New 9/11 Photos Released

[barfo]

Higher? I think he would likely miss the building.

Well, obviously there's some room to be higher, since he hit at ground level. Personally, I would have tried to stick it in the middle of the Pentagon, instead of the outside. It seems reasonable to assume the inside might be less fortified than the outside. But that would have been a tougher thing - have to take a steeper descent angle. I think he pretty much failed - the damage at the Pentagon wasn't as severe as it might have been.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

It was well known when the towers opened that the buildings had been designed (not physically tested, of course) to withstand a 707 hit. This was reviewed by outside consulting firms, subcontractors, everyone involved. The owners paid for buildings they thought could withstand a 707 strike. Any subsequent owners relied upon that level of quality (and many other engineering standards in the design) in pricing out the buildings before buying.

Let's say, as maxiep says, that the calculations did not include the fire that would result from the fuel inside the airplane. This means that the owners overpaid based upon false information imparted from the architects and engineers, who got the information from the ultimate source, the consultants who did the calculations for the 707 hit.

I said that the tenants could sue the owners if the leasing decision depended upon promises about the collision strength. I knew the promises probably had not been made (I said maybe in a brochure, but not in the contract). But now I see a more likely avenue for a suit. It's the owners who would sue, not be sued.

The owners have a basis to sue those original consultants who did the calculations (and maybe to a lesser degree, some for whom the consultants subcontracted, such as the engineers and architects, and also any subsequent chain of owners--maybe). I've read an interview of a couple of the original consultants, so they are alive and suable. This is no ordinary lease case, so the usual rules might not apply.

If the consultants did not include fire damage in their collision calculations, that might be negligence or fraud, since an ordinary owner would expect fire damage to be included. The case might fail, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. So I simply ask, why hasn't such a suit been attempted, unless fire damage WAS included in the calculations, in which case we return to the original question early in the thread--it sure is weird how professional-looking those collapses were.

 

[jlprk]

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.

Okay, instead of asking why did they fall vertically (when other skyscrapers haven't, such as when utterly destroyed in Baghdad by American missiles), I'll switch it to ask, why did they pancake (when other skyscrapers haven't, such as when utterly destroyed in Baghdad by American missiles)?

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.

There were closer surveillance cameras, but the government has locked away all photographs in secret, for some mysterious reason. Any idea why?

The plane was flying a mile every 10 seconds. You say it flew feet, not inches, above the ground. That's actually irrelevant. It was still an amazing piece of piloting by someone who had never flown a big or medium plane (and had very little experience in a tiny plane, or did he have any?).

 

[jlprk]

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.

This can't be serious. Moving up and down is easy when you're moving 350 mph 10 feet high? Well, moving up is. Moving down is fatal. Try driving a car at 350 mph with a concrete wall 10 feet to one side and see whether you can avoid moving 10 feet left or right.

Not having to land makes it easy? He did have to land. Flying 10 feet high into a building is a lot smaller target than landing on a runway.

 

[barfo]

It was well known when the towers opened that the buildings had been designed (not physically tested, of course) to withstand a 707 hit. This was reviewed by outside consulting firms, subcontractors, everyone involved. The owners paid for buildings they thought could withstand a 707 strike. Any subsequent owners relied upon that level of quality (and many other engineering standards in the design) in pricing out the buildings before buying.

Let's say, as maxiep says, that the calculations did not include the fire that would result from the fuel inside the airplane. This means that the owners overpaid based upon false information imparted from the architects and engineers, who got the information from the ultimate source, the consultants who did the calculations for the 707 hit.

I said that the tenants could sue the owners if the leasing decision depended upon promises about the collision strength. I knew the promises probably had not been made (I said maybe in a brochure, but not in the contract). But now I see a more likely avenue for a suit. It's the owners who would sue, not be sued.

The owners have a basis to sue those original consultants who did the calculations (and maybe to a lesser degree, some for whom the consultants subcontracted, such as the engineers and architects, and also any subsequent chain of owners--maybe). I've read an interview of a couple of the original consultants, so they are alive and suable. This is no ordinary lease case, so the usual rules might not apply.

If the consultants did not include fire damage in their collision calculations, that might be negligence or fraud, since an ordinary owner would expect fire damage to be included. The case might fail, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. So I simply ask, why hasn't such a suit been attempted, unless fire damage WAS included in the calculations, in which case we return to the original question early in the thread--it sure is weird how professional-looking those collapses were.

I doubt the engineering firm actually stated the building would withstand a 707 hit. No company big enough to work on the WTC would be so small as to not have a clue about legal liability. You would state exactly what you actually know, not generalize it. You might state "the building frame is designed to withstand a side impact of such and such type between floors 5 and 110 of force xxx; a Boeing 707 impacting the side of the building at speed zzz could be expected to have a force of yyy." You would not say "this building will withstand all airliner crashes, even for airliners not yet designed and even if the building catches fire after the impact".

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I doubt the engineering firm actually stated the building would withstand a 707 hit. No company big enough to work on the WTC would be so small as to not have a clue about legal liability. You would state exactly what you actually know, not generalize it. You might state "the building frame is designed to withstand a side impact of such and such type between floors 5 and 110 of force xxx; a Boeing 707 impacting the side of the building at speed zzz could be expected to have a force of yyy." You would not say "this building will withstand all airliner crashes, even for airliners not yet designed and even if the building catches fire after the impact".

barfo

That was a design consideration for the WTC. That's because of when that B-2 hit the Empire State building.

 

[barfo]

This can't be serious. Moving up and down is easy when you're moving 350 mph 10 feet high? Well, moving up is. Moving down is fatal.

Oh my god! They could have died!

Try driving 350 mph and see whether you can avoid moving 10 feet left or right.

Not having to land makes it easy? He did have to land. Flying 10 feet high into a building is a lot smaller target than landing on a runway.

Uhm, no, not really. Landing involves a lot of work beyond just aiming the plane. You have to get it on the runway (and a runway is narrower than the pentagon) and have the plane at the right pitch and the right speed when you hit the runway. Ramming something where you don't really care about the exact altitude or the exact positioning or the speed or the survival of the plane is significantly easier.

barfo

 

[barfo]

That was a design consideration for the WTC. That's because of when that B-2 hit the Empire State building.

Right, I'm sure they did try to design it that way. I'm just arguing that they probably didn't make any legally binding broad promises, because you'd have to be fucking stupid to do so, and engineers aren't generally known to be stupid. You'd vouch for the tests and calculations that you did, all of which would be very specific, not something general like "the building will continue to stand under any circumstances involving an airliner crashing into it".

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

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.

My hair caught on fire, so my skeletal system collapsed.

Something missing here...

 

[barfo]

There were closer surveillance cameras, but the government has locked away all photographs in secret, for some mysterious reason. Any idea why?

Could it be that they don't want to expose construction details of the Pentagon to future attackers?

The plane was flying a mile every 10 seconds. You say it flew feet, not inches, above the ground. That's actually irrelevant. It was still an amazing piece of piloting by someone who had never flown a big or medium plane (and had very little experience in a tiny plane, or did he have any?).

Yes, he had some flight experience, unless you disbelieve everything the government says, in which case there's actually no point in discussing it, since none of us have any more believable sources. And it just isn't that amazing. If you can control the plane, which he obviously could, you can crash it, which he did. I don't see what's so amazing about it. Good piloting involves NOT crashing.

barfo

 

[barfo]

My hair caught on fire, so my skeletal system collapsed.

Something missing here...

I think what's missing is an appropriate analogy.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

I doubt the engineering firm actually stated the building would withstand a 707 hit. No company big enough to work on the WTC would be so small as to not have a clue about legal liability. You would state exactly what you actually know, not generalize it. You might state "the building frame is designed to withstand a side impact of such and such type between floors 5 and 110 of force xxx; a Boeing 707 impacting the side of the building at speed zzz could be expected to have a force of yyy." You would not say "this building will withstand all airliner crashes, even for airliners not yet designed and even if the building catches fire after the impact".

The wording might be evasive (not mentioning that a plane collision was modelled), but in court, those 1970 promised specifications could be matched with experts testifying to their estimated specifications of the 2001 collision. If the actual specs were within the original design specs (even ones worded evasively), bingo, ya got a case.

Oh my god! They could have died!

They could have hit the ground, like the plane in Pennsylvania did, and have failed in their mission.

Uhm, no, not really. Landing involves a lot of work beyond just aiming the plane. You have to get it on the runway (and a runway is narrower than the pentagon) and have the plane at the right pitch and the right speed when you hit the runway. Ramming something where you don't really care about the exact altitude or the exact positioning or the speed or the survival of the plane is significantly easier.

You think that hitting a 12 to 15,000 foot runway with multiple chances if you fail, 100 feet wide (narrower than the Pentagon? irrelevant!), at 130 mph is harder than hitting the 5-story high Pentagon at 350 mph? With telephone wires to avoid and no landing avionics helping you in? With people bamming on the door, trying to get in to kill you? You think you don't care about the altitude or the exact positioning? 5 stories is about 50 feet! The plane's tail rises as high. The Pentagon was a tiny target at that speed. An airfield is perfectly level and the land around the Pentagon has not been so scalloped.

You try it and report the results back to us.

 

[MARIS61]

Could it be that they don't want to expose construction details of the Pentagon to future attackers?

No.

The cameras are on the outside of the building, which is plainly visible and appeared on worldwide television for months afterward. I've never been there but it looks like you can see it from the road.

It is assumed they are hiding something unknown about the plane, it's true occupants, or how it struck the building.

All that is certain is that they are hiding something.

 

[MARIS61]

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

My wife and I, and the rest of the passengers on our return flight from Hawaii beg to differ.

 

[barfo]

The wording might be evasive (not mentioning that a plane collision was modelled), but in court, those 1970 promised specifications could be matched with experts testifying to their estimated specifications of the 2001 collision. If the actual specs were within the original design specs (even ones worded evasively), bingo, ya got a case.

If something the engineers said could be proven false, yes, you've got a case. I doubt we are the first people to discuss this, however, so my guess is that someone has looked into it and concluded that in fact the engineers didn't say anything that is provably false.

You think that hitting a 12 to 15,000 foot runway with multiple chances if you fail, 100 feet wide (narrower than the Pentagon? irrelevant!)

No idea why you think that's irrelevant. Not only is a runway a narrower target than the pentagon, but you have to hit is head on. You can't hit it at an angle and succeed, whereas most any approach angle will work fine for the Pentagon.

Don't know what you mean about multiple chances if you fail. If you mean going around, then in theory the hijackers could have done that too.

, at 130 mph is harder than hitting the 5-story high Pentagon at 350 mph? With telephone wires to avoid and no landing avionics helping you in?

I doubt telephone wires were a big concern. And while you can't just lock in on a landing approach, the avionics in the plane still work and could be quite useful.

With people bamming on the door, trying to get in to kill you? You think you don't care about the altitude or the exact positioning? 5 stories is about 50 feet! The plane's tail rises as high. The Pentagon was a tiny target at that speed. An airfield is perfectly level and the land around the Pentagon has not been so scalloped.

They flew recon flights to check out the land ahead of time. And if the Pentagon is only 50 feet tall, how tall is a runway? 0 feet, I think.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

Right, I'm sure they did try to design it that way. I'm just arguing that they probably didn't make any legally binding broad promises, because you'd have to be fucking stupid to do so, and engineers aren't generally known to be stupid. You'd vouch for the tests and calculations that you did, all of which would be very specific, not something general like "the building will continue to stand under any circumstances involving an airliner crashing into it".

Every few years, a building collapses, and later I read of the ensuing lawsuit. Were the WTC architects the only ones brilliant enough to write their specs to avoid such suits? How do any other such lawsuits occur, what with all the brilliant spec-writing that judges are just too naive to see through?

Could it be that they don't want to expose construction details of the Pentagon to future attackers?

Surveillance cameras are notoriously blurry. Details of the parking lot and building exterior? The Pentagon is right next to a freeway, or if you're too lazy to drive up to it, look at satellite pictures on Google and Yahoo.

 

[barfo]

Every few years, a building collapses, and later I read of the ensuing lawsuit. Were the WTC architects the only ones brilliant enough to write their specs to avoid such suits? How do any other such lawsuits occur, what with all the brilliant spec-writing that judges are just too naive to see through?

What is the cause of these buildings collapsing? Airplane strikes? Or something more mundane?

Surveillance cameras are notoriously blurry. Details of the parking lot and building exterior? The Pentagon is right next to a freeway, or if you're too lazy to drive up to it, look at satellite pictures on Google and Yahoo.

I assumed these were cameras pointing at the building, and thus would show details of the damage, and thus the construction. If the are pointing away from the building, then I have no idea why they'd be kept secret, assuming they actually exist.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

Don't know what you mean about multiple chances if you fail. If you mean going around, then in theory the hijackers could have done that too....And if the Pentagon is only 50 feet tall, how tall is a runway? 0 feet, I think.

That's what I mean by multiple opportunities. You come down a little wrong, move up and try again a thousand feet later. You can hesitate a few times before touching down. No such chances at the Pentagon. The building may be big, maybe 100 yards, but that's not 15,000 feet. You get one chance to come down exactly right.

As for going around again, I thought you said they only knew how to fly the middle part, not the takeoff or the landing. He lacked the skill to circle and hit his target again. He had one chance and that was it.

You have picked the wrong issue in this thing. This is a dead end for you. You're the only one anywhere on the internet I've ever seen who thinks the Pentagon crash was easier to do than a regular landing. Experts agree that it was very, very hard.

 

[barfo]

As for going around again, I thought you said they only knew how to fly the middle part, not the takeoff or the landing. He lacked the skill to circle and hit his target again. He had one chance and that was it.

Going around doesn't involve takeoffs or landings. He obviously knew how to make turns, unless somehow the plane was pointed directly at the Pentagon when they hijacked it. And besides, we've seen the flightpaths they took, and they do involve turns.

You have picked the wrong issue in this thing. This is a dead end for you.

Oh no! My internet arguing license is being revoked!

You're the only one anywhere on the internet I've ever seen who thinks the Pentagon crash was easier to do than a regular landing. Experts agree that it was very, very hard.

Internet experts are by and large full of shit, especially when it comes to conspiracy theories.

Me included, of course.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

What is the cause of these buildings collapsing? Airplane strikes? Or something more mundane?

Irrelevant to why brilliant spec-writing would be lawsuit-proof for the WTC but not for any other building. The writing course those engineers take is standard at all schools.

I assumed these were cameras pointing at the building, and thus would show details of the damage, and thus the construction. If the are pointing away from the building, then I have no idea why they'd be kept secret, assuming they actually exist.

The construction techniques had nothing to hide on the macro level. Maybe the inner structure of the bricks had fortification no one has ever seen before (developed in space by DARPA), but nothing that a camera on a parking lot pole could see.

 

[barfo]

Irrelevant to why brilliant spec-writing would be lawsuit-proof for the WTC but not for any other building. The writing course those engineers take is standard at all schools.

What I meant is, why did those buildings fall down? That actually matters in determining whether you can sue someone. If they fell down because they were built out of balsa wood when the plans called for steel, then you've got a suit. If they fell down because a contractor cut out some of the support beams in order to install a new doorway, you've got a suit. If a meteorite struck the building, you probably don't have a suit.

The construction techniques had nothing to hide on the macro level. Maybe the inner structure of the bricks had fortification no one has ever seen before (developed in space by DARPA), but nothing that a camera on a parking lot pole could see.

And you know that because...?

barfo

 

[barfo]

You're the only one anywhere on the internet I've ever seen who thinks the Pentagon crash was easier to do than a regular landing. Experts agree that it was very, very hard.

Well, now I'm not the only one. [Although this is not by any means the most credible source, it is on the internet. Ok, I guess that was redundant.]

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.

barfo

 

[barfo]

As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.

It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.

Experienced pilot Giulio Bernacchia agrees:

In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.

link

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

There were all kinds of lawsuits against anyone and everyone remotely involved.

However, the govt. offered a massive amount of money as settlements and many took that instead.

9/11 Lawsuits Against Boeing, Airlines, World Trade Center Owners May Proceed


World Trade Center Owners Face Liability.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and WTC Properties argued they had no duty to anticipate and guard against suicidal aircraft crashes into the Twin Towers, which they described as "crimes unprecedented in human history."

The plaintiffs argued that while the Port Authority and WTC Properties did not owe the victims a duty to foresee the crimes, but rather a duty to design, construct, repair, and maintain the Twin Towers to withstand the effects and spread of fire, to avoid building collapses caused by fire, and to design effective fire safety and evacuation procedures.

Again stressing that "this is a very early point in the litigation," the judge held the owners and operators of the World Trade Center owed a duty to the plaintiffs, and "that plaintiffs should not be foreclosed from being able to prove that defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to provide a safe environment for its occupants and invitees with respect to reasonably foreseeable risks."

 

[maxiep]

Higher? I think he would likely miss the building.

Again the Pentagon is HUGE. It's five rings and a massive floorplate.

 

[maxiep]

Okay, instead of asking why did they fall vertically (when other skyscrapers haven't, such as when utterly destroyed in Baghdad by American missiles), I'll switch it to ask, why did they pancake (when other skyscrapers haven't, such as when utterly destroyed in Baghdad by American missiles)?

You're asking me to comment on other buildings with which I'm not as familiar. Like I said, I know the WTC because they were notable buildings for their unusual framing. I'm not familiar with Iraqi construction techniques. However, the WTC--and other modern US buildings--are designed to pancake.

There were closer surveillance cameras, but the government has locked away all photographs in secret, for some mysterious reason. Any idea why?

Not really. Unlike you, I don't have a conspiratorial mind. I tend to follow Occam's Razor. You wish to construct scenarios where the US Government willingly killed over 3,000 civilians and servicemen, you go right ahead.

The plane was flying a mile every 10 seconds. You say it flew feet, not inches, above the ground. That's actually irrelevant. It was still an amazing piece of piloting by someone who had never flown a big or medium plane (and had very little experience in a tiny plane, or did he have any?).

I'm saying that for a few hundred feet it followed a glide path that brought it within a few feet of the ground. The area around the Pentagon is wide open, so it's little different than aiming for an elevated giant area in the middle of a cornfield. Again, I'm not a pilot and it's silly for me to comment or speculate on an area where I don't know a whit.

 

[maxiep]

That was a design consideration for the WTC. That's because of when that B-2 hit the Empire State building.

It was a B-25 Mitchell, not a B-2 Stealth bomber.

 

[The Professional Fan]

And once again the guys in the tin foil hats get owned.

 

[maxiep]

My hair caught on fire, so my skeletal system collapsed.

Something missing here...

You're right. Try to find one of these:

 

[maxiep]

That's what I mean by multiple opportunities. You come down a little wrong, move up and try again a thousand feet later. You can hesitate a few times before touching down. No such chances at the Pentagon. The building may be big, maybe 100 yards, but that's not 15,000 feet. You get one chance to come down exactly right.

You really underestimate the size of the Pentagon. Hopefully this helps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Building_and_ship_comparison2.svg