What debris is left of the four 9/11 planes? Is it normal for planes to disintigrate on impact?

reply to post by In nothing we trust


Sorry, but you really don't understand the difference??

American Airlines Flight 191 crashed on take off which means the plane was going at full throttle.

Do you think this guy was giving it all he had when he hit?

"full throttle" is not relevant, in the case of AAL 191, and trying to "compare" it to any of the 9/11 impacts.

The end result of the impact, and state of the debris, is primarily from the VELOCITY at impact. Among other things, like angles, and what is hit (ground, different buildings that have different methods of construction, etc).

How fast do YOU think American 191 was travelling, there?

How about if I tell you? Been quite a few years since I've flown the DC-10 (my airline got rid of them immediately after 9/11, because of business down-turn, and the expense of operating/maintaining the old beasts). The actual "V" speeds we use depend on weight, temperature and airport altitude...but mostly the weight. I was going to guess at certain numbers, from memory....but, instead I have the actual ones, from the NTSB report, that I looked up to be precise.

American 191 was a DC-10-10 (as opposed to a -30, with a much heavier Max Takeoff weight....430,000 pounds, versus 580,000, for the versions we flew).

American 191's weight at start of takeoff was 379,000 pounds. They chose a flap setting of 10-degrees. This gave V-speeds of:

V1 -- 139 knots (V1 is the "decision" speed....once very close to, at or past this speed, there is no room left ahead on the runway to stop, by rejecting the takeoff).

Vr -- 145 knots (Vr simply means "rotation" speed. This when the pilot flying begins to raise the nose. We strive for an approximate rate of 2-3 degrees per second, for proper, smooth rotations).

V2 -- 153 knots (V2 is the "Takeoff Safety" speed. This is the best lift/drag speed for an engine-out.....failure....situation at this point in the takeoff).

I was going to make a wild guess at their V2 around 165 kts, before I looked it up. So, I was close, considering all the years since I last flew one.

Typically, our Flight Director computers will provide pitch guidance to a speed of V2+15 - 20 kts. American 191 lifted off at V2+6 kts (159 kts). The maximum airspeed it ever achieved was 172 kts. At only about 300 feet AGL, the loss of control began, and the crash sequence progressed. Speed DECREASED. (Because the pilot flying, this case the First Officer, did exactly as he was trained, at the time, after what he thought was a simple engine failure, and pitched "up" to slow a bit, to V2. He actually flew it to about 160 kts).
So, it's actual speed at ground impact was much slower than any of the 9/11 airplanes.

Point of all that (there is a lot more, link below) is to show the futility of trying to compare crashes...especially on 9/11, because those were unique, and unprecedented....due to the velocities.

Check out, online, any physics force calculator program you wish, to understand how the increase in velocity affects the impact forces greatly.

American 191 NTSB, Chicago O'Hare 1979

reply to post by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by In nothing we trust

 

(click to open player in new window)

Looks like a good way to destroy evidence if you ask me.

Not saying that your thread isnt relevant, because it surely is. I'm just saying that you kind of answered the question yourself. You ask 'where is the debris at?', but you posted pictures of the very debris you are claiming doesnt exist. Then you post pictures of others crashes for comparison, but the amount of debris in these other pictures seems to be not much more than what you have shown of the 9/11 crashes. Another point, the comparison crashes simply crashed into the ground, where as 2 of the 9/11 crashes not only crashed, they burned for over an hour and then tumbled down along with dozens of stories of the buildings. The fact that any debris was identifiable after that is simply amazing.

The fuselage of Flt 77, made of aircraft grade aluminum was able to penetrate six (1.5 ft.) concrete hardened blast proof walls, but two JT8D (engines made of steel and titanium alloy) wing mounted engines weighing approx 6 tons each, didn't even pierce the wall. Also, just as amazing is that the temperature was supposedly so extreme that these steel & titanium engines burned up an were gone within thirty minutes - while the grass on the lawn stayed green.

Pratt & Whitney / Roll Royce engines
12' x 9' Diameter Titanium steel alloy
6 tons each Melting point of titanium: 1,688
Max burning Temp of Jet-Fuel: 1,120.

Originally posted by The Difference
The fuselage of Flt 77, made of aircraft grade aluminum was able to penetrate six (1.5 ft.) concrete hardened blast proof walls, but two JT8D (engines made of steel and titanium alloy) wing mounted engines weighing approx 6 tons each, didn't even pierce the wall. Also, just as amazing is that the temperature was supposedly so extreme that these steel & titanium engines burned up an were gone within thirty minutes - while the grass on the lawn stayed green.

Pratt & Whitney / Roll Royce engines
12' x 9' Diameter Titanium steel alloy
6 tons each Melting point of titanium: 1,688
Max burning Temp of Jet-Fuel: 1,120.

Where do you get the idea that AA 77's engines " didn't even pierce the wall " ? Have a look at pic 5 here :-

www.rense.com...

reply to post by In nothing we trust


In the spirit of the OP here is proof positive that UA 93 didn't crash near Shanksville :-

www.old-picture.com...

Just look ; bent propeller and the pilot with a bit of a headache but that's it !

reply to post by Alfie1


Would you care to show me were in that article or any of the attached photos were it identifies that the engines were inside the building. Are you trying to say that the 124 ft wing span of the wings on the 757 and the mounted 6 ton steel & titanium alloy engines somehow miraculously swept back and entered the hole in the wall made by the aluminum fuselage.

Originally posted by The Difference
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Would you care to show me were in that article or any of the attached photos were it identifies that the engines were inside the building. Are you trying to say that the 124 ft wing span of the wings on the 757 and the mounted 6 ton steel & titanium alloy engines somehow miraculously swept back and entered the hole in the wall made by the aluminum fuselage.

The article says that the engine part photo was taken in the " D or C ring ". Whichever, it is obvious that it was taken inside the Pentagon and not out on the lawn.

reply to post by The Difference

The fuselage of Flt 77, made of aircraft grade aluminum was able to penetrate six (1.5 ft.) concrete hardened blast proof walls, but two JT8D (engines made of steel and titanium alloy) wing mounted engines weighing approx 6 tons each, didn't even pierce the wall. Also, just as amazing is that the temperature was supposedly so extreme that these steel & titanium engines burned up an were gone within thirty minutes - while the grass on the lawn stayed green.

So where did you get idea that it penetrated 6 walls?

Lowest 2 floors (1 st & 2nd) did not have any partitions between them - Once penetrated E ring exterior wall
would have nothing except occasionaal column un its path until hit C Ring wall

It is also claimed that the Pentagon walls were specially reinforced. However, the outer Pentagon wall comprised a framework (grid) of 10 inch reinforced concrete members with the intervening space filed with 8 inch thick brickwork. Over this was placed about 6 inches of decorative limestone. So, the (outer) wall was at most, 16 inches thick, and was not particularly strong (contrary to media reports). The following photos show this to be the case

This argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Pentagon's design. In fact, the light wells between the C- and D-ring and D- and E-ring are only three stories deep. The first and second stories span the distance between the Pentagon's facade and the punctured C-ring wall, which faces a ground-level courtyard. There are no masonry walls in this space, only load-bearing columns. Thus it would be possible for an aircraft part that breached the facade to travel through this area on the ground floor, miss the columns, and puncture the C-ring wall withough having encountering anything more than unsubstantial gypsum walls and furniture in-between.

Exterior wall of Pentagon made of same material as Empire State Building

Note large hole knocked in Empire State Building by B25 which weighed 1/10 that of 757 travelling at fraction of the speed

I don't yet understand how the planes disentigrated, and yet people were found whole and in their seats.......so the plane will vaporize, but the hman body doesn't?

reply to post by Alfie1



This photo of engine remains was taken in either D or C-ring by VATF-1 workers. The large circular piece in the middle appears to be the diffusor section of the compressor, though this is not known for certain.

I'm sure you didn't write the article, but take a look at picture #8 of the supposed hole made by the fuselage. It defies logic and any scientific principles that I'm aware of how either of the 6 ton engines mounted about thirty feet down the wings could have followed the fuselage through the same blast hole.

reply to post by The Difference


I am not sure but are you looking at picture 8 as an entrance hole ? because it is in fact the final exit hole.

reply to post by The Difference


This clearly demonstrates the sort of cross-talk, and misunderstanding that the sites devoted to the "9/11 conspiracy" tend to foster. (Along with the parroting of wrong details, so many times that people fail to stop, and research and question the claims):

It defies logic and any scientific principles that I'm aware of how either of the 6 ton engines mounted about thirty feet down the wings could have followed the fuselage through the same blast hole.

It WOULD defy logic, IF what you were speaking about were actually the entry hole. This "argument from incredulity" works best (if it can be said to "work" at all) when the "facts" used are correct, in the first place.

In addition, this mantra of the "6 ton engines"? Which, "conspiracy" website is being quoted, there? Because, it sounds much like an often-used mantra, stock phrase, derived from such websites. And it is severely lacking in accuracy.

For the moment (and based on earlier context) it seems the assertion here is that EACH engine is a "6 ton" unit? (A "ton" is 2,000 pounds, yes? So, put it another way, the claim is each engine weighs "12,000 pounds").
Well, let's check the facts:

From a table, in Wiki, that I do not know how to reproduce in format, but here are the details ----

RB211-535C --

Static Thrust (lbf):________ 37400
Basic Weight (lb):________ 7294
Length (in): _____________ 118.5
Fan Diameter (in/m):______ 73.2 / 1.86
In Service:______________ 1983
Applications:____________ Boeing 757-200

Wiki source.

It's also important to note, some people have this misperception about jet turbine engines, and their shapes and construction. The continued use of key words, such as "massive", "steel" and "titanium" are very telling, an indicate, yet again, that these terms are copied/repeated from the "9/11 conspiracy" website sources.

(BTW...titanium is actually LESS STRONG than steel. It is, however, prized for its increased temperature threshold, and lighter weight, size-for-size, than a comparable component made out of steel).

Here is a good look at a typical modern aircraft turbine engine design, in cut-away drawing...to show that what you see from the outside is merely the cowling (nacelle) mostly. The "core" is in the center. Surrounding it is a shroud, the diameter of the low-speed (N1) fan. Outside of the shroud, mounted on it, are the other components, some of lighter weight materials....the "plumbing". Fuel lines, pneumatic lines, hydraulic lines, etc. And certain accessories, such as generator, starter, oil and hydraulic pumps, etc. It looks more "massive" than it is, in terms of bulkiness, but that is a bit of an illusion:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a9d34a84af70.jpg[/atsimg]

Here's a pretty cut-away illustration, mounted on the wing and pylon, with nacelle cowling opened:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4da6667674f9.jpg[/atsimg]

Those exterior bits, in a severely high G-force event like seen on 9/11, wouldn't remain attached. And, you can see the internal components can be broken down into individual pieces too. Those "titanium" fan blades, in the "hot section" turbine rotor hubs (and some of the stator vanes) are each individual, in many cases....the rotor/blade combos aren't solid castings. Sometimes they are, depends on size. Walk by an engine, when on the ground and not running, but in sufficient breeze will windmill. You can hear the "tinkling" sounds of the blades, like little individual chimes inside, as the rotor shafts turn.

Originally posted by youdidntseeme

Not saying that your thread isnt relevant, because it surely is. I'm just saying that you kind of answered the question yourself. You ask 'where is the debris at?', but you posted pictures of the very debris you are claiming doesnt exist.

No I'm asking where is the debris at TODAY?

Then you post pictures of others crashes for comparison, but the amount of debris in these other pictures seems to be not much more than what you have shown of the 9/11 crashes.

I have no idea how much debris was found at the other 3 crash sites and neither do you. It would be an interesting comparitive analysis yes?

Another point, the comparison crashes simply crashed into the ground, where as 2 of the 9/11 crashes not only crashed, they burned for over an hour and then tumbled down along with dozens of stories of the buildings. The fact that any debris was identifiable after that is simply amazing.

Again this sounds like a great way to destroy evidenace.

The Pentagon wall was was reinforced to withstand an air attack.

The Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of the planes. (Contain the crash site)

reply to post by In nothing we trust

The Pentagon wall was was reinforced to withstand an air attack.

No it wasn't - designed to resist car bomb blast, especially the windows which were blast proofed to prevent
shattering

"When the Pentagon was designed and built in the early 1940s," reflected Walter Lee Evey, director of the Pentagon Renovation Program Office, "there were a number of concessions made to a country at war. The original designers exercised economies in construction to lessen the impact on strategic materials needed to equip the military." The extensive use of reinforced concrete and non-reinforced masonry was one concession. Certainly the threat of any kind of terrorist attack on the building was far from the thoughts of the original designers. As a result, the Pentagon was constructed with a thin limestone facade over a brick infill between reinforced concrete floors, structurally supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame. Enough to protect from the elements but not from the potential forces of significant blast eventsArchitecturally, the designers of the huge office building also opted for the extensive use of windows. This feature helped connect workers with the outside world, and further reduced the demand for critical wartime construction materials. Along each 924' (281.6 m) exterior wall, there are approximately 400 windows, roughly 5' wide by 7' tall (1.8m � 2.1 m). Together, the lightly constructed facade and large number of windows offer little resistance to terrorist attack.

A reasonably forceful blast from any close point along the Pentagon's surrounding network of public roads would create broad personnel risk inside the outermost of the building's five concentric office rings and could cause severe property and structural damage as well. According to Evey, "The Renovation Office recognized this shortcoming and was determined to address it effectively by incorporating improved personnel safety features into the overall renovation program." The blast protection task was included in the new design work for the first of the Pentagon's five "wedges" and is now a "template" for the follow-on renovation of the other sections.

As for destoying evidence by crashing tinto building .....





Looks like FBI found quite a bit on the surrounding streets

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by In nothing we trust

 

The Pentagon wall was was reinforced to withstand an air attack.

No it wasn't - designed to resist car bomb blast, especially the windows which were blast proofed to prevent
shattering.

NO you are incorrect. The Pentagon walls were reinforced to withstand an air attack.

Ref: MASCAL

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/78c04dcbec74.jpg[/atsimg]

Ref: mouv4x8.perso.neuf.fr...

I can see why you might think the reinforcement was to stop a car bomb though, seeing as how the attack took place AT GROUND LEVEL.

Where are these public roads anyways?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d6120c2ef17f.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aad3484e95cd.jpg[/atsimg]

You would think that the attack would have caused more damage if it had taken place like this.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/912b00cf741d.jpg[/atsimg]

Anyways I think they hit the wrong building.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/92e7189e889a.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

American Airlines Flight 191 crashed on take off which means the plane was going at full throttle.

Do you think this guy was giving it all he had when he hit?

"full throttle" is not relevant, in the case of AAL 191, and trying to "compare" it to any of the 9/11 impacts.

The end result of the impact, and state of the debris, is primarily from the VELOCITY at impact. Among other things, like angles, and what is hit (ground, different buildings that have different methods of construction, etc).

How fast do YOU think American 191 was travelling, there?

How about if I tell you? Been quite a few years since I've flown the DC-10 (my airline got rid of them immediately after 9/11, because of business down-turn, and the expense of operating/maintaining the old beasts). The actual "V" speeds we use depend on weight, temperature and airport altitude...but mostly the weight. I was going to guess at certain numbers, from memory....but, instead I have the actual ones, from the NTSB report, that I looked up to be precise.

American 191 was a DC-10-10 (as opposed to a -30, with a much heavier Max Takeoff weight....430,000 pounds, versus 580,000, for the versions we flew).

American 191's weight at start of takeoff was 379,000 pounds. They chose a flap setting of 10-degrees. This gave V-speeds of:

V1 -- 139 knots (V1 is the "decision" speed....once very close to, at or past this speed, there is no room left ahead on the runway to stop, by rejecting the takeoff).

Vr -- 145 knots (Vr simply means "rotation" speed. This when the pilot flying begins to raise the nose. We strive for an approximate rate of 2-3 degrees per second, for proper, smooth rotations).

V2 -- 153 knots (V2 is the "Takeoff Safety" speed. This is the best lift/drag speed for an engine-out.....failure....situation at this point in the takeoff).

I was going to make a wild guess at their V2 around 165 kts, before I looked it up. So, I was close, considering all the years since I last flew one.

Typically, our Flight Director computers will provide pitch guidance to a speed of V2+15 - 20 kts. American 191 lifted off at V2+6 kts (159 kts). The maximum airspeed it ever achieved was 172 kts. At only about 300 feet AGL, the loss of control began, and the crash sequence progressed. Speed DECREASED. (Because the pilot flying, this case the First Officer, did exactly as he was trained, at the time, after what he thought was a simple engine failure, and pitched "up" to slow a bit, to V2. He actually flew it to about 160 kts).

So, it's actual speed at ground impact was much slower than any of the 9/11 airplanes.

Point of all that (there is a lot more, link below) is to show the futility of trying to compare crashes...especially on 9/11, because those were unique, and unprecedented....due to the velocities.

Check out, online, any physics force calculator program you wish, to understand how the increase in velocity affects the impact forces greatly.

American 191 NTSB, Chicago O'Hare 1979

Weedwacker

I would have guessed that AA191 was going somewhere close to (Take Off speed of a DC 10-10 (V2, knots) 175 to 181) or what the NTSB report says 160 knots so fine.

To be fair we should probably be talking about Force and Mass as well as Velocity.

What is the Force and Mass of a fully loaded DC-10 hitting the ground on takeoff as opposed to a partially loaded 757 crashing into a building after burning some of it's fuel in flight?

They never demonstrated that they had any identifying parts that positively identified the aircraft as being the ones they claimed they were. In essence, there is no evidence that the planes are the ones they said they were.
www.physics911.net...
This whole 911 event benefited a lot of people, an enormous number of people in fact. That is why SO many bought into it.
www.911review.com...
Eliminate the WTC towers that were becoming a liability. One reason, asbestos.
911research.wtc7.net...
Blame the Arabs, ie, Iraq, Osama, virtually anybody in the middle east except Israel.
en.wikipedia.org...
Create a need for an ENORMOUS amount of goods for security, like body scanners You all know who Michael Chertoff is, right?..
www.americanfreepress.net...

AND. so much more. So many people benefited from 911. Bureaucrats that couldn't make it in the private sector, now have jobs. We have more federal police pulling people over, to "control" the potential terrorists. We are giving Israel hundreds of millions of dollars for protection from the destitute Palestinians that are seeing their homes bulldozed by the "traumatized" Israelis.

The "debris" from 911 is all around us.