Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Josh_B, Jan 4, 2003.

  1. Josh_B



    Yes, good questions, and maybe even more needs to be answered. Maybe part of the equation is money. Not sure exactly but if I recall the original request for repairs was for fee hundred thousand dollars, next it was up to few millions, and the final appropriation went over a billion. Maybe it's just part of a larger picture, or maybe there is nothing there, but the pics and the official reports just don't add up.

    If this was something else than a commercial jet, then the flight 77 was not what crashed there.


    There are many pics of crashes available, (I'll post some next), and that's one of the reasons that makes this one so "iffy". According to all info out there what ever hit the building was in a horizontal trajectory. But even on a vertical one on dry land there would be way more parts left around especially turbine blades, brakes etc.. see also the contradictions:

    The value jet incident, left a lot of evidence behind, (engine parts, personal effects, scattered language, fuel, etc.) even though most it was swallowed by the swamp. Even the 747 TWA 880 incident that exploded mid air and hit the ocean, left a huge amount of remains behind. Almost the whole plane was reconstructed afterwards from the parts recovered.

    daniel m,

    Hehe, clever exchange there with the no win setup on emotions. It's tough not to be skeptical from either side.

    Really good posts, information, and opinions.

    #21     Jan 5, 2003
  2. Josh_B


    This site has a pic of another commercial jet crash about 4-5 pics down. It appears to also have been on a horizontal approach.

    727 series even smaller, than the 757 that officials claim hit the Pentagon.


    also some humor and sarcasm there to keep things a bit on the light side.

    Great pics there too. Makes one wonder...

    #22     Jan 5, 2003
  3. ...getting involved in these Internet discussions - featuring individuals extrapolating wildly on the basis of minimal real evidence, then inevitably getting caught up in personal side-skirmishes - but...

    1) Having seen slo-mo video of a plane crashed at high speed into a fixed object, the best description I can come up with is "sheer annihilation." During discussions of the safety of nuclear power plants, images of this type (remote-control jets slamming into dummy nuclear containment structures) were shown on various news outlets. Imagine a stick of butter flung into the propellor of an outboard motor, or a branch flung into one of those "pulpers" used by landscapers. The results do not compare at all to those that occur after a plane has exploded in mid-air, been shot out of the sky, has undergone a "normal" crash, or has crash-landed. There really is no reason to expect that very much would be left over in any recognizable shape if, as believed, a fuel-laden jet plane was accelerating on descentbefore colliding with the security-hardened structure (possibly after initially impacting the ground just short of the building).

    2) The video that has been released was, as I recall, originally obtained by CNN. If the Pentagon possesses better video or other detailed information on the incident, they would be very reluctant to release it publically, for reasons that should be obvious: Even setting aside the military's preference for overdoing (or attempting to overdo) secrecy and information control, why would the Pentagon want to give US adversaries intelligence that might conceivably enable them to improve their method of attack in the future? ("Bomb Damage Assessment" is among the most critical elements of a successful bombing campaign.)

    3) The suggestion that the attack was self-inflicted is absurd: To believe, for instance, that "someone" in or perhaps above the Pentagon arranged to have a missile fired at the structure pre-supposes a chain of ridiculous assumptions, including, but not limited to, the mutually dependent presumptions that a) such a plot could be kept secret both before and after the fact, and b) such a plot could be planned and executed in the certain expectation that it could be kept secret. In addition to the firing of whatever missile or emplacement of whatever other explosion device (in coordination with the attacks on the WTC? - also supposedly self-inflicted?), the simultaneous disappearances of the actual plane and all of its crew and passengers would also have to be arranged. The conspiratorialist scenario would also have to explain observations of the plane on radar as well as in-flight phone calls. Are we to believe that this evidence was somehow faked? Or are we to believe that they were "real," but were disconnected from the events at the Pentagon?

    These are just a few issues that conspiracy theorists would have to handle, if indeed they were interested in or capable of providing believable explanations. I could go further, but I'm already feeling a bit ashamed for having spent even this much time on this nonsense.

    #23     Jan 5, 2003
  4. wild


  5. So where is the well known legal commentator Barbara Olson beng hidden?
    #25     Jan 5, 2003
  6. bobcathy1

    bobcathy1 Guest

    You got us to go look at the photos again. You can clearly see where the plane hit into the first floor, the marks left by the fuel tanks in the wings and fires along those lines. A plane definitely hit the Pentagon.
    This website must be some kind of really sick joke.
    Bob and Cathy
    #26     Jan 5, 2003
  7. wild



    It is physically impossible for all of the plane to have entered the crash site, and this is backed by solid mathematical proof.

    There is no evidence outside the building of wreckage to account for the part of the plane which cannot have entered the crash site.

    There is no evidence of identifiable wreckage inside the crash site.

    Cremation of the plane was unprecedented in aviation history and physically impossible.

    Even could such cremation have been possible, it is impossible in the context of the modest damage to the wall.

    The hole in the back of the third ring cannot be explained by any means other than a missile.

    Fake wreckage has been designed and planted with the express purpose of impersonating the American Airlines colour scheme.

    Eyewitness evidence is inconclusive and fabricated eyewitness reports have been presented to try to shore up the official story.

    Claims that DNA testing identified 63 of the 64 people on board, are mutually exclusive with claims that the plane was cremated, and with the official line on the WTC victims and the Bali bomb victims.


    I can see one good reason to cling to the belief that AA 77 hit the pentagon. The unshakable faith that the govt would not - could not lie to us. A faith so strong that the laws of physics and motion suspend themselves in order to maintain it. A faith so strong that even the government admitting that it lies cannot overturn it. This statement from Solicitor General Olsen.

    more at


    #27     Jan 5, 2003
  8. So where is Solicitor General Olson's wife, Barbara, a passenger on777, being hidden?
    #28     Jan 5, 2003
  9. Hunt the Boeing" Answers

    by Paul Boutin and Patrick Di Justo

    Paul Boutin is a freelance technology writer and former engineer in San Francisco. Patrick Di Justo is an astrophysics educator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City who writes for Wired magazine and Wired News.

    To be clear: We believe that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 because we know far too many friends and colleagues in Washington who saw the plane come in over the freeway - some right over their heads - and felt the earth shake as it disappeared into the Pentagon. And we think people who believe they can uncover the truth about anything by surfing the Web are deceiving themselves in a dangerous way.

    But we couldn't help taking up the challenge anyway.

    As lifelong propellerheads who firmly believe in asking questions, we found Hunt the Boeing an engaging puzzle, despite its tragic subject matter, but one full of obvious errors and misleading questions. Since many of our friends continue to ask us if we've seen the site, we decided to document our answers to it, which we wrote separately. As might be expected, Patrick focused on the math and science (you may remember his widely circulated napkin math on the WTC attack), while Paul picked apart the wording of the questions.

    See the original site for photos that accompany the questions.

    Question No 1:
    The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image below, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion. Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

    Paul: The question and photos are misleading: Parts of the plane penetrated the ground floors of the second and third rings of the building. These photos show only their intact roofs. Eyewitnesses and news reporters have talked about the twelve-foot hole punched through the inside wall of the second ring by one of the plane’s engines.

    More importantly, the question focuses on the plane’s size and weight, making it sound extraordinarily heavy, but leaves out the size and weight of the Pentagon – America’s largest office building with three times the floor space of the Empire State Building - as well as the difference in relative stiffness and energy absorption between a building and an airplane. Each side of the Pentagon contains over 100,000 tons of Potomac sand mixed into the steel-reinforced concrete under its limestome facade. There are nearly 10,000 concrete piles anchoring each side of the building. And in the wake of bombings in Oklahoma City and Saudi Arabia, that portion of the Pentagon had just been reinforced with a computationally modeled lattice of steel tubes designed to prevent it from collapsing after an explosion.

    By contrast, the plane is only 100 tons of custom alloys stretched thin enough to fly. It’s not like a giant bullet; more like a giant racing bike. Even so, the plane knocked down 10,000 tons of building material - 100 times its own weight - in the crash and subsequent collapse. Another 57,000 tons of the Pentagon were damaged badly enough to be torn down. The Brobdingnagian scale of the Pentagon makes the total area of damage seem small, but it would hold several Silicon Valley office buildings, or an airport terminal.

    Patrick: Watch the videotapes of the planes hitting the World Trade Center. They were traveling at approximately 400 mph, and they hit an aluminum and glass building. An entire plane went in, and hardly anything came out the other side, 208 feet away.

    Here we have a plane traveling at nearly 250 mph (just over 1/2 the velocity of the WTC planes, meaning just over 1/4 of their kinetic energy), hitting the ground (which would absorb much of that energy), and only then sliding at a much slower speed into a steel-and-kevlar-reinforced concrete and brick building. Obviously, it's not going to go very far. Still, parts of the plane penetrated into the C ring.

    Question No 2
    The two photographs in question 2 show the building just after the attack. We may observe that the aircraft only hit the ground floor. The four upper floors collapsed towards 10.10 am. The building is 26 yards high. Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

    Paul: Again the question contains incorrect facts in its setup: As reported in the New York Times, the plane struck between the first and second floors of the building. The high-res version of the photo shows a two story high hole in side of the building. Don't look where the fire truck is directing its water, but towards the center of the photo – two floors out of four are knocked out of the outside wall.

    Patrick: The plane hit the ground first, then slid into the building. If the landing wheels were not down and locked, the full height of the plane would extend upwards into the second floor of the building, which is what happened.

    Question No 3
    The photograph above shows the lawn in front of the damaged building. You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

    Paul: : Yet another leading question ("you'll remember..."), but one looking in the wrong place anyway. At 250 mph, the plane did not stop at the outside of the building. Security camera photos and eyewitness accounts from many credible people, including AP reporter Dave Winslow, agree that the plane completely disappeared into the building. If you’ve seen photos of airline crashes after the fire is out, they often look more like landfill sites than anything recognizable as having been an airplane.

    But since the question more literally asks for a photo showing airliner debris on the lawn, here's one. Here's another.

    Patrick: The Pentagon burned (or at least smoldered) for several days. Was this photograph taken on September 11? Or was it taken after the wreckage was moved away?
    #29     Jan 5, 2003
  10. Question No 4
    The photograph in question 4 shows a truck pouring sand over the lawn of the Pentagon. Behind it a bulldozer is seen spreading gravel over the turf. Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?

    Patrick: My father was a construction engineer. He would only put a crane onto a grass lawn in an extreme emergency, and only after getting indemnified against damages. No, the first thing he would do is to lay down a pathway of steel plates, then cover them with gravel, to prevent his equipment from getting bogged down in the soft earth. When you see in that picture is a roadway being built to bring the heavy equipment across the lawn.

    Paul: You don’t have to be a construction worker to recognize a road being built over the lawn, to support the vehicles dismantling the damaged building and hauling away debris. I can’t find any news reports (or people who remember any) about Donald Rumsfeld personally ordering this work done. I suspect the statement is false, and was added to make the activity seem more suspicious.

    Question No 5
    The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit. Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

    Patrick: I'm not certain the models are to scale, and they're certainly not in the correct orientation. Since the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building, enough energy was lost by the initial impact and friction with the ground that the engines probably did not penetrate the building.

    Paul: If you’re going to doctor evidence, do it right: Eyewitness accounts say the plane hit from 45 degrees to the side. Adjust the silhouettes properly, and fix the parallax effect in the second photo. The plane fits the impact area pretty well: Don't look at the collapsed upper floors, but at the wider swatch knocked out of the ground floor. I would expect the wings, being weaker than the building, to collapse on the way in. But with no previous crashes of the sort to guide us, we can't possibly predict what should have happened. If there's anything we learned that day, it's that we are poor judges of what is and isn't possible.

    Question No 6
    The quotations in Question 6 correspond to statements made by Arlington County Fire Chief, Ed Plaugher, at a press conference held by Assistant Defence Secretary, Victoria Clarke, on 12 September 2001, at the Pentagon.

    When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"

    "First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing."

    "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."

    When asked by a journalist: "Where is the jet fuel?"

    "We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the -- what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft. So -"

    Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?

    Paul: Quoting people verbatim to make them sound like they are dissembling is an old journalists’ trick, as any Doonesbury reader knows. I think Chief Plaugher answered the question pretty well: There’s a puddle (of melted metal, not jet fuel – he’s not directly answering the reporter’s idiotic question) that was the nose, and a few small pieces visible, but no large sections.

    Patrick: Are any government officials telling any journalists anything these days?

    Question No 7
    The two photographs in question 7 were taken just after the attack. They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck. Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?

    Paul: The answer is front and center in the photo, maybe to make us think it can’t be that obvious: The two-story high impact hole (also seen in the photo for Question No 2) is immediately to the right of the fireman, partly hidden by the spray of water from the fire truck. Look at the second high-res photo and you can't miss it. Are we supposed to think it’s a two-story archway of some sort? See pre-crash photos or the surviving sides for comparison.

    Patrick: In enlargement #1, the impact hole fits in the rectangle formed from pixel(1232,1088) to pixel(1492, 1545).

    After that, I didn’t bother to look at enlargement #2.
    #30     Jan 5, 2003