9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[theprestige]

You might have missed this part:

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/trajectories-1.jpg[/qimg]

Nope. I saw that part alright. I don't recognize your authority in the matter of forensic analysis of plane crash photos.

I already know you don't know much about the structure and contents of jet airliners, so I can't accept your lines and arrows on photographs as evidence of one kind of impact versus another.

 

[yankee451]

Now what you didn't calculate is the length of the wing tip to the engine. The wing span is 156.1 feet but the wings are slanted by 31.5 degrees. Using trigonometry you then calculate that the wing length would be 66.54 feet, but the fuselage takes up 14.5 feet. So the length of a wing is 52.64 feet (rounded). From the centerline of the fuselage to the center of the engine is 25.667 feet at that same angle so that calculates 14 feet from edge of plane to center engine and 38 feet (rounded) from wing tip to center line engine.

Now the outside columns are 3.33 feet center to center and 9 columns would be 30 feet. Now the engine will impact the building at the same angle and this calculates to 32 feet.

right were it should impact the building as the image you presented shows.
So you are wrong in your assertion that the ninth column is "no where near the engine"

Tell that to Purdue and the fellas at MIT.

 

[yankee451]

Nope. I saw that part alright. I don't recognize your authority in the matter of forensic analysis of plane crash photos.

I already know you don't know much about the structure and contents of jet airliners, so I can't accept your lines and arrows on photographs as evidence of one kind of impact versus another.

It is because I understand the structure very well that I am pointing to the impact evidence. Pity you can't address it.

 

[yankee451]

So how on earth are you ascertaining whether the damage should be consistent with one cause or another...


...without calculating the forces involved?

If your entire position rests upon the idea that airplanes could not possibly have done the damage we see, then it should be a priority for you to perform even a rough estimation with the not-so-difficult math to point out an obvious discrepancy.

I explain my case thoroughly in the OP.

You on the other hand demand calculations to arrive at my conclusions, whereas you don't demand the same of your own conclusions. You saw it on television, that's why you believe what you believe. If my conclusions are incorrect, then you can use the same evidence I use to explain how it does not suit my conclusions, and instead, suits yours.

Deferring to some expert that you consider smarter than you, is your prerogative, but ignoring the evidence is not an option.

 

[JSanderO]

Yankee what is your point? You don't accept that the jet did the observed damage?

Perdue simulation is not bad at all. What is you specific objection to it?

It is a model based on assumptions and data... a change will produce a (slightly?) different simulation.

There conclusion was that the core col damage and the subsequent unfought fires doomed the tower. That conclusion is correct I believe.

This sim predated NIST's final report by 4 years.

 

[bknight]

Tell that to Purdue and the fellas at MIT.

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/MIT-engine-impacts-on-WTC1-1024x692.png[/qimg]

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Purdue-North-Tower-Impact-Gif-1024x576.gif[/qimg]

Two interpretations of the same event a plane impacting the building. Too bad you can't accept the facts as the evidence has shown.

 

[yankee451]

Yankee what is your point? You don't accept that the jet did the observed damage?

Perdue simulation is not bad at all. What is you specific objection to it?

It is a model based on assumptions and data... a change will produce a (slightly?) different simulation.

There conclusion was that the core col damage and the subsequent unfought fires doomed the tower. That conclusion is correct I believe.

This sim predated NIST's final report by 4 years.

I was using the Purdue cartoon to demonstrate that the engine hole was nowhere near the inward blasting hole on the ninth column from the left.

 

[pgimeno]

As stated in the link above, it takes specialized machinery and very high pressure to cut steel with water, but to use it as a reason to believe an aluminum wing can do so too, smacks of desperation. We're comparing apples to bananas here, but even so the reason a water jet can do such a thing is due to its focusing all its energy on a tiny area, like a bullet might do. With enough velocity a bullet will puncture steel because like the water jet, the energy of the projectile is focused on a very small point, with the mass and velocity of the bullet (or column of water) overcoming the mass of the steel at the point of impact.

... and over and over...

Aluminium alloys are used extensively in aircraft due to their high strength-to-weight ratio. On the other hand, pure aluminium metal is much too soft for such uses, and it does not have the high tensile strength that is needed for airplanes and helicopters.

Aluminium alloys versus types of steel
Aluminium alloys typically have an elastic modulus of about 70 GPa, which is about one-third of the elastic modulus of most kinds of steel and steel alloys.
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_alloy#Engineering_use_and_aluminium_alloys_properties

We're not talking water, nor aluminium like the one used in cans. We're talking an alloy with about one third the strength of the columns.

 

[yankee451]

Two interpretations of the same event a plane impacting the building. Too bad you can't accept the facts as the evidence has shown.

Both interpretations were based on videos, not the physical evidence. Purdue's cartoon shows the whole plane, wing tips and all, sliding like butter into the building, but the damage evidence proves that's not "the fact."

MIT even admitted they were guessing. From page 34:

2. Objects and approach
The functional objective of this article is to make educated predictions of the internal structural
damage that occurred within the towers and that was hardly, if at all, visible to the observer.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Chapter-IV-Aircraft-Impact-1.pdf

 

[yankee451]

... and over and over...

We're not talking water, nor aluminium like the one used in cans. We're talking an alloy with about one third the strength of the columns.

Right.

 

[Axxman300]

For many reasons, not the least of which is mostly hollow aluminum jets cannot do what dense-metal penetrating missiles can do, and if they could do, then there would be no need for dense-metal penetrating missiles. Real planes leave parts that can be tracked. Real planes would mean real bodies, which can be identified. If the plane didn't strike dead center and only clipped a wing, there was no way to contain the crash damage, and much, much, more. Explained by the late Gerard Holmgren, here:
https://911crashtest.org/why-they-didnt-use-planes/

Oh, please tell us what kind of missile was used.

 

[bknight]

Both interpretations were based on videos, not the physical evidence. Purdue's cartoon shows the whole plane, wing tips and all, sliding like butter into the building, but the damage evidence proves that's not "the fact."

MIT even admitted they were guessing. From page 34:



https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Chapter-IV-Aircraft-Impact-1.pdf

Obviously from the diagram as the plane was not perpendicular to the face of the building when it hit, as the videos from the south side demonstrate. But yes the damage in the videos is exactly as it should have been, the math overturns your eyesight. You don't accept those facts as they negate your belief. It is no use presenting facts that are in concert with the damage. Unless you come up with some evidence that disproves the damage other than your belief, I'm done with you.

 

[Deadie]

You on the other hand demand calculations to arrive at my conclusions

Why wouldn't I or anyone else have such a demand from claims such as yours?

How many Newtons of force/m² would an airplane impart unto the building given its cross-section, mass and velocity?

 

[JSanderO]

From my perspective all of the work presented to explain or model/simulate the collapse events at the WTC are at best "educated guesses". I think all probably have nailed some of the elements but none get it all exactly as it went down. So what?

All these "models" show is that it is completely reasonable for the plane to have been the initiating event leading to the collapse of the towers. Many people want/expect a micro second and millimeter precise explanation of each collapse. While theoretically possible. It would serve no practical purpose.

People wanted to know how it was possible for the buildings to collapse first and foremost. The work done demonstrates this. Probably all the attempts are flawed or incomplete or somewhat inaccurate. How could they be anything else?

How is it possible to reproduce or simulate these events to 100% fidelity? Why is that necessary?

What you don't want is making up stuff and fooling with the laws of physics.

Why resort to crazy stuff when the actual stuff can do what we saw?

 

[Brainster]

Just out of curiosity, now that the 9-11 Truth Movement is 7 years into your crash test project, what have you obtained? Have you got the rocket sled and the 767 wing yet and are just awaiting the fabrication of the box columns?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Yankee what is your point? You don't accept that the jet did the observed damage?

Perdue simulation is not bad at all. What is you specific objection to it?

It is a model based on assumptions and data... a change will produce a (slightly?) different simulation.

There conclusion was that the core col damage and the subsequent unfought fires doomed the tower. That conclusion is correct I believe.

This sim predated NIST's final report by 4 years.

<cough>
As to his specific objection to the simulation, it is, of course, that it disproves some of his deeply held beliefs about the September 11th attacks.

 

[curious cat]

I am confused about the timing of the destruction of the plane and its contents. Presumably the impact of the nose would cause velocity decrease as well as crushing or the nose etc. It probably had enough kinetic energy to punch through the facade.

I am not sure I understand why the wings structures would fold back. Intuitive to my thinking is the plane's entire front profile would impact the building. If the impact slowed the fuselage why would the wings fold back? If anything they might maintain their velocity as the fuselage is crushed???

What is the structural design where the wings are? I would think (but I don't know) that wings are not simply bolted the the fuselage.

Please explain.

Your problem is simply the ratio of mass and area that is being impacted by it. In the case of fuselage you have a huge mass hitting a small area containing the decelerating components. The kinetic energy is concentrated in that small area resulting in a huge force from its deceleration. In the case of the wings the area is much lager and the force created by dissipating of the kinetic energy is distributed over it, resulting in smaller force over unit of area - pressure, if you wish. For that reason the wings are not able to follow the fuselage at the same speed penetrating the building material.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It seems that yankee451's problem with a plane having made the plane shaped hole is principally that the damage due to the left wing appears in his chosen photo to indicate that the impacting object was moving to the right as it struck, and didn't hit the building square on.

Since the plane didn't hit the building square on but at an angle aiming to the right, I'm wondering why he thinks that is a problem at all.

His next objection appears to be his "oops" feature: There's a hole which suggests a harder or heavier part hit there, some way outboard of the port engine. Without knowing how various structures are placed in the wing, I have no idea what part might have hit there, but since I don't assume the wing was a featureless, amorphous structure internally, it seems a bit premature to assign it an "oops" unless yankee451 already knows the layout of the 767's wing structure. If he does have this information, I have yet to see him reveal it.

Still, his ambitious plans include the purchase of a 767 wing for destructive testing purposes so he may yet gain first hand knowledge of which parts fit where. We must hope he'll share his findings.

 

[Blue Mountain]

A question for yankee541.

American Airlines Flight 11 departed Logan International Airport in Boston at 7:45 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 81 passengers and 11 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

United Airlines Flight 175 departed Logan International Airport in Boston at 8:14 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 56 passengers and 9 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

American Airlines Flight 77 departed Washington Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Virginia, at 8:20 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 58 passengers and 8 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

United Airlines Flight 93 departed Newark International Airport in New Jersey 8:42 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 33 passengers and 7 crew, bound for San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

Pray tell, in an era where thousands of flights depart and arrive successfully every day, what happened to the 236 people and four aircraft involved with these flights?

 

[curious cat]

A question for yankee541.

American Airlines Flight 11 departed Logan International Airport in Boston at 7:45 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 81 passengers and 11 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

United Airlines Flight 175 departed Logan International Airport in Boston at 8:14 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 56 passengers and 9 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

American Airlines Flight 77 departed Washington Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Virginia, at 8:20 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 58 passengers and 8 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

United Airlines Flight 93 departed Newark International Airport in New Jersey 8:42 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 33 passengers and 7 crew, bound for San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

Pray tell, in an era where thousands of flights depart and arrive successfully every day, what happened to the 236 people and four aircraft involved with these flights?

There are dozens of entirely plausible explanations. Apart from well documented alien abductions, time warps, black hole suction, quantum jump etc we do have to include the alternative of the planes being hijacked - just to be fair. But, considering all circumstances; how likely is that?