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


Seem to have problems with reading comprehension ....

Or did you fail to read the excerpts from the engineer in charge of the Pentagon renovation

You quote from a Mass casualty drill conducted at the Pentagon a year earlier

You do realize that the Pentagon lies on the approach path to Reagan National airport?

Reason for the drill was in case of aircraft crash of [plane coming into Reagan National

As for roads -m satellite shot of the Pentagon



Notice how close the roads approach on the west and northwest quadrants ....

Originally posted by Stewie

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...

Has anyone without a security clearanace ever seen the alleged debris?

Originally posted by thedman
You do realize that the Pentagon lies on the approach path to Reagan National airport?

Reason for the drill was in case of aircraft crash of [plane coming into Reagan National

As for roads -m satellite shot of the Pentagon



Notice how close the roads approach on the west and northwest quadrants ....

So that would explain why the east wall was reinforced first instead of the north or the west walls.

maps.google.com...,-77.036905&sspn=0.037626,0.082397&ie=UTF8&hq=pentagon &hnear=Washington,+District+of+Columbia&t=h&z=13

reply to post by In nothing we trust

So that would explain why the east wall was reinforced first instead of the north or the west walls.

It was the west face of the Pentagon which was hit.....

Try doing some research first.....

reply to post by In nothing we trust


????? You say we have to understand velocity and mass, and resulting forces. But it doesn't seem as if you've done the calculations, but instead are just "guessing", or going by your "gut".

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

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.

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?

First, some red herrings to dispose of, because like guests who have overstayed their welcome, the fish is beginning to stink.

"fully loaded" DC-10 is nonsense. Unspecific. Irrelevant. It is its WEIGHT (which was in the NTSB report) that matters. (And speed of impact). At start of takeoff roll, it was 379,000 pounds. Let's use 160 kts for impact, convert that to statute MPH = 184.

American 77 (a Boeing 757-200)? I can't find official reports of its weight, on departure. The NTSB estimates (based on gate departure fuel, and fuel burn from the DFDR record) a fuel quantity of 36,200 pounds at impact.
The maximum gross takeoff weight for that model is 240,000 pounds. The OEW (Operating Empty Weight) is roughly 128,000 to 130,000 pounds. Will vary by airline, because "OEW" is a figure that includes all normal equipment for operation, to include the minimum flight crew. But, being conservative, we will take the 128,000, + the fuel 36,200 to = 164,200 pounds. Now, about 40 passengers (forget the exact number, some were children) let's use the standard airline "average" weights (winter) of 165 pounds/person. We will be even more conservative, and ignore baggage or cargo, since those exact weights are unknown, now anyway. 40 X 165 = 6,600 pounds. 164,200 + 6,600 = 170,800 pounds. More conservatism, I'll just use 170,000.

Airspeed at impact for American 77 was ~460 knots. So, that's 529 MPH. (I saw one source, quoted NTSB as "530 MPH").

OK, to recap:

American 191, a DC-10-10 --- Weight and speed at impact --- 379,000 lbs and 184 MPH
American 77, a B-757-200 --- Weight and speed at impact --- 170,000 lbs and 529 MPH

(Estimated...the DC-10 burned some fuel weight, during the takeoff, and the B-757 is just conservative guesses).

Here is a speed/force calculator I found online:

www.crashdamagerepair.com...

Plugging in the numbers, (and assuming a "zero" stopping distance...although, in reality, the forces are spread out in deceleration, especially in the case of AAL 191 --- but "zero" for a side-by-side comparison):

DC-10 force = 214,618 tons.
B-757 force = 795,704 tons.

Even "smaller" and "lighter", the 757 WAS FASTER, and that matters in force of impact calculations.

3,7 time stronger, per these estimates. Furthermore, as noted, American 191 was spread out along the ground....American 77's energy was focused onto the wall of a stationary building.

Actual math, and checking one's facts, works better than just "guessing"...or believing anything that is spewed by those "9/11 conspiracy" websites that infest the Web.

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

 

So that would explain why the east wall was reinforced first instead of the north or the west walls.

It was the west face of the Pentagon which was hit.....

Try doing some research first.....

You're right the west wall was attacked. So that would explain why the west wall was reinforced first.

Seeing as how landing aircraft approach from the north and east, it is only understandable as to why the west wall was reinforced first.

maps.google.com...,-77.038536&sspn=0.071919,0.164795&split=1&rq=1&ev=zi &hq=pentagon&hnear=&ll=38.853746,-77.038536&spn=0.075262,0.164795&z=13

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
You're right the west wall was attacked. So that would explain why the west wall was reinforced first.

Seeing as how landing aircraft approach from the north and east, it is only understandable as to why the west wall was reinforced first.

Ah of course! Because if you want to hit a building and damage it, everyone knows you spend huge amounts on reinforcing it first.

Because?

Oh well I guess you haven't gotten that far yet. I look forward to you putting forward anything more than speculation.

If a plane can nearly vaporize hitting the reinforced pentagon, then how do they fare when they slam into a mountainside? Any pictures out there of crash sites where the plane was flying too low and hit one? (Because of fog, cloud cover, faulty on board altitude equipment.)

reply to post by korath


There aren't any instances (that I can recall) of an airplane impacting the vertical face of a cliff. That is the approximate comparison to hitting a building.

The majority of unexpected impacts with the ground (called 'CFIT", for Controlled Flight Into Terrain), if they're not in the takeoff or landing phase, DO occur in areas of rising terrain, but usually on slopes, and therefore spread out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reminds me of this brilliantly funny cartoon:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c521aaf90993.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

You're right the west wall was attacked. So that would explain why the west wall was reinforced first.

Seeing as how landing aircraft approach from the north and east, it is only understandable as to why the west wall was reinforced first.

Ah of course! Because if you want to hit a building and damage it, everyone knows you spend huge amounts on reinforcing it first.

Ah an unbeliever

I am actually looking for the flight landing pattern for Dulles airport right now.

It is rather eluesive data actually. Any help offered by anyone would be appreciated.

MY guess is that aircraft don't normally make approaches from the east passing over the pentagon to Dulles for landing though.

Originally posted by In nothing we trustMY guess is that aircraft don't normally make approaches from the east passing over the pentagon to Dulles for landing though.

edit on 15-10-2010 by In nothing we trust because: (no reason given)

Of course not

I guess this is what you are looking for: www.airnav.com...

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen

Originally posted by In nothing we trustMY guess is that aircraft don't normally make approaches from the east passing over the pentagon to Dulles for landing though.

Of course not

I guess this is what you are looking for: www.airnav.com...

Not that anyone cares, but here is the diagram.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7d05ebac95b4.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Not that anyone cares, but here is the diagram.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7d05ebac95b4.jpg[/atsimg]

This is entirely inaccurate. The airport is not located floating on the water.



There's a closer approach, the bearing mentioned in the documentation is 114 but I didn't align that image so I didn't mark it down.

reply to post by In nothing we trust

MY guess is that aircraft don't normally make approaches from the east passing over the pentagon to Dulles for landing though.

Well, since the Dulles International Airport is actually some 23 miles (or so) to the WEST of the Pentagon, in rural Virginia, then your statement there is somewhat correct. However, you are showing a diagram of, and discussing the Washington NATIONAL Airport ("re-named" Reagan...but, I refuse to use that moniker, I prefer if that man's memory was erased from history...)

The primary runway at National Airport (KDCA) is 01/19. 15/33 is used sometimes (and even more rarely, 04/22) by the smaller commuter-type airplanes, and occasionally for landings of the larger jets, 737s and Airbuses, etc.

When the north configuration is being used, arrivals to Runway 01 use either the "Mount Vernon Visual", or in inclement weather, the ILS Runway 01. (The ILS is also used, even on clear days, for localizer and glideslope guidance, per airline policy and SOP).

There is a GPS procedure for Runway 33

Departures from Runway 01 make an immediate left turn, generally follows the Potomac River upstream, towards Great Falls. Specifically, the DCA VOR is used, and a radial on a bearing of 325 degrees. This, because overflying the city is prohibited, per the P-56 airspace restrictions....they cover the White House, Mall area, and the Naval Observatory (Veep's residence), surface to 18,000 feet MSL.

When arriving/departing to the south, there is the "River Visual" to Runway 19, and also a procedure in poor weather, the LDA....uses a localizer signal that is offset from the runway centerline. More commonly, the "Rosslyn LDA with G/S. These are specialized approach procedures, seen for special situations. Basically, though, the arrivals to Runway 19 follow the Potomac River...either visually, or electronically. IF the LDAs are not available, there are also the VOR/DME or GPS built in reference to the DCA VOR.

There is the little-used VOR/DME or GPS for Runway 15....this one is the closest to the Pentagon, on the final approach.

In the main, the variety of different approach procedures allows for mechanical failures of ground equipment, and various options to continue airport operations in poor weather. The preferred methods of instrument approach will always be the most precise guidance options, localizer and glideslope, when operational.

These systems have historical backgrounds...and long history of use. GPS is rapidly becoming preferred in some cases, as its accuracy continues to improve. There are plans for specialized GPS landing systems that will eventually replace the traditional ILS, that utilize the localizer/glideslope combination, as like all transmitted radio signals, they are subject to interference, at times...and power outages on the ground, etc.


Any past drills regarding potential airplane crashes at the Pentagon (accidental crashes) would have imagined a scenario of some control problem, or catastrophe, duuring the takeoff or landing phase that resulted in the airplane deviating from planned course, into the structure. An arrival to Runway 15, for instance, where it gets really mucked up. Rarely are takeoffs made from Runway 33, as the longer runway (01/19) is preferred, generally.

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

 

MY guess is that aircraft don't normally make approaches from the east passing over the pentagon to Dulles for landing though.

Well, since the Dulles International Airport is actually some 23 miles (or so) to the WEST of the Pentagon, in rural Virginia, then your statement there is somewhat correct. However, you are showing a diagram of, and discussing the Washington NATIONAL Airport ("re-named" Reagan...but, I refuse to use that moniker, I prefer if that man's memory was erased from history...)

The primary runway at National Airport (KDCA) is 01/19. 15/33 is used sometimes (and even more rarely, 04/22) by the smaller commuter-type airplanes, and occasionally for landings of the larger jets, 737s and Airbuses, etc.

When the north configuration is being used, arrivals to Runway 01 use either the "Mount Vernon Visual", or in inclement weather, the ILS Runway 01. (The ILS is also used, even on clear days, for localizer and glideslope guidance, per airline policy and SOP).

There is a GPS procedure for Runway 33

Departures from Runway 01 make an immediate left turn, generally follows the Potomac River upstream, towards Great Falls. Specifically, the DCA VOR is used, and a radial on a bearing of 325 degrees. This, because overflying the city is prohibited, per the P-56 airspace restrictions....they cover the White House, Mall area, and the Naval Observatory (Veep's residence), surface to 18,000 feet MSL.

When arriving/departing to the south, there is the "River Visual" to Runway 19, and also a procedure in poor weather, the LDA....uses a localizer signal that is offset from the runway centerline. More commonly, the "Rosslyn LDA with G/S. These are specialized approach procedures, seen for special situations. Basically, though, the arrivals to Runway 19 follow the Potomac River...either visually, or electronically. IF the LDAs are not available, there are also the VOR/DME or GPS built in reference to the DCA VOR.

There is the little-used VOR/DME or GPS for Runway 15....this one is the closest to the Pentagon, on the final approach.

In the main, the variety of different approach procedures allows for mechanical failures of ground equipment, and various options to continue airport operations in poor weather. The preferred methods of instrument approach will always be the most precise guidance options, localizer and glideslope, when operational.

These systems have historical backgrounds...and long history of use. GPS is rapidly becoming preferred in some cases, as its accuracy continues to improve. There are plans for specialized GPS landing systems that will eventually replace the traditional ILS, that utilize the localizer/glideslope combination, as like all transmitted radio signals, they are subject to interference, at times...and power outages on the ground, etc.


Any past drills regarding potential airplane crashes at the Pentagon (accidental crashes) would have imagined a scenario of some control problem, or catastrophe, duuring the takeoff or landing phase that resulted in the airplane deviating from planned course, into the structure. An arrival to Runway 15, for instance, where it gets really mucked up. Rarely are takeoffs made from Runway 33, as the longer runway (01/19) is preferred, generally.

Thanks for the correction on the Dulles (Reagan) thing. Not sure why I was thinking Dulles.

Excellent summary of the approaches and runways. I wasn't sure about the ILS, GPS, etc terminology.

Your link for river visual landing doesn't work though.

reply to post by In nothing we trust


Ah, did not know that:

Your link for river visual landing doesn't work though.

Fixed...still had time to edit.........

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Not that anyone cares, but here is the diagram.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7d05ebac95b4.jpg[/atsimg]

This is entirely inaccurate. The airport is not located floating on the water.

There's a closer approach, the bearing mentioned in the documentation is 114 but I didn't align that image so I didn't mark it down.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f9712b07579b.jpg[/atsimg]

The impact occurred in the renovated portion of the building approximately 140 ft to the south of the boundary between the renovated section and the next section scheduled to be renovated.

The Pentagon is in the midst of a major renovation program, and the work is phased in five “wedges” that do not correspond to either the sections or the areas. Each wedge is centered on a building vertex and consists of the portion of the building between the midpoint of adjacent sides.The renovation of Wedge 1 began in 1999 and was essentially complete at the time of the crash.

www.fire.nist.gov...

reply to post by In nothing we trust


Did I miss a point here? Like I said earlier in the thread, what sort of idiot spends years and does an entirely visible and public renovation to hit an area with a plane? What would be the point?

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

 

Did I miss a point here? Like I said earlier in the thread, what sort of idiot spends years and does an entirely visible and public renovation to hit an area with a plane? What would be the point?

To minimize the loss of life, destroy evidence and send a message.

A better question to ask would be, "Why did the terrorists attack the Pentagon instead of the Capital building?"

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
To minimize the loss of life,

Why? They destroyed ground zero and killed thousands, why would they wish to save a few accountants etc at the Pentagon?

destroy evidence

What evidence? They surely would have hit a weaker section then to do more damage to offices and their contents?

and send a message.

I don't even get this at all, how does hitting a reinforced section instead of non reinforced section send a message?

A better question to ask would be, "Why did the terrorists attack the Pentagon instead of the Capital building?"

Because they hit at the heart of the US economy and military? I presume that was their rationale at least. I can't go ask them about their intentions, but you seem to be quite sure you know the intentions of whoever you believe was responsible.