Avionics Tech
New Member
Unlikely.Or they could have been smashed and burned into hundreds of pieces.
Unlikely.Or they could have been smashed and burned into hundreds of pieces.
What do you base this on? Each building was 110 stories tall and collapsed. No plane crash previously had that happen. There is a discussion of the weight of each tower at http://www.physforum.com/What-was-the-weight-of-a-WTC-Tower_4299.htmlUnlikely.
If they had been ejected from the buildings, it is likely they would have been found and relatively in tact. Unless they managed to find some obsure hiding place, like that piece of flap that was found recently, they would have been rather conspicuous. They are designed to withstand greater forces than they would have encountered had they been ejected. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that they did remain within the buildings.
Unlikely.
What do you base this on? Each building was 110 stories tall and collapsed. No plane crash previously had that happen. There is a discussion of the weight of each tower at http://www.physforum.com/What-was-the-weight-of-a-WTC-Tower_4299.html
It's a lot.
Exactly. A 110 storey building fell around them. Most of that 110 stories was below the impact zone (i.e. the location of the boxes before the collapse). Therefore the boxes fell onto roughly 2/3 of the building. Only the top 10 or 20 floors fell on the boxes. While I admit this is a significant amount of weight, how does it compare to the forces of slamming into a mountain or the ground at full speed?A 110 story building fell all around it and you say it is "unlikely" it was smashed and/or burned. I can't wait to hear what you think is "likely". Go ahead.
Exactly. A 110 storey building fell around them. Most of that 110 stories was below the impact zone (i.e. the location of the boxes before the collapse). Therefore the boxes fell onto roughly 2/3 of the building. Only the top 10 or 20 floors fell on the boxes. While I admit this is a significant amount of weight, how does it compare to the forces of slamming into a mountain or the ground at full speed?
BTW, I never said it was unlikely the boxes were "smashed and/or burned". Please re-read the post I was replying to. It says "smashed and burned into hundreds of pieces" (emphasis mine).
You seem to disagree with Mumbles. You state the recorders' locations were known and accessible, Mumbles says they weren't. Again, even those who agree with each other can't agree with each other.
As for parts' "continued existence", you're beginning to sound like a "conspiracy theorist". Everything that was in those buildings that did not burn in the fires should have been in that pile somewhere. They can't just cease to exist.
The issue isn't whether the units survived and were still capable of "complete data recovery" (the parameters you've quoted), but, rather, the idea that NO PART of any ONE of the four units was ever recovered, as the laughable 9/11 Commission Report claims. They hand picked through much of the rubble and were able to find minute pieces of human tissue and bone (which have far, far less resistance to such stresses and conditions), but couldn't find any remnants of either one of the recorders? In any other instance, recovery of the recorders would be a top priority. But, since no government agency ever had any interest or intent to conduct a real investigation of 9/11, I guess finding the boxes wasn't that important.
And you DON'T want to compare the WTC crashes to the Pentagon one! That story is even MORE unimaginable.
Exactly. A 110 storey building fell around them. Most of that 110 stories was below the impact zone (i.e. the location of the boxes before the collapse). Therefore the boxes fell onto roughly 2/3 of the building. Only the top 10 or 20 floors fell on the boxes. While I admit this is a significant amount of weight, how does it compare to the forces of slamming into a mountain or the ground at full speed?
.
You're not seriously trying to compare one of the most fragile items on the planet to one of the most resilient, are you? The two are so radically different, it's not even the same as comparing apples and oranges.They weren't searching for specific parts of any specific bodies, which would have been more akin to searching for the boxes. Compare the volume of some 3,000 bodies to the volume of the thttp://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-9-11-aircraft-black-boxes-werent-recovered.2114/page-4wo boxes. It was considerably more likely that they would find random body bits.
PS: Why aren't you questioning why they didn't find remains of EACH ONE of the many people who died in the collapse? After all, their DNA HAD to be in the rubble, right?
Have you conducted this experiment or can you provide reference to someone who has? Your inference is that there would be NOTHING of the soda can identifiable as such after having an anvil dropped on it from 1000'. While I do not agree that a thin, aluminum soda can is an adequate analog for a CVR, that point is irrelevant. The question is, would such an action result in the complete obliteration of the can? Of course, part of the equation would deal with the surface beneath the can. Rock? Concrete? Steel? Earth? If rock, what kind? Different rocks have different characteristics. If concrete, how thick? Is it reinforced, or just a slab of plain concrete? If steel, again, what kind? There are different kinds of steel with different properties and characteristics. Even if the can was on top of another anvil, the question then becomes, what is it on?Indeed. How does it compare?
Consider a can of soda thrown against a anvil. Then consider an anvil dropped from 1000 feet onto a can of soda.
How do they compare? Do the math.
You're not seriously trying to compare one of the most fragile items on the planet to one of the most resilient, are you? The two are so radically different, it's not even the same as comparing apples and oranges.
Let's see, using the the data Mick provided, a data recorder is designed to withstand and still be functional after exposure to temperatures of 1100*C (2012*F) for 30 minutes. How long will human tissue last at that temp.? Well, crematoriums operate at about that temperature (760-1150*C/1400-2100*F), although the cremation process takes considerably longer (90-120 minutes).
Now, NIST estimates that the fires in the towers reached as high as 1000*C (1800*F), which is comparable to a crematorium oven, but within the survivability range of the recorders. Therefore, it is likely, and logical to conclude, that the recorders would have survived the initial impact and resulting fire in tact and still readable, but that many of the victims' bodies were mostly incinerated, especially those nearest the crash (primarily the aircraft passengers and anyone in the building in the immediate impact zone).
The "volume of some 3000 bodies" is irrelevant and a non sequitur and does not warrant consideration in this discussion.
Conclusion: Many bodies would have likely been burned in the fire to the extent that little, if anything, remained. The fact that no trace of these people was found is not an unexpected result. DNA, being microscopic, would require much more than even a meticulous examination of the debris to discover. There may well have been some identifiable DNA in the debris, but it would take laboratory testing and examination to locate. Since no such investigation was ever done, it is illogical to assume any DNA would have been found.
"Random body bits" of many of the victims were found. However, it is NOT "considerably more likely" that such remains of all the victims would be found. In fact, it is quite the opposite and highly unlikely. BUT, the more human remains one finds, the more one would expect to find the much more resilient data recorders.
Therefore, it is likely, and logical to conclude, that the recorders would have survived the initial impact and resulting fire in tact and still readable,
Conclusion: Many bodies would have likely been burned in the fire to the extent that little, if anything, remained.
The fact that no trace of these people was found is not an unexpected result.
DNA, being microscopic, would require much more than even a meticulous examination of the debris to discover. There may well have been some identifiable DNA in the debris, but it would take laboratory testing and examination to locate. Since no such investigation was ever done, it is illogical to assume any DNA would have been found.
The number of people believed to have been killed in the World Trade Center attack hovers around 2,780, three years after the attack. 1 2 No trace has been identified for about half the victims, despite the use of advanced DNA techniques to identify individuals. Six weeks after the attack only 425 people had been identified. 3 A year after the attack, only half of the victims had been identified. 19,906 remains were recovered from Ground Zero, 4,735 of which were identified. Up to 200 remains were linked to a single person. 4 Of the 1,401 people identified, 673 of the IDs were based on DNA alone. Only 293 intact bodies were found. Only twelve could be identified by sight. 5
The issue at hand isn't whether or not human tissue would survive the crash/fire and/or collapse. It is whether or not the hardened steel casing, and the memory unit within it, of the only part of an aircraft engineered to survive a crash intact would, logically, be completely obliterated in the collapse.
The initial crash and resulting fire were well within the units' design parameters and it is reasonable to conclude that, had the buildings not collapsed, all four recorders would have been recovered and readable.
As I've stated before, the wild card in the equation is the collapse of the buildings and what effect such action would have on the boxes. The first thing to realize is that the boxes did not have 110 stories of building fall on them. The north tower was hit the highest up and, although hit first, was the last to collapse. The significance of this? Being the highest up, the location of the AA11 recorders before collapse would have been, at the lowest, about the 93rd floor with only about 17 of the 110 floors above them. Therefore, only about 17 floors fell on them, not the over exaggerated 110.
Second, the north tower fell last, meaning any debris from the already collapsed south tower would not have impacted the AA11 recorders as they would have fallen on it (the south tower). Thus the "most survivable" recorders would have been AA11's.
Now, considering that steel does not simply "pulverize" or "vaporize", and that no other steel in the buildings did (including the steel subjected to the MOST crushing stress, that from the lowest floors), it is logical to conclude that the black boxes did not, or would not, either.
Thus, what are we left with?
- All four recorders must have been in the rubble piles, somewhere.
- The two from AA11 should have been the closest to the top of the piles, and, although heavily damaged, the most likely to be discovered.
- The forces of the collapsing building were insufficient to "pulverize" steel, therefore the units did not disintegrate into hundreds of unidentifiable pieces.
The issue at hand isn't whether or not human tissue would survive the crash/fire and/or collapse. It is whether or not the hardened steel casing, and the memory unit within it, of the only part of an aircraft engineered to survive a crash intact would, logically, be completely obliterated in the collapse./quote]
I don't think anyone was suggesting "completely obliterated", more along the lines of "reduced to some generic bits of steel".
Even if it were on the 109th floor, after the initial impact and intense fires, it's still got to content with hundreds of tons of steel hitting it at 100 mph. Basically a hyperkinetic gigantic shredder.
Thus, what are we left with?
- All four recorders must have been in the rubble piles, somewhere.
- The two from AA11 should have been the closest to the top of the piles, and, although heavily damaged, the most likely to be discovered.
- The forces of the collapsing building were insufficient to "pulverize" steel, therefore the units did not disintegrate into hundreds of unidentifiable pieces.
3/ Rubbish - an assertion proved only entirely to your own pre-conceived conclusion.
...in order to grind up whatever is falling among them.
You mean as opposed to your pre-conceived conclusion that it is possible to pulverize steel? Again, why did none of the other steel in the buildings get pulverized? Wasn't it subjected to the same and, perhaps, more crushing stress?
You make it sound like it is possible to grind up hardened steel like the corn for a tortilla.
You mean as opposed to your pre-conceived conclusion that it is possible to pulverize steel? Again, why did none of the other steel in the buildings get pulverized? Wasn't it subjected to the same and, perhaps, more crushing stress?
...an airframe and engines aircraft mechanic...
So you don't recognize "airframe and engine" as being the same as "airframe and powerplant"?......interesting...
I never said I didn't recognize them as being the same, I just didn't recognize it period. I suspected they were the same but, because the phrase isn't used here in the U.S., I had never heard it before.
I apologize that, since I am from America, I speak American. I don't speak Brittish, New Zealand, Australian, etc. Even though they are all "English", they all have differences. The big piece of metal that covers the engine of my car is a "hood", not a "bonnet" and the space in the back is a "trunk" not a "boot". A boot is something worn on the feet and a bonnet is an old fashioned ladies hat.
I never said I didn't recognize them as being the same, I just didn't recognize it period. I suspected they were the same but, because the phrase isn't used here in the U.S., I had never heard it before.
I apologize that, since I am from America, I speak American. I don't speak Brittish, New Zealand, Australian, etc. Even though they are all "English", they all have differences. The big piece of metal that covers the engine of my car is a "hood", not a "bonnet" and the space in the back is a "trunk" not a "boot". A boot is something worn on the feet and a bonnet is an old fashioned ladies hat.
And don't even get me started on FOOTBALL!
Thong. Footwear or pelvic decoration?
Black box pinging reported to Governor Pataki on 18 SEP 2001, by the NYSEMO Director Ed Jacoby.
Concerning the landing gear you mentioned; you failed to mention that it was found wedged between buildings with a piece of rope tied around it, just as if it were "planted". The best explanation officials have for the rope is that someone must have found it earlier, tried to remove it, forgot to tell anyone. LMAO. Completely as absurd as the passport. Impossible? No. Unlikely? Yes.They just recovered this past year the landing gear of one of the planes a few blocks away.
Are you suggesting that was planted? No video shows it going there but considering the speed involved
you wouldn't necessarily see an object that small being thrown clear. I guess it is always possible it made it
there when the buildings collapsed.
Ultimately Atta's passport is unimportant.
There is video surveillance of him going through security at the airport.
Why plant something that might arouse suspicion when you already have a smoking gun?
Edit - obviously the black boxes were crushed and burned in the fire/collapse.
And Mick. What is your particular expertise in regards to RF frequencies used for such devices? You do realize, that the "ping" used on these boxes would only be found on a very specific frequency and that other "equipment" manufacturers would not use those frequencies. Anyone looking for a black box is looking at a very narrow frequency band. I know a little as I am a licensed Ham and I can tell you your conclusion is without merit.In decreasing order of probability:
Given the vast amount of equipment, at the site and nearby, it's most likely just to be a false signal.
- They heard a signal, but it was not the black box
- They did not heard a signal, and the summary is a mistake
- They heard a signal, but the black box was never found
- They heard a signal, found the black box, but someone decided later it would be better to pretend they had no
Concerning the landing gear you mentioned; you failed to mention that it was found wedged between buildings with a piece of rope tied around it, just as if it were "planted". The best explanation officials have for the rope is that someone must have found it earlier, tried to remove it, forgot to tell anyone. LMAO. Completely as absurd as the passport. Impossible? No. Unlikely? Yes.
And Mick. What is your particular expertise in regards to RF frequencies used for such devices? You do realize, that the "ping" used on these boxes would only be found on a very specific frequency and that other "equipment" manufacturers would not use those frequencies. Anyone looking for a black box is looking at a very narrow frequency band. I know a little as I am a licensed Ham and I can tell you your conclusion is without merit.
Concerning the landing gear you mentioned; you failed to mention that it was found wedged between buildings with a piece of rope tied around it, just as if it were "planted". The best explanation officials have for the rope is that someone must have found it earlier, tried to remove it, forgot to tell anyone. LMAO. Completely as absurd as the passport. Impossible? No. Unlikely? Yes.
You do realize, that the "ping" used on these boxes would only be found on a very specific frequency and that other "equipment" manufacturers would not use those frequencies. Anyone looking for a black box is looking at a very narrow frequency band. I know a little as I am a licensed Ham and I can tell you your conclusion is without merit.
And the "conspiracy" explanation for the rope would be? Why would you need a rope to "plant" it there?
The airwaves are full of stray emissions. As a licensed ham you should be aware of RFI.
You're suggestion that only cockpit voice recorders ever transmit at 37.5 kHz is simply not realistic. Poorly designed or defective radio equipment can cause harmonic interferance and splatter.