind about this topic. :wink:

Of course, 2012 is hardly a deadline - it's not a significant date, despite the ravings of EOTW woo-woos.

jamestox
2005-Feb-23, 02:25 PM
...subtle insults such as your 2-20-05/1932 post...You'll have to be more specific---post numbers update automatically to the current total.
No, Sammy; still here---'til 2012, remember?

Sarongsong,
I realize the post numbers automatically update; That's why I used something a little more unique to identify your post: the date and time it was submitted to the thread. In fact, you yourself used that very same technique in the "insult" post - presumably for the same reason. Claiming ignorance is no excuse.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-23, 04:28 PM
...That's why I used something a little more unique to identify your post: the date and time it was submitted to the thread...Claiming ignorance is no excuse.
Show me where you listed the 'time', please.

Sammy
2005-Feb-23, 05:28 PM
...That's why I used something a little more unique to identify your post: the date and time it was submitted to the thread...Claiming ignorance is no excuse.
Show me where you listed the 'time', please. (bolding added)

Sarong, this is really pathetic, even for you. It's even worse than your trollish behavior on the silver thread. Just take the mouse in your hand, scroll back to the post just above my previous post, and ANSWER it.

pghnative
2005-Feb-23, 05:31 PM
...That's why I used something a little more unique to identify your post: the date and time it was submitted to the thread...Claiming ignorance is no excuse.
Show me where you listed the 'time', please.

Firstly, it should be obvious (without looking at timestamps) that he's referring to this:


Regarding the 9/11 conspiracy freaks, as well as the Apollo conspiracy whackos, as a great man once said "there's a sucker born every minute."

20 Feb 2005 23:23
So noted.
This is clearly a subtle insult. (unless you make subtle insults all the time, in which case i could see that you might be unsure which one jamestox was referring to.)

In case you need further help, jamestox is clearly using "military time". 1932 refers to 7:32PM. But you should know this, since you appear to be using military time in your referenced post.

And, of course, you are focusing on minutia, and not answering the issues raised by myself, Sammy, and others. My guess is that you'll focus on some minor error in this post instead of addressing the larger issues.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-23, 06:14 PM
...it should be obvious...jamestox is clearly using "military time"...you should know this, since you appear to be using military time in your referenced post...
If you look at my post numbers, you will see that they were in the 'vicinity of' 1932 at the time. Clarity would have been guaranteed with '19:32'.

Sammy
2005-Feb-23, 07:44 PM
...it should be obvious...jamestox is clearly using "military time"...you should know this, since you appear to be using military time in your referenced post...
If you look at my post numbers, you will see that they were in the 'vicinity of' 1932 at the time. Clarity would have been guaranteed with '19:32'.

Glad we got that settled.

Now, how about responding to the questions posed?

Gillianren
2005-Feb-23, 09:22 PM
now, now--that was an almost clever delaying tactic, and I think we should admire it.

what's the matter? starting to turn blue over there? answer the questions.

pghnative
2005-Feb-23, 10:05 PM
[...And, of course, you are focusing on minutia, and not answering the issues raised by myself, Sammy, and others. My guess is that you'll focus on some minor error in this post instead of addressing the larger issues.


...it should be obvious...jamestox is clearly using "military time"...you should know this, since you appear to be using military time in your referenced post...
If you look at my post numbers, you will see that they were in the 'vicinity of' 1932 at the time. Clarity would have been guaranteed with '19:32'.
Wow --- I have amazing predictive powers. (Perhaps I should focus on lottery numbers)

By the way, military time does not include the colon, so "1932" is more correct than "19:32". But I concede your point, it was confusing.

Now that we have that out of the way, any chance you'd like to address the more relevant criticisms and comments posted in your direction??

sarongsong
2005-Feb-23, 11:42 PM
My position is that there are enough inconsistencies in evidence and various accounts of what actually happened, to create doubt...

...just saying "hey, this doesn't make sense .... and this doesn't make sense.... and I don't understand this here, either --- therefore I'm right"...
You, not I, 'conclude' "...therefore I'm right...".
Further inconsistencies:
Not one of the hijackers' names appeared on the passenger lists released.
OBL's relatives were immediately whisked out of this country while the rest of us remained under 'no-fly' conditions.
Why wasn't OBL taken the previous May while hospitalized?
What were the flashes emanating from the controversial 'pods' of both planes (as revealed in a frame-by-frame film analysis), just prior to impact of the towers about?
There is a term demolitionists use to describe their destruction of a building---what is it?
One thing I am convinced of is that a fly-by-wire technique was used to pilot the crafts; no amount of conventional civilian flight school with prop-driven planes prepares one for the 747/757 precision maneuvers demonstrated that day---especially dealing with the ground-effects encountered at the Pentagon.

Nicolas
2005-Feb-23, 11:51 PM
just some comments on your remarks (I couldn't resist posting these)

-Fly by wire means that there is no direct mechanical contact between the aerodynamic surfaces and the steering devices. It has nothing to do with things like autopiloting, remote control and the like (though an autopilot is easier to incorporate into a fbw plane due to the need for only electrical signals, but that's a whole other story)

-The pods were identified as a wheel door slamming open due to the g forces in the "turn clip". For the "straight clip" I don't know, could be sun reflection between the WTC and the plane or something.

Edited to add this paragraph:
While I do believe their chances of hitting both towers and the WTC weren't extremely high, I do think serious flight schol, combined with simulators, can give you a serious chance of being able to pilot larger planes. About the ground effect: this is a hard thing if you want to make a nice landing, as it kind of prevents the plane from descending those final meters (lift increases). For hitting the Pentagon however, it isn't too much of a problem: the ground effect helps in skimming the ground, just what you need to hit the Pentagon. Furthermore, if you come in fast and just a bit sharp, the ground effect will have very little time to affect your descending course, except maybe for flattening you out abit low above the ground. I'm not saying both were easy manoevres, but I do think that once you've got the basics of flying in your hands, you have a good chance of being able to handle larger planes. ANd I do think you overestimate the difficulting influence of the ground effect on the manoeuvres they did to hit the pentagon.

I think some people will restate a previous question to you based on your last post.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-23, 11:55 PM
OBL's relatives were immediately whisked out of this country while the rest of us remained under 'no-fly' conditions.
That isn't precisely true, but it is true that they got special treatment. However, the reason is hardly a mystery. They are powerful, influential people. Powerful people being given special treatment may not be fair, but it's hardly an inconsistency!

One thing I am convinced of is that a fly-by-wire technique was used to pilot the crafts; no amount of conventional civilian flight school with prop-driven planes prepares one for the 747/757 precision maneuvers demonstrated that day---especially dealing with the ground-effects encountered at the Pentagon.
I think if your goal is to crash, you don't really have to be able to fly well.

jamestox
2005-Feb-24, 01:00 AM
My position is that there are enough inconsistencies in evidence and various accounts of what actually happened, to create doubt...

...just saying "hey, this doesn't make sense .... and this doesn't make sense.... and I don't understand this here, either --- therefore I'm right"...
You, not I, 'conclude' "...therefore I'm right...".
Further inconsistencies:
Not one of the hijackers' names appeared on the passenger lists released.
OBL's relatives were immediately whisked out of this country while the rest of us remained under 'no-fly' conditions.
Why wasn't OBL taken the previous May while hospitalized?
What were the flashes emanating from the controversial 'pods' of both planes (as revealed in a frame-by-frame film analysis), just prior to impact of the towers about?
There is a term demolitionists use to describe their destruction of a building---what is it?
One thing I am convinced of is that a fly-by-wire technique was used to pilot the crafts; no amount of conventional civilian flight school with prop-driven planes prepares one for the 747/757 precision maneuvers demonstrated that day---especially dealing with the ground-effects encountered at the Pentagon.

sarongsong,
You obviously have not been paying attention. I asked you to tell us what you think/believe and substantiate it. Once more you do a jab and run using conspiracy-website "talking points", without stating your own stand or conviction. As my father once said, "Put up or shut up." In other words, if you can't tell us what YOU are thinking, we are left to conclude only one thing: you aren't.

Please ANSWER the questions already put toward you (preferably without cut-and-pasting from "911-THE TRUTH!!!" websites): "What do you think happened on 9-11-01? Why do you think it happened that way? What documentation do you have to bolster your stand?"

J.

BTW, the "passenger lists?" Those are "victim lists" - the hijackers weren't listed for good reason - they were the perpetrators, not victims. Hijacker Names (http://teenadvice.about.com/library/blhijackersnames.htm) Seating Assignments 1 (http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/terrorist_page.htm) Seating Assignments 2 (http://www.pocket-pc-ebook-reader.com/en/911/01.01.Inside_the_Four_Flights.htm)

Bin Laudin's family was detained and questioned by the FBI following the attacks. They were allowed to leave under the authority of Richard Clarke on September 20, after air travel resumed on September 13 - as documented by Clarke himself. bin Laudin "fly-out" (http://www.factcheck.org/article294.html) 9-11 Commission Report, Chapter 10, notes 25-31 (http://www.pocket-pc-ebook-reader.com/en/911/15.10.NOTES_TO_CHAPTER_10.htm)

OBL's hospitalization: reference please.

So-called "pods": reference please.

"Demolitionist term": reference please.

The hijackers not only had small-aircraft time, but had logged commercial jet simulator training (page 15) (http://www.incose.org/ProductsPubs/pdf/techdata/SEInit-TC/TerrorismPanel_2002-08-P7_Long.pdf). Incidently, both types of aircraft (757, 767) have nearly identical flight deck layouts, enabling pilots that certify in one to easily transition to the other. Flight Deck Info (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/200back/back4.html)

Edited to add "seating assignments" for hijackers.

tmosher
2005-Feb-24, 01:02 AM
My position is that there are enough inconsistencies in evidence and various accounts of what actually happened, to create doubt...

...just saying "hey, this doesn't make sense .... and this doesn't make sense.... and I don't understand this here, either --- therefore I'm right"...
You, not I, 'conclude' "...therefore I'm right...".
Further inconsistencies:
Not one of the hijackers' names appeared on the passenger lists released.
OBL's relatives were immediately whisked out of this country while the rest of us remained under 'no-fly' conditions.
Why wasn't OBL taken the previous May while hospitalized?
What were the flashes emanating from the controversial 'pods' of both planes (as revealed in a frame-by-frame film analysis), just prior to impact of the towers about?
There is a term demolitionists use to describe their destruction of a building---what is it?
One thing I am convinced of is that a fly-by-wire technique was used to pilot the crafts; no amount of conventional civilian flight school with prop-driven planes prepares one for the 747/757 precision maneuvers demonstrated that day---especially dealing with the ground-effects encountered at the Pentagon.

Fly-by-wire (FBW) or remote control? Which do you mean? If you mean fly-by-wire, the Boeing 757/767 do not have that. They have a conventional flight control system consisting of cables and actuators - no electronics involved except for the autopilot servos.

As for those "pods" I didn't see any in the videos of the last 767 to hit the WTC. Where some claim there are pods is right where the main landing gear doors are.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-24, 01:44 AM
BTW, the "passenger lists?" Those are "victim lists" - the hijackers weren't listed for good reason - they were the perpetrators, not victims. Hijacker Names (http://teenadvice.about.com/library/blhijackersnames.htm) Seating Assignments (http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/terrorist_page.htm)
And weren't some of the hijackers identified later in video images from the airport security gates?

jamestox
2005-Feb-24, 02:00 AM
BTW, the "passenger lists?" Those are "victim lists" - the hijackers weren't listed for good reason - they were the perpetrators, not victims. Hijacker Names (http://teenadvice.about.com/library/blhijackersnames.htm) Seating Assignments (http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/terrorist_page.htm)
And weren't some of the hijackers identified later in video images from the airport security gates?
Yes, as well as photos being shown to airline check-in personnel that remembered some of them.

pghnative
2005-Feb-24, 04:21 AM
My position is that there are enough inconsistencies in evidence and various accounts of what actually happened, to create doubt...

...just saying "hey, this doesn't make sense .... and this doesn't make sense.... and I don't understand this here, either --- therefore I'm right"...
You, not I, 'conclude' "...therefore I'm right...".
Incorrect.

I infer (not "conclude") that you feel that you are right. You see, I must infer, because you refuse to actually state anything.



Further inconsistencies...More drivel, already shown to be asinine by others.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-24, 05:03 AM
You didn't see the pod flashes, did you?

jt-3d
2005-Feb-24, 06:53 AM
Ok, I give up, what is supposed to be the purpose of firing missles into the buildings before crashing the whole airplane into it? I think that's the claim, is'nt it?

BTW, there are no hard points on either the 757 or the 767 on which to mount missles. You don't just screw the things on ya know.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-24, 07:00 AM
If there was anything out of the ordinary attached to the outside of the planes, you'd think someone would have noticed at the airport.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-24, 07:11 AM
...missiles...I think that's the claim, is'nt it?...
No, I've heard nothing to that effect; the flashes remain unexplained.

Nicolas
2005-Feb-24, 12:29 PM
I can't see what is unexplained about a metal wheel bay door turning open under G forces and the sun reflecting in it (it is a bare and blinking metal door).

Same counts for the underside of the fuselage, hence the possibility of reflections of the WTC windos blinking on the fuselage just beofre impact.

Both no reason to assume pods firing something or other outthere explanations.

captain swoop
2005-Feb-24, 01:38 PM
Both no reason to assume pods firing something or other outthere explanations.

Yes there is. It adds mystery to the whole thing. 'They' can't explain it so they must be covering it up for some reason.

jamestox
2005-Feb-24, 01:55 PM
One more time, sarongsong:

What do you believe happened on September 11, 2001? Why do you believe what you believe? What is your documentation to substatiate your opinions regarding what happened on September 11, 2001?

Wally
2005-Feb-24, 02:17 PM
...missiles...I think that's the claim, is'nt it?...
No, I've heard nothing to that effect; the flashes remain unexplained.

anyone have any video clips showing these "pods"? I hadn't heard of this particular conspiracy issue before.

Regardless, SS. I've gotta put my 2 cents in as well. Why wouldn't you accept a perfectly reasonable explanation for the "pods" rather than assuming some kind of ridiculous theory that makes absolutely no sense???

sts60
2005-Feb-24, 02:34 PM
the flashes remain unexplained.

No, they don't. There were reflections. There is no evidence, none whatsoever, of missiles being surreptitiously attached to commercial airliners - a laughable premise to begin with.

"Oh, I didn't say anything about missiles!"

No, but that's exactly what you are hinting at. You are trying to create FUD to support the premise that missiles were fired from one or more of the four airliners, which were flown by remote control - two fantasies for which there is not a shred of evidence. That may fly on GLP, but here it takes more than FUD to support a premise, even a veiled one. Do you really think we haven't seen this before? [-X

Swift
2005-Feb-24, 02:35 PM
Ok, I give up, what is supposed to be the purpose of firing missles into the buildings before crashing the whole airplane into it? I think that's the claim, is'nt it?

My feelings exactly jt-3d. Even if there were a couple of unexplained things, that doesn't add up to the government blowing up the WTC. Why would they do that? I'm about to say something political (gosh, it might get this thread locked :wink: ) ---- I hate George W. Bush, I think he is a terrible president and I think he and his administration have done some terrible things. But there is no way under the sun that he (a) would do something like this, and (b) could get away with it and only a couple of woo-woo's on the internet could figure this out.

My sister was two blocks from the WTC, looking up at the fire, when she watched the second plane hit. Good thing it scared her out of her wits and she ran like heck, or she might have been buried when the towers came down. I find this all very insulting. I'm out of here.......

sts60
2005-Feb-24, 03:00 PM
You know, whatever you think of GWB, just suppose for the sake of argument that it was all an eevil gubmint plot. Now, in order to make up a big enemy and rally the country to your leadership, you practice so you can - sit with a blank look and read a kid's book for several minutes? Fly around and let people get the impression you're confused or uncertain before finally returning to Washington? Demonstrate the uncertainty and confusion as to who, if anyone, would give a timely authorization to shoot down civilian airliners?

It doesn't matter what you think of such reactions - I'm speaking of perceptions here. And for a staged event, perceptions are vital. Aside from the factual holes in the conspiracy claims (well, they're pretty much all holes; they make intergalactic space seem like neutronium by comparison), the "way it was staged" is totally ludicrous.

Oh, wait, that's all part of the clever conspiracy. :roll:

I'll bet this is my last post before this thread gets locked. Certainly long before sarongsarong ever gets around to actually saying that WTC 7 was blown up by demolition crews. (SS, you can spare the indignant denials.)

Conspiracy Cam
2005-Feb-24, 03:36 PM
If there was anything out of the ordinary attached to the outside of the planes, you'd think someone would have noticed at the airport.

I don't think people are that absent minded :lol:

You can imagine the coversation between the guy you buy the tickets from, and a goverment agent.

"How many Tickets?"

"Oh, two. One for me, and one for the missle"

"That will be $500. Would you like a voucher?"

That would be the end of the ticket guys promtional prospects #-o

http:/conspiracy-theories-hoax.com

Waarthog
2005-Feb-24, 05:42 PM
no amount of conventional civilian flight school with prop-driven planes prepares one for the 747/757 precision maneuvers demonstrated that day
I would disagree most vehemently.

I am a pilot with experience in prop aircraft and in my time as a test engineer, I have spent literally hundreds of hours in the sims of 757/767 aircraft as well as dealing with airline pilots in those very same sims. The 757/767 as noted before have identical cockpits for the reasons stated. They are pathetically easy to fly. Our higher fidelity sims were actually said by the pilots to be harder to fly than the real thing. To do the 9-11 attacks would have been a cakewalk for me and I could teach almost anyone else to do so with a few hours of sim time, especially if they have had actual flight training.

By the way, what Precision Manuvers do you refer to.

Sammy
2005-Feb-24, 08:36 PM
Exactly, Warthog.

I've seen the video of the 2d plane hitting the building, both on the day of the attack, and many times since. As a non-pilot, but a long-time aviation buff and observer of aircraft, it looked to me like the aircraft came quite close to missing the building, and only a violent correction at the last minute resulted in an impact.

I'm sure Sarongsong is busy thinking up some new diversionary tactic, perhaps related to issue of whether the pilots were wearing boxers or briefs....

Nicolas
2005-Feb-24, 09:03 PM
The second plane would have hit about the far edge of corner of the building. Seems like the hijackers didn't predict their path perfectly, and they made a real hard pull to hit the building more in the middle. If anything, this shows a combination of not very experienced pilots and quite an agile aircraft. It does not look like a preprogrammed path, as that final manoeuvre is way too dangerous to put in "as a disguise".

I see nothing suspicious in this lack of perfection, and the high G manoaeuvre explains the opening of the wheel bay door, and hence the appearance of the "pod".

Waarthog
2005-Feb-24, 10:12 PM
Oddly enough, if there is enough run up to the target where the pilot had it visually, they don't even need to hand fly it but make minor corrections with the autopilot from the control panel. This might have been the case with the second jet but at the last minute, he saw he was off target.

Gillianren
2005-Feb-24, 10:22 PM
thanks for the laugh, Conspiracy Cam, and welcome.

so. Sarongsong. what do you think happened?

Nicolas
2005-Feb-24, 10:32 PM
If there was anything out of the ordinary attached to the outside of the planes, you'd think someone would have noticed at the airport.

I don't think people are that absent minded :lol:

You can imagine the coversation between the guy you buy the tickets from, and a goverment agent.

"How many Tickets?"

"Oh, two. One for me, and one for the missle"

"That will be $500. Would you like a voucher?"

That would be the end of the ticket guys promtional prospects #-o

http:/conspiracy-theories-hoax.com

That is so unrealistic.

Of course they would try to hide it.

So change that line into

"Oh, two. One for me, and one for Codename: Bullseye"
:D

sarongsong
2005-Feb-25, 01:58 AM
...This might have been the case with the second jet but at the last minute, he saw he was off target.
"...The banking manoeuvre we see here, just as flight 175 is about to slam into the South Tower, would have been overridden by the onboard flight computer. So somebody must have previously overridden the flight computers themselves..."
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/first.html

paulie jay
2005-Feb-25, 02:16 AM
To believe that the flashes are “mysterious” is to believe that the plane was behaving in a manner not expected of an ordinary plane. This implies a belief that the plane must have been altered in some way as to be able to create these flashes. This implies, in turn, that it must be possible to somehow alter a passenger jet without any ground staff, security, or pilots (who visually check the plane) being aware of it. It also implies that this must be a relatively quick procedure, otherwise the risk of being “caught in the act” would be greater. All this being assumed, would it then be unreasonable to postulate that these alterations (resulting in mysterious flashes) were actually performed by the terrorists, and not the government??

I don’t believe any of the above, by the way. But if it is supposedly easy for the government to do these things, then why shouldn’t it be easy for terrorists?

jt-3d
2005-Feb-25, 02:18 AM
What flight computer? You mean the autopilot? Yeah, I'm guessing that was off. So? You mean some magic box that keeps these things from running into stuff? No such thing.

Van Rijn
2005-Feb-25, 02:23 AM
So is there a good 9/11 hoax debunking site somewhere? This is sounding more and more like moon hoax arguments. These are technical details: cell phone capabilities, building collapse, how to operate the planes in question, etc. that I may or may not know about personnaly, but would be painfully obvious to thousands or even millions of people in the world.

tmosher
2005-Feb-25, 02:48 AM
...This might have been the case with the second jet but at the last minute, he saw he was off target.
"...The banking manoeuvre we see here, just as flight 175 is about to slam into the South Tower, would have been overridden by the onboard flight computer. So somebody must have previously overridden the flight computers themselves..."
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/first.html

That statement is wrong and written by someone who has no aviation experience.

I just read the leading and following paragraphs from that URL. So many factual errors it's pathetic. Generalizations based on little actual knowledge of aircraft systems.

The FMCS (flight management computer system) would not have overriden a maneuver like that if it was engaged. In fact, the FMCS would have disengaged the autopilot with a manual control input. It's designed to do that for safety reasons.

The problem with many of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that they think the Boeing 757 and 767 have fly-by-wire flight control systems. They do not. They have a conventional flight control system that is hydraulically boosted. Essentially, the 757/767 flight control system is the same system that's been used in aircraft since the dawn of aviation. The only difference is that there is hydraulic boost. You could turn off every bit of avionics in these aircraft and you could still control the aircraft - without hydraulic boost it would take brute force on the controls, but you could still control the aircraft.

Tom Mosher

sarongsong
2005-Feb-25, 03:32 AM
Was it the same plane?
"...here is the very same N612UA that took off from Logan airport that fateful 11 September. Note its stubby nose, characteristic of the 200 series. The inset shows the plane that crashed into the South Tower later that day..."
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html

tmosher
2005-Feb-25, 03:56 AM
Was it the same plane?
"...here is the very same N612UA that took off from Logan airport that fateful 11 September. Note its stubby nose, characteristic of the 200 series. The inset shows the plane that crashed into the South Tower later that day..."
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html

Same airplane. It's a B767-200 series. The scale drawing and the image match quite well when you scale them the same. Also, you're not going to get an exact match because that photo is not from directly below the aircraft. N612UA before it hit the WTC was in a bank.

I just played around with a couple of images - the proportions for the aircraft hitting the WTC are correct for a 767-200. The fuselage length before and after the wing are not right for a 767-300 (the -300 has a noticeably longer fuselage).

I know my airplanes - I've been working around everything from Cessna 152's to B747's since the late 1970's.

Come off it sarongsong.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-25, 04:16 AM
Was it the same plane?
"...here is the very same N612UA that took off from Logan airport that fateful 11 September. Note its stubby nose, characteristic of the 200 series. The inset shows the plane that crashed into the South Tower later that day..."
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html
It's clear that they haven't scaled the picture properly. Notice that the tip of the wing and the engine extend outside area B in the photograph, while in the diagram they fit perfectly inside it. The plane looks too long because they blew the photo up too much.

Edit: This is kind of fun. Throw us another big fat one right over the plate, sarongsong.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-25, 04:19 AM
You sure? (http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=612UA)

Musashi
2005-Feb-25, 04:26 AM
Sarong's link says:


Model 767-222

tmosher says:


It's a B767-200 series

Hmm?

Sammy
2005-Feb-25, 04:28 AM
You sure? (http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=612UA)

How typical! A ** link with no significant comment as to why it's posted. You'd do better with the underwear issue....

Musashi
2005-Feb-25, 04:30 AM
You know what is even more alarming? Check out the zip code of the registered owner? Coincidence? No way!

Archer17
2005-Feb-25, 04:38 AM
Ugh! I've been reading this thread with a combination of amusement and revulsion.. no need to make it worse with the interjection of male underwear.http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/images/smiles/eusa_sick.gif

Ya know sarongsong is playing y'all, dont'cha?

tmosher
2005-Feb-25, 04:40 AM
You sure? (http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=612UA)

You really don't know anything about Boeing aircraft, do you?

B767-222 = Boeing 767-200 to United's specifications (i.e., engines, interior, avionics, etc).

For example:

767-222 - Boeing 767-200 - United Airlines
767-223 - Boeing 767-200 - American Airlines
767-232 - Boeing 767-200 - Delta Airlines

Boeing gives every airline who orders an airplane a unique 2 character identifier that is applied to the aircraft's model number.

Tom
-

sarongsong
2005-Feb-25, 04:47 AM
Hey, it's the Archer Dude---welcome back =D>
Poor Sammy has been having to carry the load by his'self all this time!
How'd the no-smoke thingy go?

Archer17
2005-Feb-25, 05:35 AM
Great! Although I do snort colloidal silver now! I'm blue but haven't breathed this good in years! :^o Actually I didn't come here to shoot arrows at you sarongsong, just to educate those that don't know your "devils-advocate" side. Doesn't look like Sammy is the only one you got hoppin' BTW. Carry on .. don't forget to mention the "white plane" that flew over Western Pa prior to the crash of the 4th hickjacked jet not that far from here, no good conspiracy theory is without it.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-25, 06:14 AM
Gee, thanks (I think), Archer17; hope you stick around long enough to debunk the following.
The Japanese website these 2 (.mpg) videos originally appeared several years ago no longer seems to be in existance. Thru my saved copies titles, I tracked them down to here:
video1 (http://www.para-normal.com/nuke/html/news/content/ufof.mpg)
video 2 (http://www.para-normal.com/nuke/html/news/content/ufof2h.mpg)
By play/pausing #1, one catches a glimpse of the 2nd plane depicted in #2.

Archer17
2005-Feb-25, 06:47 AM
Gee, thanks (I think), Archer17; hope you stick around long enough to debunk the following.
The Japanese website these 2 (.mpg) videos originally appeared several years ago no longer seems to be in existance. Thru my saved copies titles, I tracked them down to here:
video1 (http://www.para-normal.com/nuke/html/news/content/ufof.mpg)
video 2 (http://www.para-normal.com/nuke/html/news/content/ufof2h.mpg)
By play/pausing #1, one catches a glimpse of the 2nd plane depicted in #2.No thank you .. I actually saw the second plane hit the WTC, don't need someone to tell me what I saw. I lost two friends that day, I don't need someone to tell me how they died.. I know.

I thought you were just being yourself -post a link & duck n' weave. It's what you usually do. If you believe this conspiracy nonsense, you're preaching to the wrong choir and know it. I'll let someone Freudian figure that one out. The surprising thing to me is I misjudged you in a somewhat positive sense (ornery devil's advocate).. it won't happen again.

sarongsong
2005-Feb-25, 07:45 AM
Well, if you did read the whole thread you'll see that I, too, lost a good friend that day. Yes, we know how they died; why is my present goal. These 2 clips evidence a third plane was involved at WTC and is the core of my list of inconsistencies. Good to hear from you anyway; stay well.

Wolverine
2005-Feb-25, 08:03 AM
Third plane? Do you mean the birds flying across the screen in the two separate videos?

This was thoroughly examined and refuted long ago on the JREF forum (someone applied for the JREF Million Dollar Challenge claiming some sort of paranormal activity/UFO in the imagery showing the 2nd impact... the full 44-page thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7041) is still there).

Please examine these pages (http://www.inlex.net/bluemonk/nonsense/intro.html) published by Blue Monk from the JREF forum before leaping to the conclusion that there was a "third plane."

Edited to add: this video (http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/11/vo.wtc.2nd.plane.pax.med.html) shows some additional slo-mo footage clearly illustrating birds flying across the frame.

Fram
2005-Feb-25, 09:41 AM
Sarongsong, you want people to debunk every wild story that anyone has ever written about 9/11, even if they are clearly self-contradictory, but you don't have an agenda yourself? Do you even try to think about the links you give us before you post them? Check some information out for yourself or so? You are only making yourself very impopular by this behaviour. What will you do if noone responds to a claim you make (sorry, you don't make claims, you just show others person's claims :roll: )? Take it as proof that there is something to it? Or decide that you have finally bored (and revolted) everyone away?

A suggestion: check out those links for yourself, look up some more information, try to see what is remotely possible and what is utter nonsense, try to make a consistent story out of it (if possible!), and then come back. At least it will be a slightly bigger challenge than the laughable drivel you throw at us now.

Nicolas
2005-Feb-25, 09:46 AM
If that bird was a third plane, there would have been a fourth, fifth and sixth as well (you see multiple birds). besides, how bad would a conspiracy attack be in which you just see jets flying around? This "evidence" makes no sense to me.

Obviousman
2005-Feb-25, 11:25 AM
He operates by a very common looney credo:

"I don't have to prove I'm right; you have to prove I'm wrong".

When people DO prove they are wrong, they discount it because of the next credo:

"It's not evidence if you don't agree with it."

When many people dispute their claims:

"If people don't agree with you, it's a conspiracy."

When people provide undeniable evidence to disprove their theories, they use the next credo:

"Muddy the waters by repeating 'It's plainly obvious!' or 'The answer is in plain sight, if only you would open your eyes!' ".

By this stage, they can no longer continue to argue any of the points made against their theories. Thus the next credo:

"If you can't answer the question, ignore the question."

Finally, as people ask questions that cannot be answered and cannot be ignored:

"When you can't defend, attack."


Take a look at most "conspiracy" posts; they follow the same pattern and all the above points are normally there.

jt-3d
2005-Feb-25, 02:28 PM
Uhoh, this fire has flared. I'm glad somebody has already debunked those vids so I don't have to waste my time, though in the second video, that sure looked like a frizbee. Anyway, hi, all...uh...yeah.

Wally
2005-Feb-25, 02:59 PM
...This might have been the case with the second jet but at the last minute, he saw he was off target.
"...The banking manoeuvre we see here, just as flight 175 is about to slam into the South Tower, would have been overridden by the onboard flight computer. So somebody must have previously overridden the flight computers themselves..."
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/first.html

From the above website, the following quote:


Furthermore, Rose also brings up an interesting point: the stills of Flight 175 also show that left engine has been somehow interfered with. The turbines should be parallel to one another and attached to the wings, below we see the left engine at a slight angle to the right turbine, and looking as if it was about to come away from the wing. According to Rose this would be necessary to counterbalance the large "bump" attached just to the right of the centre of the fuselage and to compensate for the resulting aerodynamic drag.

Are they actually speculating that the left engine was somhow removed, then remounted at a slight angle, in order to counteract for the weight of the "missles" hanging under the belly???

Wouldn't a much better explanation, even if you agree the picture shows the engine out of line, be that the extreme torque on the wing due to the hard turn might cause the engine to appear out of line???

captain swoop
2005-Feb-25, 03:07 PM
It doesn't need to be explained, it's madness.

What damage could a small missile do that an Airliner filled with fuel couldn't?

jt-3d
2005-Feb-25, 03:15 PM
Well we could say that engine pylons and wings flex under high loads, which is why they have max maneuvering speeds and max airspeed limits. We could point out that the mindless moron on the flightdeck didn't care about anything but hitting the building - but what would be the point?

captain swoop
2005-Feb-25, 03:25 PM
I think that Sarongsong needs to be careful, some of this thread is getting close to trolling and that's frowned upon.

Shame on us for reacting as well. :cry:

Waarthog
2005-Feb-25, 04:26 PM
That statement is wrong and written by someone who has no aviation experience... So many factual errors it's pathetic.

Agree in all respects.

The authors of this laughable piece have confused the Autopilot with the Flight Management System (FMS). They are correct that it takes a while to load the software but merely turning off the boxes will not clear the software out. In fact, the systems are designed to deal with short term power interruptions with little loss of data. You can even lose one whole side (they are generally configured in a left right configuration) and if it powers back up without latching, it will resync from the box that did not have a fault. Under normal flight operations, the FMS controls the autopilot, but the autopilot can be operated independent of the FMS should the crew so desire via the Autopilot Control Panel.

TM is also correct that a manual input will override the autopilot and if of suffcient magnitude will cause an autopilot disconnect. An AP disconnect will NOT cause any fault in the FMS, it just turns the autopilot off so that all control inputs need to be manual until the autopilot is reengaged.

sts60
2005-Feb-25, 04:30 PM
According to Rose this would be necessary to counterbalance the large "bump" attached just to the right of the centre of the fuselage and to compensate for the resulting aerodynamic drag.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Boy, I'm glad my coffee was resting safely on my desk when I read that! Absolutely priceless.

I guess this ultragenius never noticed that they don't remount the engines on the B-52 that dropped the X-15 or the X-43A - big rockets that sit further out than the bump (which is on both sides of all 767s)...

"Yes, we'll stealthily mount a missile/bomb onto a commercial jetliner (no one will notice); then, being the experts in aerodynamics that we are, we'll point one of the engines a different way to "counterbalance" it!"

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! *Snort* (wipes tears from eyes)

sarongsarong, with you citing such Nobel-caliber material, I'm now leaning towards the opinon that you don't believe any of it, and are simply yanking our collective chain.