See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 demolition theory challenged
Source:
BBC
URL Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
Published: Sep 11, 2007
Author: staff
Post Date: 2010-07-17 17:31:29 by buckeroo
Ping List: *4um PSY-OP Club* Subscribe to *4um PSY-OP Club*
Keywords: None
Views: 17881
Comments: 1209
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The study by a Cambridge University engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total. One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition". The study suggests a different explanation for how the towers fell. Over 2,800 people were killed in the devastating attacks on New York. After reviewing television footage of the Trade Center's destruction, engineers had proposed the idea of "progressive collapse" to explain the way the twin towers disintegrated on 11 September 2001. This mode of structural failure describes the way the building fell straight down rather than toppling, with each successive floor crushing the one beneath (an effect called "pancaking"). Resistance to collapse Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localised failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures. Man stands amid rubble of the World Trade Center, AFP/Getty Once the collapse began, it was destined to be "rapid and total" In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts. "The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website. Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse. His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down. This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground. 'Fair assumption' The University of Cambridge engineer said his results therefore suggested progressive collapse was "a fair assumption in terms of how the building fell". "One thing that confounded engineers was how falling parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath and brought the towers down so quickly," said Dr Seffen. The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses, AP Conspiracy theorists see evidence of a "controlled detonation" He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings. The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronised rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center. This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers. Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble. Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse. Dr Seffen's research could help inform future building design.
[Thread Locked] Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 556.
#237. To: buckeroo (#0)
This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground. Actually a free fall from the 110th floor would have taken 9.22 seconds. Wow, the towers fell FASTER than free falling objects, like being sucked into a huge vacuum cleaner. Amazing.
Show me your calculation and/or source material.
Oh man, are you REALLY that stupid? Besides it being stated in virtually every report that exists in terms of free fall comparisons, here's the basic physics, which you apparently never learned in school. You can look up the formula, it's t = SQRT(2d/g) t = time, d = distance, g = acceleration due to gravity (32.2 feet per second/second) The roof heights of the WTC towers were 1368 ft for WTC1, 1362 feet for WTC2. Acceleration due to gravity is (32.17 feet per second)/second For WTC1; t = SQRT(2*1368/32.17) = 9.222 seconds For WTC2; t = SQRT(2*1362/32.17) = 9.202 seconds So there you go buck, try looking things up yourself next time before you make a fool of yourself.
Why do you think that your height measurement for the "top" of each of the WTC towers is correct? The towers were hit on the 96th and 81st floors, this means that "free fall" time values were 8.61 and 7.91 seconds respectively because this is the location of initial forces (de plane! de plane!) that buckled the upper floors. So, you are incorrect by throwing your silly brick off the 110th floor... for a publick demonstration of your astounding assumptions to thwart otherwise serious study and investigation into and about a tragic issue. This notion of "free fall" has always been used by the TWOOFERS and it is an incorrect assumption for the top of either of the building for the calculation; it is utter nonsense.
Hahahahhaa. More back pedaling after they themselves use 9.22 seconds as evidenced on Rosie's video clip. Where she's obviously parroting something she doesn't understand the least from a CT website.
Rosie is obviously brighter than you. You don't judge collapse time for only PART of the building collapsing, you INCLUDE the ENTIRE building from the very top. Do they give you stupid pills on your job?
You're the people bantering around the "9.22 seconds," "physical impossibility" phrases. You've had over 8 years and still can't come up with coherent, supportable, verifiable versions of events. Take another few years to get your stories straight. It's not like anybody will be holding their breaths.
Yep, the building SHOULD NOT HAVE collapsed as if it were falling through a vacuum, yet buck's expert "calculated" precisely that. Do you and he subscribe to "Junk Science Monthly"? Or do you just make this shit up as you go?
There is a very good reason why real world controlled demolition uses so much time, energy, and materials to create conditions getting as close to free fall speeds as possible. And the consequence of this reason is, if the collapse does not approach free fall speeds, it wasn't done by professional controlled demolition experts. The reason is, it is known with complete certainty that the force of gravity, if unobstructed by other forces, will pull the building straight down into its own footprint. Where it can be neatly disposed of without damage to anything else not intended to be destroyed. When the structure is not sufficiently prepared by getting rid of any and all remaining obstacles in the way of straight down vertical collapse, there are additional uncertainties introduced of timing, and rerouting gravitational forces in lines other than straight up and down. So professional demolitions people take extra time to make sure the fall will be as close to vertical free fall speeds as possible to avoid introducing other variables which may cause unpredicable unmanageable results. If a building doesn't fall at close to free fall speeds, its fall has not been set up by controlled demolition. Fifeeen seconds vs. nine seconds for a collapse is not even close to free fall speeds. The controlled demolition theory is debunked by actual and observed free fall speeds indicating lack of thorough setup for a building collapse many times larger than the largest recorded CD.
Wrong. All the demolition has to do is START the collapse, and with strategically placed charges and computer aided timing, the collapse can take however long they want it to in terms of structural collapse below the initial point of failure. Thing is, it collapsed WAY too fast for gravity to have done it alone, where a falling body meeting resistance slows down, and the resistance may eventually give way, but it takes some finite amount of time for that to happen. You're saying it took 6 seconds to smash and break EVERY iota of resistance, since the 9 seconds of falling through a vacuum doesn't correlate with the time it took to overcome the resistance.
But a demolition did not start the collapses. The jet crashes did.
Er, no buckie. The buildings did NOT start to fall down when they were hit. They did NOT start to fall till the precise time they collapsed.
So there was no debris scattered around immediately after the impacts? Not much time... it was amazing they stood for so long ... but it took time for the central structure to lose stress capability that caused the later crush down phase.
Not amazing at all, what's amazing is that they fell at all, never mind disintegrate into dust while coming down close to free fall speeds.
ROTFL .... no building is designed to withstand that kind of impact.
So what IS your excuse for WT7? Also the architect for those buildings claims they were indeed made to endure the impact of a 747. Also, this architect calls BS on much of the story......he has far more experience in this field than you do Buck.
Your story is FALSE or fabricated. The twins were designed for a 707 as in a FOG with a velocity well below 550mi/hr. (For you, that means much less inertial force as what occurred on 9/11 by the relative impacts caused by terrorist crashes)
You prove, once again, that you don't know wtf you are talking about. Statements by Engineers Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires. John Skilling John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3 A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners traveling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The twins were designed for a 707 as in a FOG with a velocity well below 550mi/hr. (For you, that means much less inertial force as what occurred on 9/11 by the relative impacts caused by terrorist crashes) You prove, once again, that you don't know wtf you are talking about. No, Tw00fster, you don't know WTF you're talking about. Federal airspace rules prohibit any commercial aircraft from going over 250 KIAS below 10,000 altitude or in "Class B airspace" which surrounds jet airports. New York City is completely covered by both restrictions. There would be no reason to design a building able to withstand a crash whose speed presumably never would be allowed by Air Traffic Control in the first place. Furthermore, structural engineer calculations aren't built in mockups and then tested to make sure the calculations are correct. Last but not least, there is no record of a design specifying a 500 mph impact. This is hearsay unsupported by any files. If you have a file supporting 500 mph impact of a 707/767 the produce it. You lie, you lose.
Well then, you've lost long ago if that's true...
Loser, here is a partial list of deficiencies you cannot answer with any satisfaction. As time goes on the list will get bigger. Just as a partial list, you've been provided explicit proofs of the following phenomena and many others.
Glad you posted that so that some of the folks who think Hani Hanjour actually did what they claimed he did will know that he could NOT have done it. They get quiet when you mention that he allegedly took control somewhere in the skies over Ohio and then flew it back to the Pentagon like a stunt pilot. But at the time the plane was hijacked, even if the weather had been perfect and not a cloud in the sky, he would not have had any idea where he was over the landscape. It all looks pretty much the same from heights greater than the top of Mt. Everest. And it is certain that a man who couldn't fly a Cessna could not fly what they claimed hit the Pentagon.
The most difficult parts of pilot tests are takoffs and landings. Hanjour didn't have to do either when he took over an aircraft already airborne and intended to be crashed, not landed.
The most difficult parts of pilot tests are takoffs and landings. Take-offs and landings in a Cessna are relatively easy, with the take-off being such that just about ANYONE could do it. Flying is the relatively easy part. Hanjour couldn't do any of the above even in a Cessna, never mind a heavy multi-engine airliner with all of the complex systems that need to be set correctly. We are supposed to believe however that he brought the plane down from 35,000 feet to treetop level at 400+ mph, then performed a manuever not any professional pilot could pulloff, and that is to descend to 20 feet off the ground at 530 mph (which is basically performing a landing), defying the laws of aerodynamics (in terms of ground effect), flying straight and level directly into the Pentagon wall. Yeah right. Hanjour didn't have to do either when he took over an aircraft already airborne and intended to be crashed, not landed. Besides LANDING the aircraft short of having his wheels down, AT 530 MPH (which the aircraft basically CAN'T DO), he navigated the plane from Ohio without any navigational aids in terms of ground references, so we must assume he was familiar with IFR (instrument flight rules) procedures using sophisticated flight systems and instruments, where he couldn't even fly a Cessna VFR, (visual flight rules).
Once again, you mindlessly parrot bull$hit from ko00ksites, try to pass it off as truth, and call anybody who disagrees with your $hitpile a liar and a government agent. Hanjour actually got a commercial pilot license in 1999 but was unable to get a job. However in 2001 he was showing problems. At the same time he was taking advanced simulator training, so he knew his way around the school enough to put in a spotty performance. Again, takeoffs and landings are by far the most difficult parts of flight trainings. Because Hanjour was not interested in takeoffs and landings he did not have to do well on those most difficult parts of the schooling. Furthermore the Pentagon crash itself shows an inexperirenced pilot. The wings were rocking on the final approach, and he went in to the back of the building because the plane got away from him when he tried to hit the Potomac-facing north face of the building which was where the high value target offices including Rumsfeld's were. The Pentagon hit had little or no destructive value as far as harming the US interests. Haji Hanjour ... However, in January 2001, Arizona JetTech flight school managers reported him to the FAA at least five times because his English was inadequate for the commercial pilot’s certificate he had already obtained. It took him five hours to complete an oral exam meant to last just two hours, said Peggy Chevrette. Hanjour failed UA English classes with a 0.26 GPA and a JetTech manager said “He could not fly at all.” His FAA certificate had become invalid late in 1999 when he failed to take a mandatory medical examination. In February, Hanjour began advanced simulator training in Mesa Arizona Hanjour continued with simulator training because that was where he could practice flying an airplane already airborne and crashing it into a target on a preplanned route, and not have to bother with the other parts of flying including speaking English he could not care less about.
Because Hanjour was not interested in takeoffs and landings he did not have to do well on those most difficult parts of the schooling. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! He LANDED a 757 on the Pentagon lawn at 530 mph, short of putting down his wheels, and FLEW IT STRAIGHT INTO THE WALL. Of course such a feat is virtually IMPOSSIBLE, yet he supposedly did it anyways. What don't you understand here?
He didn't fly it straight into the wall. (1) He hit the wall at an oblique angle which caused the aircraft to not achieve the maximum penatation of a 90 degree impact. (2) He didn't land on the lawn. As I've repeatedly said ground effect makes an air cushion supporting nap of the earth lift the closer the fuselage and wings get to the ground. (3) The wings were oscillating right up to final impact, clipping poles and brushing aside construction equipment, and ingesting a part of a luminary into the engine. This is not an under control approach or crash. (4) The entire secion hit did minimum damage to American interests. The hit was not in a place doing any substantial damage to the US. This is because he was trying to salvage a hit on the building at all instead of hitting a high value section.
(1) He hit the wall at an oblique angle which caused the aircraft to not achieve the maximum penatation of a 90 degree impact. The aircraft flew level, the wings were not banking, and the nose was not up or down. The ANGLE which the aircraft impacted the wall actually caused MORE damage than if it had hit at a 90 degree angle. (2) He didn't land on the lawn. As I've repeatedly said ground effect makes an air cushion supporting nap of the earth lift the closer the fuselage and wings get to the ground. Can you repeat that in English? The aircraft didn't PHYSICALLY TOUCH down on the lawn, his wheels weren't down, but IF the wheels were down the aircraft would have landed. As far as ground effect, it's physically impossible for a large heavy aircraft with relatively low wing-loading, such as a 757, to fly lower than 60 feet off the ground at speeds of 400+ mph. The alleged hijacker whose instuctors said "could not fly at all", allegedly flew the aircraft down to 20 FEET off the Pentagon lawn at a speed of 530 MPH. The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training (3) The wings were oscillating right up to final impact, clipping poles and brushing aside construction equipment, and ingesting a part of a luminary into the engine. This is not an under control approach or crash. Post your source. For the aircraft to have impacted as it did, it had to fly with its wings straight and its nose level, especially being there was no damage to the Pentagon lawn. If it had touched the ground with its wings, not only would the wing have broken off and exploded, it would have left obvious skid marks. There were none, and the wing didn't blow up on the lawn. As far as the lightposts, the officers who first responded to the scene report those lightposts were still standing when they got there, but OTHER light poles were knocked down from the aircraft THEY saw hit the Pentagon, which flew north of the ALLEGED flight path taken according to the official story, which placed it over the poles YOU claim were knocked down. (4) The entire secion hit did minimum damage to American interests. The hit was not in a place doing any substantial damage to the US. This is because he was trying to salvage a hit on the building at all instead of hitting a high value section. The aircraft went OUT OF ITS WAY to avoid the high value section of the Pentagon, performing a precision manuever to direct it to the side it actually hit. Pretty thoughtful of that terrorist, wasn't it...
False. The starboard wing got mostly ground against the building exterior wall because it ran approximately parallel to it, while the port wing got folded back into the fuselage because it was inserted into a tight space with little force available to push the width of that space wider. No. In landing especially ground landings the power must be cut down drastically. Had the wheels been lowered the plane would have repeatedly bounced anywhere from a few feet to over 100. Since Hanjour had aleady obtained a commercial pilot certificate two years earlier, the statement he could not fly at all is an exaggeration glommed onto by the Half Truther usual suspects, who can't be bothered to research facts, because that will take time away from their circlejerk gaybanter with each other.
From Newsday Magazine In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said. When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, "We declined to provide training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student when he was there in 1996 and 1997," Chilton said.
Two different types of licenses, Half Truther. Once again you conflate two distinct items, into a single gloopy tarball of k00kspiracy theory. Hanjour's license and training were for a commercial pilot, which is the license you need to fly passenger carrying jets. Hanjour's single engine license private pilot is not relevant to 911 unless you want to claim Hanjour somehow needed to fly a Cessna 172 into the targets. Nearly all aircraft pilots say it's harder to fly smaller aircraft than larger ones. The smaller craft are more susceptible to wind and weather changes, don't have backup safety systems, and require constant attention. Even experienced ATP pilots are often asked to take additional training if they have not piloted smaller craft recently. As I have already said, the hardest parts of piloting are takeoffs and landings. So what does your source say? However Hanjour knew just enough about both large and small planes to be dangerous. And he didn't need anyone's permission to hijack an airplane and fly it into a building, however clumsily.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Find me ONE legitimate pilot who EVER said it's easier to fly an airliner than it is to fly a Cessna 172. Post it here, or admit that you are a LIAR EXTRAORDINAIRE.
Find me ONE legitimate pilot who EVER said it's easier to fly an airliner than it is to fly a Cessna 172. Gawd, swatting you is about as much work as smacking an insect. What's best? The one that is the most difficult to fly! Well, within reason of course. A Cessna 152, for example, is more sensitive on the controls than it's larger brother, the 172. If you learn to fly in a 152, and then step-up to a 172 it will be a piece of cake to handle. It's more difficult the other way around. Generally speaking, the larger the aircraft the easier it is to fly. And, the guy that learns in a tail-dragger has a much easier time of transistioning to a tricycle gear than the tricycle driver does going the other direction. So, in my opinion, opt for the small trainer.
#560. To: AGAviator (#556)
Yes, and they are BOTH SINGLE-ENGINE PRIVATE AIRCRAFT you bloviating idiot. He wasn't talking about airliners being easier to fly than a SINGLE ENGINE plane you retard.
Yet, he couldn't even fly a 172... HAHAHAHA!!!! This from The Prince George's Journal (Maryland), September 18, 2001: According to published reports, law enforcement sources say Hanjour, in his mid- twenties, is suspected of crashing the American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. . . . Hanjour had his pilot's license, said Bernard, but needed what is called a 'check-out' done by the airport to gauge a pilot's skills before he or she is able to rent a plane at Freeway Airport which runs parallel to Route 50. Instructors at the school told Bernard that after three times in the air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo and that Hanjour seemed disappointed ... ... Published reports said Hanjour obtained his pilot's license in April of 1999, but it expired six months later because he did not complete a required medical exam. He also was trained for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1996, but did not finish the course because instructors felt he was not capable. Hanjour had 600 hours listed in his log book, Bernard said, and instructors were surprised he was not able to fly better with the amount of experience. Pete Goulatta, a special agent and spokesman for the FBI, said it is an on- going criminal investigation and he could not comment. (pg. 1.)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHis calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.
#246. To: FormerLurker (#237)
Actually a free fall from the 110th floor would have taken 9.22 seconds.
#247. To: buckeroo (#246)
Show me your calculation and/or source material.
#249. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator (#247)
#252. To: buckeroo (#249)
This notion of "free fall" has always been used by the TWOOFERS and it is an incorrect assumption for the top of either of the building for the calculation; it is utter nonsense.
#256. To: AGAviator (#252)
More back pedaling after they themselves use 9.22 seconds as evidenced on Rosie's video clip.
#260. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#256)
You don't judge collapse time for only PART of the building collapsing, you INCLUDE the ENTIRE building from the very top.
#263. To: AGAviator, buckeroo (#260)
You're the people bantering around the "9.22 seconds," "physical impossibility" phrases.
#309. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#263)
(Edited)
Yep, the building SHOULD NOT HAVE collapsed as if it were falling through a vacuum, yet buck's expert "calculated" precisely that.
#316. To: AGAviator (#309)
If a building doesn't fall at close to free fall speeds, its fall has not been set up by controlled demolition. Fifeeen seconds vs. nine seconds for a collapse is not even close to free fall speeds. The controlled demolition theory is debunked by actual and observed free fall speeds indicating lack of thorough setup for a building collapse many times larger than the largest recorded CD.
#318. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator (#316)
All the demolition has to do is START the collapse
#321. To: buckeroo (#318)
But a demolition did not start the collapses. The jet crashes did.
#323. To: FormerLurker (#321)
The buildings did NOT start to fall down when they were hit.
They did NOT start to fall till the precise time they collapsed.
#328. To: buckeroo (#323)
Not much time... it was amazing they stood for so long ... but it took time for the central structure to lose stress capability that caused the later crush down phase.
#331. To: FormerLurker (#328)
what's amazing is that they fell at all
#337. To: buckeroo (#331)
no building is designed to withstand that kind of impact.
#341. To: abraxas (#337)
Also the architect for those buildings claims they were indeed made to endure the impact of a 747.
#346. To: buckeroo (#341)
The twins were designed for a 707 as in a FOG with a velocity well below 550mi/hr. (For you, that means much less inertial force as what occurred on 9/11 by the relative impacts caused by terrorist crashes)
#355. To: James Deffenbach, buckeroo (#346)
#358. To: AGAviator (#355)
You lie, you lose.
#377. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#358)
Well then, you've lost long ago
(1) Two aircraft crashes released gigajoules of kinetic energy into the Twin Tower structures, and within 2 hours both structures collapsed from structural damage,
That's just a partial list of the issues about which you and your cotiere have been batted on from one end of the forum to another. There are plenty of others. Your attempts to evade and make things personal is noted, as well as noted as being unsuccessful.
(2) A fireman is recorded on video saying a third WTC Building, WTC7, will be going down because the building is losing its structural stability from crash damage and uncontrolled fires,
(3) Over 30 calls from hijacked aircraft were logged including several by flight attendants giving seat numbers and descriptions of hijackers,
(4) The false statement that Flight 77's cabin door was not opened has been demonstrated to be a lie, as there is no evidence about any cabin door operation of that aircraft either during or before the September 11 flight,
(5) The lauded "peer review publication" of Tw00ferk00ks Steven Jones and Niels Harrit have been shown to be pay-to- publish articles for which $800 was given to a Dhubai publishing mill, with zero other peer reviewed articles
(6) The phrase "pull" as used by the demolition industry means "pull down with cables," and as used by firefighters means "pull back from site,"
(7) Flight 77 impacted a recently-renovated portion of the Pentagon which was not fully occupied and still had construction equipment in place, and
(8) It's a physical impossibliity for a structure to both be flexible enough to absorb gigajoules of energy, move away from vertical centerline, return to vertical centerline on its own, then be rigid enough to provide a fixed platform for a rotating and falling top section to collapse outside the building footprint and
(9) The actual free fall times of the WTC towers have been conclusively shown as 15+ seconds for 1 tower and 22+ seconds for the other, an order of magnitude above the claimed "free fall time" of 9.22 seconds which is supposed to be evidence of a controlled demolition
#431. To: AGAviator (#377)
(7) Flight 77 impacted a recently-renovated portion of the Pentagon which was not fully occupied and still had construction equipment in place
#450. To: FormerLurker (#431)
(Edited)
#452. To: James Deffenbach, buckeroo (#450)
And it is certain that a man who couldn't fly a Cessna could not fly what they claimed hit the Pentagon.
#454. To: AGAviator, abraxas, James Deffenbach, buckeroo (#452)
#459. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#454)
(Edited)
Hanjour gained his FAA commercial pilot certificate in April 1999,
but was unable to get a job as a pilot after he returned to his native Saudi Arabia, and told his family he was heading to the United Arab Emirates to find work. He took an international flight out of New York on April 28, but it is not known where he went. Within two weeks however, bank withdrawals were again made in Arizona, indicating he had returned.
#461. To: AGAviator (#459)
#485. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#461)
(Edited)
He LANDED a 757 on the Pentagon lawn at 530 mph, short of putting down his wheels, and FLEW IT STRAIGHT INTO THE WALL. Of course such a feat is virtually IMPOSSIBLE, yet he supposedly did it anyways.
#520. To: AGAviator (#485)
#522. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#520)
The ANGLE which the aircraft impacted the wall actually caused MORE damage than if it had hit at a 90 degree angle.
IF the wheels were down the aircraft would have landed.
As far as ground effect, it's physically impossible for a large heavy aircraft with relatively low wing-loading, such as a 757, to fly lower than 60 feet off the ground at speeds of 400+ mph. The alleged hijacker whose instuctors said "could not fly at all", allegedly flew the aircraft down to 20 FEET off the Pentagon lawn at a speed of 530 MPH.
#532. To: AGAviator (#522)
Since Hanjour had aleady obtained a commercial pilot certificate two years earlier, the statement he could not fly at all is an exaggeration glommed onto by the Half Truther usual suspects, who can't be bothered to research facts, because that will take time away from their circlejerk gaybanter with each other
However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft- spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.
#539. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#532)
(Edited)
Never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said.
when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft- spoken Hanjour on three test runs...they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single- engine Cessna 172
You know what? The Cessna people made the right decision. They owned an airplane with millions of dollars of liability insurance on it. They didn't feel like renting to anyone who could not completely control the aircraft under all circumstances. That was the smart thing to do.
#547. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent, James Deffenbach, *9-11* (#539)
Nearly all aircraft pilots say it's harder to fly smaller aircraft than larger ones.
#556. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#547)
Nearly all aircraft pilots say it's harder to fly smaller aircraft than larger ones.
They come in all shapes and sizes. High wing, low wing, I've even known people that started- and completed- their training in a twin.
Replies to Comment # 556. A Cessna 152, for example, is more sensitive on the controls than it's larger brother, the 172. If you learn to fly in a 152, and then step-up to a 172 it will be a piece of cake to handle. It's more difficult the other way around. Generally speaking, the larger the aircraft the easier it is to fly. And, the guy that learns in a tail-dragger has a much easier time of transistioning to a tricycle gear than the tricycle driver does going the other direction. So, in my opinion, opt for the small trainer. High wing or low wing? I'm partial to the high wing for the reasons stated above, but it's really a matter of what the flight school that you pick uses.
Cessna 152
Cessna 172
Boeing 757
#563. To: AGAviator (#556)
A Cessna 152, for example, is more sensitive on the controls than it's larger brother, the 172. If you learn to fly in a 152, and then step-up to a 172 it will be a piece of cake to handle. It's more difficult the other way around.
Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at the airport, said the man named Hani Hanjour went into the air in a Cessna 172 with instructors from the airport three times beginning the second week of August and had hoped to rent a plane from the airport.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 556.