WTC: Rate of Fall (rate of crush)

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Actually, you're the one disagreeing with me. I'm trying to get you to see why it is illogical to have faith in your half a dozen 'experts'.
Actually, I have no more faith in them than I have in the "Experts" on this Forum . . . and I believe the NIST researchers could only report on the data and evidence they were allowed to examine . . . I have no grief with them except for their reluctance to ask questions and demand further investigation of things I think they should have . . .
 

Rico

Senior Member.
I'm a commercial pilot and I also have experience taking apart airplanes, doing engine changes, adjusting control turnbuckles, lockwiring, and soldering electrical components on-board aircraft. Some of these theories you bring up George don't make any sense from my POV. As much as it seems like you are taking the "who should I believe" stance, it seems that you've already made your decision. At the end of the day, it is your decision who you believe, but perhaps I can give you a little advice here: don't believe everything coming out of the mouth of a so called 'expert.' Experts can be wrong. Several 'experts' cited that United 175 carried an external pod and theorized it carried munitions despite the fact that their theory holds no weight because high definition photos completely explains what they saw. Theory debunked, and credibility out the window.

By what you post here, George, I know you are distrustful of your government, and it seems that this is one contributing factor to why you are utterly convinced that there is some external malice when it comes to the events of 9/11. However, you also have to respect and differentiate good information from the bad. I can give you some credit for doing a bit of research, but you don't seem to really critique the information you gather. Remember that comment you posted in the other thread about the G forces from a 'pilot' source? Did you really take the time to figure out if United 175 actually banked 90 degrees? Are there any evidence that points to that? Are there any practical applications at all for the hijackers to bank the aircraft at 90 degrees? Asking these questions are important for your own learning and in uncovering what's real and what's not.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I'm a commercial pilot and I also have experience taking apart airplanes, doing engine changes, adjusting control turnbuckles, lockwiring, and soldering electrical components on-board aircraft. Some of these theories you bring up George don't make any sense from my POV. As much as it seems like you are taking the "who should I believe" stance, it seems that you've already made your decision. At the end of the day, it is your decision who you believe, but perhaps I can give you a little advice here: don't believe everything coming out of the mouth of a so called 'expert.' Experts can be wrong. Several 'experts' cited that United 175 carried an external pod and theorized it carried munitions despite the fact that their theory holds no weight because high definition photos completely explains what they saw. Theory debunked, and credibility out the window.

By what you post here, George, I know you are distrustful of your government, and it seems that this is one contributing factor to why you are utterly convinced that there is some external malice when it comes to the events of 9/11. However, you also have to respect and differentiate good information from the bad. I can give you some credit for doing a bit of research, but you don't seem to really critique the information you gather. Remember that comment you posted in the other thread about the G forces from a 'pilot' source? Did you really take the time to figure out if United 175 actually banked 90 degrees? Are there any evidence that points to that? Are there any practical applications at all for the hijackers to bank the aircraft at 90 degrees? Asking these questions are important for your own learning and in uncovering what's real and what's not.
It takes quite a bit of investigation and effort to run things down when one is unfamiliar with a new piece of information. . . . the G-Force and Banking maneuver was new to me. . . I posted it as an interesting item not as fact. . . .as is many things that I post . . . let me ask you a question . . . do you find it reasonable that none of the flight recorders were found from the Tower collisions?
 

Rico

Senior Member.
do you find it reasonable that none of the flight recorders were found from the Tower collisions?

Here is the way I look at it:
1) The missing recorders are an oddity. Yes
2) The black boxes are generally pretty sturdy, so this adds to the obscurity
3) Now, I do study NTSB investigation a lot, out of personal interest and to learn from the mistakes of others, and I do know that the black boxes are not indestructable
4) There are many air accidents in which investigators cannot discern information from data recorders because the recorders have become too damaged
5) AA 11 and UA 175 with their data recorders hit smack into the WTC at high airspeeds. Their remains became part of a smouldering several stories tall building before that eventually crumbled into dust. I don't find it unreasonable that they were destroyed in the process
6) I don't find it unreasonable that someone could have stolen the recorders
7) While there remains a possibility that, out of a conspiracy, they did recover the recorders and have kept it secret, I also understand that:
8) They recovered the recorders from the other two flights, no? The NTSB also released the information on their findings. That accounts for 2/4 aircraft
9) On point 7, I ask myself, if it were a conspiracy, why hide just 2/4 sets of recorders? This potentially negates point 7
10) According to some fringe sources, there are claims that some workers may have found 3/4 recorders at the WTC by 2002 but were told to keep their mouth shut by FBI.
11) Point 10 may be a possibility, but it also raises the question to how they found 3/4 in one search and a few other questions that may require investigating

So, your question is, do I find it reasonable that none of the flight recorders were found? Maybe, maybe not. It certainly isn't out of the ball park for the flight recorders to be destroyed, but there is no conclusive evidence either. Not enough data. That's the way I look at it.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Here is the way I look at it:
1) The missing recorders are an oddity. Yes
2) The black boxes are generally pretty sturdy, so this adds to the obscurity
3) Now, I do study NTSB investigation a lot, out of personal interest and to learn from the mistakes of others, and I do know that the black boxes are not indestructable
4) There are many air accidents in which investigators cannot discern information from data recorders because the recorders have become too damaged
5) AA 11 and UA 175 with their data recorders hit smack into the WTC at high airspeeds. Their remains became part of a smouldering several stories tall building before that eventually crumbled into dust. I don't find it unreasonable that they were destroyed in the process
6) I don't find it unreasonable that someone could have stolen the recorders
7) While there remains a possibility that, out of a conspiracy, they did recover the recorders and have kept it secret, I also understand that:
8) They recovered the recorders from the other two flights, no? The NTSB also released the information on their findings. That accounts for 2/4 aircraft
9) On point 7, I ask myself, if it were a conspiracy, why hide just 2/4 sets of recorders? This potentially negates point 7
10) According to some fringe sources, there are claims that some workers may have found 3/4 recorders at the WTC by 2002 but were told to keep their mouth shut by FBI.
11) Point 10 may be a possibility, but it also raises the question to how they found 3/4 in one search and a few other questions that may require investigating

So, your question is, do I find it reasonable that none of the flight recorders were found? Maybe, maybe not. It certainly isn't out of the ball park for the flight recorders to be destroyed, but there is no conclusive evidence either. Not enough data. That's the way I look at it.
Thank you for your analysis. . . well thought out . . . it is just one more piece of a confusing puzzle. . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I have a question for George, Have you ever read the official report of the hijackings?
Over the years (yes) but in segments never in one reading . . . Segmented . . . . In the NIST report the hijackers and sequence of their information was never an interest of mine. . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Thank you for your analysis. . . well thought out . . . it is just one more piece of a confusing puzzle. . . .

Rico . . . Another question. . . .why all Boeing aircraft? . . . Two from Boston, one from Newark, and one from DC . . . Coincidence . . . Two American and two United. . . they trained on a 727 simulator I think . . .if I remember correctly. . . What are your thoughts?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Rico . . . Another question. . . .why all Boeing aircraft? . . . Two from Boston, one from Newark, and one from DC . . . Coincidence . . . Two American and two United. . . they trained on a 727 simulator I think . . .if I remember correctly. . . What are your thoughts?

Because American airlines (in general) had not bought airbus airliners in any quantity in 2001 - really George - thsi is information that is simple to get - you cannot claim to be doing research and have to ask about this!!

Here are the fleet composition details for American Airlines and United Airlines

United has just replaced 737's in 2001 with Airbus, American is only just bringing airbus models into service now.

Here's how many large jet aircraft have ben in service worldwide - Boeing has been dominant in terms of numbers for a very long time:

jet airplanes in service boeing.JPG
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
If you read the report, it shows that when the hijackers took control there was a brief time of rapid movements as they got used to flying the plane. That really goes against your belief that they were computer controlled. One passenger on the second plane to hit the WTC told someone on the phone that she thought the hijackers were going to fly the plane into a building. The hijackers of the plane that hit the Pentagon, dived at it, the fact they hit it the way they did was an accident. It seems that they intended to try to hit it in the middle and Failed

If you haven't read the report you are questioning, I have to doubt your real interest. The FIRST rule is to KNOW your enemy. It seems that you are letting others tell you what it says.

I am still reading on it, since it is long. I suggest that you do the same
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Because American airlines (in general) had not bought airbus airliners in any quantity in 2001 - really George - thsi is information that is simple to get - you cannot claim to be doing research and have to ask about this!!

Here are the fleet composition details for American Airlines and United Airlines

United has just replaced 737's in 2001 with Airbus, American is only just bringing airbus models into service now.

Here's how many large jet aircraft have ben in service worldwide - Boeing has been dominant in terms of numbers for a very long time:

1) I didn't ask you . . .
2) There is a mixture of airframes during the 2001 time period for both airlines
3) My questions to Rico are . . does he feel the hijackers purposefully targeted the Boeing aircraft because of familiarity, for some other reason or was it just coincidence they all got on Boeing aircraft . . . ?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
If you read the report, it shows that when the hijackers took control there was a brief time of rapid movements as they got used to flying the plane. That really goes against your belief that they were computer controlled. One passenger on the second plane to hit the WTC told someone on the phone that she thought the hijackers were going to fly the plane into a building. The hijackers of the plane that hit the Pentagon, dived at it, the fact they hit it the way they did was an accident. It seems that they intended to try to hit it in the middle and Failed

If you haven't read the report you are questioning, I have to doubt your real interest. The FIRST rule is to KNOW your enemy. It seems that you are letting others tell you what it says.

I am still reading on it, since it is long. I suggest that you do the same

No it does not . . . I did not say that the entire flight from hijack to collision was on computer control . . . in fact . . . it makes just as much sense to me for only the last few minutes to be controlled . . . to assure they acquired the target and hit the bull's-eye . . .

I stated honestly that the technical aspects of the aircraft and crew's capabilities had been beyond my knowledge . . . and I am now trying to play catch up and decide if what I am hearing is to be believed from either side including the NIST Report . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
They studied cockpit layout of the 767 ahead of time. Probably picked that because it was the most common aircraft. It was almost certainly a deliberate choice.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
So now you can ignore facts if the RIGHT person doesn't post them? I don't believe that American were flying many Airbus planes at that time.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
They studied cockpit layout of the 767 ahead of time. Probably picked that because it was the most common aircraft. It was almost certainly a deliberate choice.

Thank you . . . that is my point as well . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But what is the point of your point? What interesting thing might it signify?

Just one more piece of the puzzle . . . it shows a desire to get as much familiarity of function, design, and location of controls as possible . . . would it be reasonable to conclude they would not have been able to fly a different airframe with the proficiency to accomplish their mission . . . ?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Why don't you look up what American is flying right now? I did. Since American Airlines in a local company, what they do is often in the news. Buying foreign made planes like Airbuses would be NEWS.

It is a SOUND conclusion.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
They studied cockpit layout of the 767 ahead of time. Probably picked that because it was the most common aircraft. It was almost certainly a deliberate choice.

and inaddition the 757 and 767 are covered by the same pilot type rating IIRC - so if you know the cockpit layout of a 767 you can also navigate your way around a 757 cockpit should you end up in one of those. I seem to recall it was actually a selling point to the airlines!
 

MikeC

Closed Account
1) I didn't ask you . . .

this is a public board. If yuo want to ask a question privately then send a PM.

You are welcome to the answer anyway despite your petulance.

2) There is a mixture of airframes during the 2001 time period for both airlines

Indeed.

And so what?

3) My questions to Rico are . . does he feel the hijackers purposefully targeted the Boeing aircraft because of familiarity, for some other reason or was it just coincidence they all got on Boeing aircraft . . . ?

And I am sure Rico will tell you whatever opinion he has on those matters if he chooses to - I certainly am not stopping him, and my answer remains factual and correct regardless of your problems with it...whatever they may be.
 

Rico

Senior Member.
Rico . . . Another question. . . .why all Boeing aircraft? . . . Two from Boston, one from Newark, and one from DC . . . Coincidence . . . Two American and two United. . . they trained on a 727 simulator I think . . .if I remember correctly. . . What are your thoughts?

Sorry for the late reply. But yeah, American Airlines and United Airlines don't sport Airbus in their fleet. The Boeings would probably be a little more intuitive to fly too, since it uses a control 'wheel' instead of a side stick, something the hijackers were probably more used to. However, I think it's mostly just convenience. They may have considered which particular aircraft from their fleet they wished to hijack, since we are talking about 2 767s and two 757s, which are of decent size, but I'd be just speculating here.

Mike has a point about the type rating thing too. Both the 757 and 767 have next to identical cockpits.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Just one more piece of the puzzle . . . it shows a desire to get as much familiarity of function, design, and location of controls as possible . . . would it be reasonable to conclude they would not have been able to fly a different airframe with the proficiency to accomplish their mission . . . ?

I think it's pretty obvious that being familiar with the location of the controls would be very useful. Particularly the autopilot (at the very least so they could switch it off) and the trim controls.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Sorry for the late reply. But yeah, American Airlines and United Airlines don't sport Airbus in their fleet. The Boeings would probably be a little more intuitive to fly too, since it uses a control 'wheel' instead of a side stick, something the hijackers were probably more used to. However, I think it's mostly just convenience. They may have considered which particular aircraft from their fleet they wished to hijack, since we are talking about 2 767s and two 757s, which are of decent size, but I'd be just speculating here.

Mike has a point about the type rating thing too. Both the 757 and 767 have next to identical cockpits.

I appreciate your response . . . Thanks!
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
this is a public board. If yuo want to ask a question privately then send a PM.

You are welcome to the answer anyway despite your petulance.



Indeed.

And so what?



And I am sure Rico will tell you whatever opinion he has on those matters if he chooses to - I certainly am not stopping him, and my answer remains factual and correct regardless of your problems with it...whatever they may be.

MickC said:
Because American airlines (in general) had not bought airbus airliners in any quantity in 2001 - really George - thsi is information that is simple to get - you cannot claim to be doing research and have to ask about this!!

Your tone was not appreciated . . . I was asking an opinion question . . . not for him to supply me with data . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I don't see anyone here complaining about you asking Rico's opinion - I certainly don't mind - why would you think anyne does?

Perhaps you could look at what Mick actually quoted when he posted the picture...:rolleyes::cool:
 

Met Watch

Moderator
??? . . . where is your policy on being polite . . . that is the issue . . . are you saying my asking for Rico's opinion is inappropriate?

I think it's fairly obvious what Mick is pointing out. You stated you did not like the tone of Mike's posts, but you didn't provide anything else - like a counter argument of sorts.

Fair warning, George.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think it's fairly obvious what Mick is pointing out. You stated you did not like the tone of Mike's posts, but you didn't provide anything else - like a counter argument of sorts.

Fair warning, George.
There was no counter argument to make . . . I didn't disagree with the data . . . It was the impolite way MickeC presented it . . . . I don't do that to him and I expect him not to do it to me . . .
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
To be, it appears that he was polite and you responded impolitely in post # 291. I consider your comment there to be rude.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
To be, it appears that he was polite and you responded impolitely in post # 291. I consider your comment there to be rude.



MickC said:
Because American airlines (in general) had not bought airbus airliners in any quantity in 2001 - really George - thsi is information that is simple to get - you cannot claim to be doing research and have to ask about this!!

If you think this comment from MickC is appropriate based on my question . . . then our definitions of rude don't jive at all !!!
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
And this was polite?

"1) I didn't ask you . . .
2) There is a mixture of airframes during the 2001 time period for both airlines
3) My questions to Rico are . . does he feel the hijackers purposefully targeted the Boeing aircraft because of familiarity, for some other reason or was it just coincidence they all got on Boeing aircraft . . . ? "

That was to Mike C

And then to me---when I pointed out that they were not really flying many Airbuses at that time

"That is not a sound conclusion "

You ADMITTED that you had not even read the report you are challenging. The no research comment seem quite correct to me. You remind me of folks that want me to do all the WORK, so they can attack it.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
And this was polite?

"1) I didn't ask you . . .
2) There is a mixture of airframes during the 2001 time period for both airlines
3) My questions to Rico are . . does he feel the hijackers purposefully targeted the Boeing aircraft because of familiarity, for some other reason or was it just coincidence they all got on Boeing aircraft . . . ? "

That was to Mike C

And then to me---when I pointed out that they were not really flying many Airbuses at that time

"That is not a sound conclusion "

You ADMITTED that you had not even read the report you are challenging. The no research comment seem quite correct to me. You remind me of folks that want me to do all the WORK, so they can attack it.

You conveniently left off what my comment to you was about . . .

George B. said:
Originally Posted by Cairenn
So now you can ignore facts if the RIGHT person doesn't post them? I don't believe that American were flying many Airbus planes at that time.

My response to your comment with the bold type above to indicate what I was responding to . . .



That is not a sound conclusion . . .

I don't expect you to do anything for me . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
And this was polite?

"1) I didn't ask you . . .
2) There is a mixture of airframes during the 2001 time period for both airlines
3) My questions to Rico are . . does he feel the hijackers purposefully targeted the Boeing aircraft because of familiarity, for some other reason or was it just coincidence they all got on Boeing aircraft . . . ? "

That was to Mike C

And then to me---when I pointed out that they were not really flying many Airbuses at that time

"That is not a sound conclusion "

You ADMITTED that you had not even read the report you are challenging. The no research comment seem quite correct to me. You remind me of folks that want me to do all the WORK, so they can attack it.

And this was polite?

1) I didn't ask you . . . my response to MickC comment below . . . it was a statement of fact and a direct response to his rude accusation that had nothing to do except in his mind with my question to Rico . . . I didn't mind him adding something to the discussion but I did resent his comment and felt it was rude . . .
MikeC said:
- thsi is information that is simple to get - you cannot claim to be doing research and have to ask about this!!
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
What else would one take from your comment ""1) I didn't ask you ." It seemed to me that you didn't like it because he answered instead of the person you wanted to. He gave you the EXPLANATION, but you seemed to have ignored that, because YOU WANTED only ONE person to answer you.

I may have been more abrupt, than I should I, however, if you aren't willing to READ the official report that you are calling into question, I FEEL that you are not willing to do even that much work. It APPEARS to me that you just want to challenge what others say, without doing any real work, other than reading some conspiracy site.

I will tell you something, folks that debunk, spend a HECK of a lot of time checking their facts. I have ate far too many suppers, after midnight, because I was chasing down a rumor or hoax. Sorry if I expect those challenging others to spend a few minutes on doing some research. You asked a question that did not need to be asked, because YOU could have answered it with 10 min or less research. Then you were RUDE to the person that answered it.

Mike I hope I am not of place on this, if I am, I am sorry.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
And this was polite?

1) I didn't ask you . . . my response to MickC comment below . . . it was a statement of fact and a direct response to his rude accusation that had nothing to do except in his mind with my question to Rico . . . I didn't mind him adding something to the discussion but I did resent his comment and felt it was rude . . .
Originally Posted by MikeC
- thsi is information that is simple to get - you cannot claim to be doing research and have to ask about this!!

my comment was a 2nd statement of fact.

the information IS easy to get, and if you cannot get it yourself then IMO youhaveno right to be claiming to be doing research - all you are doing is asking for others to do research on your behalf.

You might not like the answer - and indeed my comment is "direct" - but it is certainly not rude.

If you want to be taken seriously then start behaving seriously and stop whining about your shortcomings being pointed out.

Cairen - no problem - spot on in fact :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
What else would one take from your comment ""1) I didn't ask you ." It seemed to me that you didn't like it because he answered instead of the person you wanted to. He gave you the EXPLANATION, but you seemed to have ignored that, because YOU WANTED only ONE person to answer you.

I may have been more abrupt, than I should I, however, if you aren't willing to READ the official report that you are calling into question, I FEEL that you are not willing to do even that much work. It APPEARS to me that you just want to challenge what others say, without doing any real work, other than reading some conspiracy site.

I will tell you something, folks that debunk, spend a HECK of a lot of time checking their facts. I have ate far too many suppers, after midnight, because I was chasing down a rumor or hoax. Sorry if I expect those challenging others to spend a few minutes on doing some research. You asked a question that did not need to be asked, because YOU could have answered it with 10 min or less research. Then you were RUDE to the person that answered it.

Mike I hope I am not of place on this, if I am, I am sorry.

[EX=George B.]
Over the years (yes) but in segments never in one reading . . . Segmented . . . . In the NIST report the hijackers and sequence of their information was never an interest of mine. . . .
[/EX]

1) This (above) is what I stated about the Hijackers . . .I did read it and was not intrigued by it at all . . . in fact I downloaded the entire NIST Report in 2009 to my PC . . .

2) I already knew both Arlines had mixed airframes . . . including several Boeing models . . . my question was related to why the hijackers seemed to select Boeing as their craft of choice . . . was it coincidence . . . or other reason . . . I assumed it was because they had used a 727 simulator . . . I wanted a pilot's opinion . . .

George B. said:
Rico . . . Another question. . . .why all Boeing aircraft? . . . Two from Boston, one from Newark, and one from DC . . . Coincidence . . . Two American and two United. . . they trained on a 727 simulator I think . . .if I remember correctly. . . What are your thoughts?

3) I didn't object to MickC's information I did object to his implication and statement and felt it was rude and uncalled for . . .

4) I am through talking about who was rude and who was not . . . I have made my point . . .
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Folks, it is impossible for a building to collapse due to an small upper segment falling on the much larger lower portion. It would simply "bounce" off the lower portion. There is simply not enough energy to crush the rest of the building - maybe a much denser thing like solid concrete (or a black hole lol) could do it. Possibly if the building was sheared at a much lower level, say on the 20th floor, the upper part could conceivably crush the lower part but no way up on the 90th floor.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
P Need Debunking: "Experimental Vaccine Death Rate for Israel's Elderly 40 Times Higher Than COVID-19 Deaths" Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
DavidB66 Wuhan Funeral Urns as an Indicator of Death Rate? Coronavirus COVID-19 31
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 33
letrec Kinematic production of molten steel and its cooling rate 9/11 42
Mick West Debunked: "There are many ways to make the death rate increase." - Robert McNamara Quotes Debunked 0
Nandude Light Fall Off in Apollo Missions - American Moon Documentary Conspiracy Theories 16
McGurnicle Why some people fall down the rabbit hole Escaping The Rabbit Hole 28
Mick West How Buckling Led to "Free Fall" acceleration for part of WTC7's Collapse. 9/11 129
Mackdog Court Rules Negligence Didn’t Cause World Trade Center 7 To Fall On 9/11 9/11 103
Mick West Paraody of AE911: Free-fall descent proves giant hole, not explosives used! 9/11 62
SR1419 New Poll: Conspiracy Beliefs Fall Along Party Lines General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: Strange Blue Spheres Fall Over England 2012 Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 15
Mick West Debunked: Chemwebs / Mysterious Fibers fall from sky (ballooning spiders) Contrails and Chemtrails 75
Jay Reynolds Web Fall Arkansas 2006 Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Dead Blackbirds Fall From Sky, Prompting Bunk General Discussion 14

Related Articles

Top