New 9/11 Photos Released

[NJNetz]

^If I remember correctly, one of the main hijackers couldn't even fly a small aircraft.

This guy right here.

 

[barfo]

^If I remember correctly, one of the main hijackers couldn't even fly a small aircraft.

You only need one pilot per plane.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

It's an interesting conspiracy theory, but it overlooks the fact that the hijackers apparently trained on airline sims here in the u-s-of-a. For example...



barfo

Hey keep your facts out of my battle cry to invade Saudi Arabia. But as I watch the Olympic opening ceremonies I'm thinking we should invade Canada instead.

 

[NJNetz]

You only need one pilot per plane.

barfo

The picture of the guy I posted was "supposably" the pilot of AA77 that flew into the Pentagon. According to reports, he was unable to even fly a small aircraft as such:

And yet he was able to fly a large aircraft inches off the ground into a building. Right.

 

[jlprk]

Almost all pilots of the big airliners have 10-15 years of experience flying in the military. Flight simulators are just used to touch up the skills every now and then.

It's rare (maybe unheard of?) for someone who flies a big commericial plane for a living, not to have learned his craft in the military.

On 9/11 I told someone, "Good shooting!" I was impressed that the films showed the planes hitting the towers bullseye, right in the middle of the buildings, to cause maximum damage. Later, I heard that the pilots' entire experience was on simulators? No military flying experience before that? Hmm.

 

[maxiep]

Let's say I read the brochure of the WTC building. It brags that the building was designed to withstand a Boeing 707 hit. I rent there. I suffer damages on 9/11. Why can't I sue? Because the brochure doesn't stand up in court? Because the collision promise is in the brochure, but not in the lease contract?

But that's a normal lease. This was an event that transcends lease theory. A court would not hold the lease contract to the normal rules. Even if you think it would, there's a chance it wouldn't, so at least one of the tenants would sue, just to find out. You say they would probably lose, but it's worth trying in order to be sure. So even if they will probably lose the lawsuit, why has no one sued over the airplane promise, if the testing did not include fire damage?

Maybe because the testing included fire damage, so that's not the reason the building collapsed?

The building withstood a direct impact of an aircraft. It stood long enough to be evacuated. The lower floors were all evacuated. It was the upper floors where people died. As for any "brochure", I would be surprised if the impact resistance of the building would be advertised as a selling point.

If I had to guess--and guessing is all any of us can do--anyone who may have wished to sue probably went and spoke with an attorney, who probably told them there wasn't a case.

Again, the failure of the building was quite simple. The planes hit the buildings. The kenetic force blew off the fireproofing (a spray-on insulation over the steel beams). The materials in the building--paper, furniture, carpets, etc.--helped fuel the fire started by the impact and the exploding airplane fuel. The unprotected steel beams were heated to a point where they sagged, but didn't melt. That weakening of the steel beams eventually resulted in their failure which caused the buildings to "pancake" from the top down.

To recap HS physics, Force = Mass * Acceleration. Increase the acceleration and you increase the force. When the force becomes strong enough, you have structural failure.

 

[NJNetz]

The building withstood a direct impact of an aircraft. It stood long enough to be evacuated. The lower floors were all evacuated. It was the upper floors where people died. As for any "brochure", I would be surprised if the impact resistance of the building would be advertised as a selling point.

If I had to guess--and guessing is all any of us can do--anyone who may have wished to sue probably went and spoke with an attorney, who probably told them there wasn't a case.

Again, the failure of the building was quite simple. The planes hit the buildings. The kenetic force blew off the fireproofing (a spray-on insulation over the steel beams). The materials in the building--paper, furniture, carpets, etc.--helped fuel the fire started by the impact and the exploding airplane fuel. The unprotected steel beams were heated to a point where they sagged, but didn't melt. That weakening of the steel beams eventually resulted in their failure which caused the buildings to "pancake" from the top down.

To recap HS physics, Force = Mass * Acceleration. Increase the acceleration and you increase the force. When the force becomes strong enough, you have structural failure.

What about the thermal hot spots?

 

[maxiep]

What about the thermal hot spots?

Well, there was plenty of fuel--paper, furniture, jet fuel, tires from the cars, etc. There was plenty of oxygen below ground from the PATH train and the interconnected tunnel/garage system. Put a pile on top of it to trap the heat, and not an airtight cap, and you have "hot spots".

 

[barfo]

The picture of the guy I posted was "supposably" the pilot of AA77 that flew into the Pentagon. According to reports, he was unable to even fly a small aircraft as such.

Not according to the 911 commission report, which says he rented and flew small airplanes several times, and completed a training course on a 737 sim.

And yet he was able to fly a large aircraft inches off the ground into a building. Right.

I think you overestimate the level of pilot skill needed to crash an airplane into a very large building.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Almost all pilots of the big airliners have 10-15 years of experience flying in the military. Flight simulators are just used to touch up the skills every now and then.

It's rare (maybe unheard of?) for someone who flies a big commericial plane for a living, not to have learned his craft in the military.

On 9/11 I told someone, "Good shooting!" I was impressed that the films showed the planes hitting the towers bullseye, right in the middle of the buildings, to cause maximum damage. Later, I heard that the pilots' entire experience was on simulators? No military flying experience before that? Hmm.

It's not unheard of, and becoming more and more common. I know or have met at least 4 non-military major airline pilots. It's just more painful because you have to pay for your own training.

barfo

 

[NJNetz]

Not according to the 911 commission report, which says he rented and flew small airplanes several times, and completed a training course on a 737 sim.

911 commission report was written by the government. If they had a hand in the attacks, do you think they would even consider mentioning that one of the hijackers was a completely inexperienced pilot? Obviously not.

I think you overestimate the level of pilot skill needed to crash an airplane into a very large building.

I think you're mistaking the Pentagon with the WTC. It wasn't that difficult to smash into the Twin Towers.

However, look at the point of impact of the Pentagon.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Pentagon_crach_site.jpg

Are you going to tell me that it's easy to crash into that building at that exact spot...while flying inches off the ground.

 

[barfo]

911 commission report was written by the government. If they had a hand in the attacks, do you think they would even consider mentioning that one of the hijackers was a completely inexperienced pilot? Obviously not.

That's true. Obviously, we can't believe anything. Therefore, I'm going to conclude that 9/11 never happened. Sure, it was on TV, but that was all faked, just like the moon landing and everything else. In fact, I'm pretty sure you don't exist.

I think you're mistaking the Pentagon with the WTC. It wasn't that difficult to smash into the Twin Towers.

However, look at the point of impact of the Pentagon.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Pentagon_crach_site.jpg

Are you going to tell me that it's easy to crash into that building at that exact spot...while flying inches off the ground.

You make it sound like (a) flying inches off the ground is a requirement to hit the pentagon, and (b) the exact spot he hit was the target. I don't think either are true.

barfo

 

[NJNetz]

Do you disagree that the plane crashed into the Pentagon in the same way as demonstrated in this picture?

 

[maxiep]

911 commission report was written by the government. If they had a hand in the attacks, do you think they would even consider mentioning that one of the hijackers was a completely inexperienced pilot? Obviously not.



I think you're mistaking the Pentagon with the WTC. It wasn't that difficult to smash into the Twin Towers.

However, look at the point of impact of the Pentagon.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Pentagon_crach_site.jpg

Are you going to tell me that it's easy to crash into that building at that exact spot...while flying inches off the ground.

The Pentagon is ENORMOUS. I would argue it's easier to hit that either of the WTC towers. It's also on the flight path to National, which means it's nice and open around it. The plane wasn't flying "inches off the ground". That side of the Pentagon actually is elevated a bit on a berm.

We actually got lucky with the Pentagon. The building was being reinforced one wedge at a time. The terrorists hit the first wedge to be renovated.

 

[barfo]

Do you disagree that the plane crashed into the Pentagon in the same way as demonstrated in this picture?

Yes, I disagree about that. I'm fairly certain the plane didn't have those big long wingtips with question marks. Also I doubt the building collapsed before impact, as that picture suggests.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

You may wonder all you wish. I'll just say I have a fair bit of experience and exposure with commercial leases and any tenant that sued on that basis would have that case thrown out of court.

You sounded very confident there in your expertise in the legal reasoning behind such a court's rejection, so I asked you for that reason. I said, even if you're right, why wouldn't one of the tenants even try a lawsuit? Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Unless, of course, you're wrong that the Boeing 707 collision design failed to include fire damage.

You answered with basically, "Shucks, did I say I have a lot of experience in leases? Actually, I was just guessing. I have no idea. Ask an attorney for the technical legal reasons." In your words--

If I had to guess--and guessing is all any of us can do--anyone who may have wished to sue probably went and spoke with an attorney, who probably told them there wasn't a case.

And I still ask, why would an attorney be so sure, if what you say is true--that the Boeing 707 collison test did not include the inevitable fire damage. That would seem to be negligence at least, and fraud if collision promises were made. If, as you say, the lawyers are unanimously absolutely sure the lawsuit would lose, then it can only be because the fire damage WAS tested. And if that's true, it negates your Post #14's negation of my Post #12. We are back to, why would the towers collapse vertically or any other way when they were designed not to collapse, and when much greater forces (like earthquakes) have never collapsed a skyscraper, much less vertically just like a professional implosion?

 

[NJNetz]

The plane wasn't flying "inches off the ground". That side of the Pentagon actually is elevated a bit on a berm.

I'm not sure what you mean.

This doesn't look like inches from the ground to you?

 

[barfo]

And I still ask, why would an attorney be so sure, if what you say is true--that the Boeing 707 collison test did not include the inevitable fire damage. That would seem to be negligence at least, and fraud if collision promises were made. If, as you say, the lawyers are unanimously absolutely sure the lawsuit would lose, then it can only be because the fire damage WAS tested. And if that's true, it negates your Post #14's negation of my Post #12. We are back to, why would the towers collapse vertically or any other way when they were designed not to collapse, and when much greater forces (like earthquakes) have never collapsed a skyscraper, much less vertically just like a professional implosion?

My guess - and I am certainly just guessing - there was no "test". They certainly didn't build a WTC tower and fly a 707 into it to see what would happen. Probably they did some modeling using structural analysis programs, which when the WTC was built weren't all that advanced, frankly. Got to remember the state of computers back then, the buildings were designed in the mid-60s.

I doubt anyone's lease specified that the building would withstand a hit by a 707. I can't imagine that being in a commercial lease (maxiep has surely read more leases than I have, so he can tell me if I'm wrong about that). I further doubt that the engineers promised that the building would withstand a 707 impact. More likely, they presented an engineering report which said that it was designed to withstand impacts of such and such force, but probably did not say "this building is guaranteed to keep standing if an airliner runs into it 30 years from now". So what's the basis for a lawsuit? Unless you can show that their calculations were faulty, I don't see how you have a case. And there's no evidence the calculations were faulty - it's not possible to simulate every possible impact scenario today, and it certainly wasn't on a 1960s mainframe.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

You sounded very confident there in your expertise in the legal reasoning behind such a court's rejection, so I asked you for that reason. I said, even if you're right, why wouldn't one of the tenants even try a lawsuit? Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Unless, of course, you're wrong that the Boeing 707 collision design failed to include fire damage.

I am confident given my experience with leases and assumed risks (for example, force majeure, although terrorism doesn't fall under it) that it would be a tough lawsuit. Basically, Larry Silverstein would have had to have been negligent in his maintenance of the structure of the property to have been responsible for the deaths of those people. R&M is tracked pretty closely.

I'm not an attorney, so I had to venture a guess as to the reasons why they wouldn't sue. There's a difference between what I can assume and what I know for sure. My firm has been sued by plenty of tenants, so I have a bit of knowledge about what the tenant has to prove.

You answered with basically, "Shucks, did I say I have a lot of experience in leases? Actually, I was just guessing. I have no idea. Ask an attorney for the technical legal reasons." In your words--

It's not an issue of technical legal reasons. It's whether or not they had grounds for a lawsuit. They have to prove that Mr. Silverstein was negligent. I can hazard a guess that lawyers would view the lease the same way as the landlord's lawyers would.

And I still ask, why would an attorney be so sure, if what you say is true--that the Boeing 707 collison test did not include the inevitable fire damage. That would seem to be negligence at least, and fraud if collision promises were made. If, as you say, the lawyers are unanimously absolutely sure the lawsuit would lose, then it can only be because the fire damage WAS tested. And if that's true, it negates your Post #14's negation of my Post #12. We are back to, why would the towers collapse vertically or any other way when they were designed not to collapse, and when much greater forces (like earthquakes) have never collapsed a skyscraper, much less vertically just like a professional implosion?

Look up the report. The test was for impact. It wasn't assumed to be plane fully loaded with fuel. Taking the impact from a 707 wasn't a barrier for a COO; it was a test that was done back in the early 70s to check for a "what if" in case of accident. Also, the fireproofing on the steel wasn't adhered to the beams the way it is today.

Why did they collapse vertically? Because they pancaked. The pancaking effect was akin to driving a nail into the ground. When one area of the exterior beams gave way and transferred to the other areas, they failed almost instantaneously. The force driven down floor by floor just collapsed the beams. Gravity pushes in one direction.

Earthquakes give different forces. The force involved is shaking from the bottom which telegraphs to sway at the top. If the top sheared off at the apex of a sway, then I wouldn't be surprised to see a building fall to the side rather than straight down.

In case you're wondering where I got my information, it was from Daniel A. Sesil, P.E., who is a friend of mine. He knows a bit not only about buildings, but about the WTC towers.

 

[maxiep]

I'm not sure what you mean.

If you pan back, you'll see that grassy area is a berm, elevated from the GW and the parking lot.

This doesn't look like inches from the ground to you?

Well, I drove by the Pentagon every day for years, and that camera view is a bit deceiving. It's pretty far away, and therefore it's not best measured in inches, but in feet. IIRC, the guy actually shorted it a bit.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Where's Yega1979? He's the expert on this.

 

[maxiep]

Where's Yega1979? He's the expert on this.

Man, I had forgotten about him. He would try to make a point, have it refuted and move to the next accusation/conspiracy.

 

[NJNetz]

I'm not sure what you mean.

If you pan back, you'll see that grassy area is a berm, elevated from the GW and the parking lot.



Well, I drove by the Pentagon every day for years, and that camera view is a bit deceiving. It's pretty far away, and therefore it's not best measured in inches, but in feet. IIRC, the guy actually shorted it a bit.

Feet or inches aside; that plane is flying quite low. An inexperienced pilot would be unable to achieve such a feat.

 

[maxiep]

Feet or inches aside; that plane is flying quite low. An inexperienced pilot would be unable to achieve such a feat.

I'm not a pilot, so I don't know.

 

[NJNetz]

I'm not a pilot, so I don't know.

Neither am I, but I'm making what I believe is a logical guess.

 

[barfo]

Feet or inches aside; that plane is flying quite low. An inexperienced pilot would be unable to achieve such a feat.

Moving a plane up or down is not really that difficult, even in an airliner. And that part of it works pretty much the same as a light plane.

If you don't have to take off or land safely, you've eliminated at least 90% of the difficulty of flying. Operating the yoke just isn't that complex.

barfo

 

[NJNetz]

Moving a plane up or down is not really that difficult, even in an airliner. And that part of it works pretty much the same as a light plane.

If you don't have to take off or land safely, you've eliminated at least 90% of the difficulty of flying. Operating the yoke just isn't that complex.

barfo

I can't really comment on that with full confidence. I think it might be pretty difficult to get a plane that low and keep it steady, but I may be wrong.

 

[barfo]

I can't really comment on that with full confidence. I think it might be pretty difficult to get a plane that low and keep it steady, but I may be wrong.

I don't guess he was flying along right off the ground for miles. It was probably just a few seconds, and then he crashed. It looks to me like he actually got too low, that he would have been better off higher.

barfo

 

[NJNetz]

I don't guess he was flying along right off the ground for miles. It was probably just a few seconds, and then he crashed. It looks to me like he actually got too low, that he would have been better off higher.

barfo

Higher? I think he would likely miss the building.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

My guess - and I am certainly just guessing - there was no "test". They certainly didn't build a WTC tower and fly a 707 into it to see what would happen. Probably they did some modeling using structural analysis programs, which when the WTC was built weren't all that advanced, frankly. Got to remember the state of computers back then, the buildings were designed in the mid-60s.

I doubt anyone's lease specified that the building would withstand a hit by a 707. I can't imagine that being in a commercial lease (maxiep has surely read more leases than I have, so he can tell me if I'm wrong about that). I further doubt that the engineers promised that the building would withstand a 707 impact. More likely, they presented an engineering report which said that it was designed to withstand impacts of such and such force, but probably did not say "this building is guaranteed to keep standing if an airliner runs into it 30 years from now". So what's the basis for a lawsuit? Unless you can show that their calculations were faulty, I don't see how you have a case. And there's no evidence the calculations were faulty - it's not possible to simulate every possible impact scenario today, and it certainly wasn't on a 1960s mainframe.

barfo

Also it's fairly certain that some of the building materials called for in the plans weren't what was used in the actual building of the towers. NYC in the early 1970's.... I'd say there was a little Mafia construction fraud, shakedowns and kickbacks going on then.