WtC2 plane exits at wrong angle?

[demodewd]

How can the plane that entered the WTC2 at this angle..

...exit at this location?

[tridim]

1. The concrete columns and steel beams

might have altered the path just a bit.

[demodewd]

5. might have?

That's a quick alternative route for the alleged nose...and it's looks so unscathed.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Uhhh...

Because it was coming apart, do ya think?

[Warpy]

3. Right, nothing coming through on the other side but the engines

and some of the larger pieces of fuselage.

You really didn't think a plane would fly through a concrete and steel building and pop through the other side intact, did you?

[Heyo]

4. It does in Flight Simulator 2002....

(Im still getting the hang of it)

:P

Heyo

[demodewd]

7. re: engines

The engines flew through this?

[DoYouEverWonder]

20. Maybe not intact

but a fair bit of it did come out the other side.


http://serendipity.911review.org/wot/wtc_ch2/fig-2-29.jpe

[demodewd]

6. It's coming apart?

It's coming apart? How do you know that? The nose/fuselage look very much intact and unscathed. How can that be?

[MercutioATC]

8. I see nothing wrong with theangle except for the perspective of the photos

You've obviously seen the video. Nothing amiss there.

Here's a suggestion to correct for perspective. In the top photo, visually measure the distance from the nose of the aircraft to the right corner of the building. Now measure the distance from the fuselage to the tip of the starboard wing. The second measurement is longer. Correcting for perspective, the starboard wing would be more than long enough to rip through the "side" of the tower.

Now, ignore the wings and draw an inaginary line from the tail to the nose of the plane. A projection along that path has it exiting the other side of the building right where the photo shows it exiting.

Why post photos from two different angles when an entire video (all shot from one angle) exists of the crash? The video clearly shows the plane going straight through the building.

[Endangered Specie]

9. ...

"Why post photos from two different angles when an entire video (all shot from one angle) exists of the crash?"

Pretty simple answer to that: Manipulation of small amount of Data, ignoring of all other, Standard CT Method of Operation.

[demodewd]

11. ditto ditto

Another endangered specie ditto rant.

[demodewd]

10. unscathed and straight on

You've obviously seen the video. Nothing amiss there.
What do you mean nothing amiss there? The video's angle of the plane's entry is quite similar to what I posted.
A projection along that path has it exiting the other side of the building right where the photo shows it exiting.
Hardly. The projected path of the plane would have it existing farther down the side of the building with the fuselage exiting at a tilt not straight on as exhibited by the second picture.

How do you explain the unscathed look of the projectile as it exits the building. That's some strong nose. One would think it would have collapsed like an accordian.

[demodewd]

12. diagonal shadow

You can see by the long diagonal shadow how close to the corner the exit wound is!!

[demodewd]

13. walls and cement floor(s)

That the nose of the plane would come out relatively unscathed as it appears in this frame is problematical.The fuselage would not only pass through two outer walls but concrete floors also.The 13 foot fuselage would encounter more than the ten foot floor height.

[LARED]

14. That 's the engine coming out

it was found a few blocks away.

Of course you know this, so the real question is why do you post this dribble?

[demodewd]

15. don't drivel on your dinner when you see this

A bit too large a hole for one of your engines

[LARED]

17. A bit too large?

How'd you figure that out?

What is the image supposed to be showing?

[demodewd]

18. It is...

It's the exit hole of the projectile that you claim is an engine when it is shaped more like a missile or nose.

[MercutioATC]

19. You obviously see what you want to see.

This picture offers no sense of scale and essentially just displays what appears to be an exit hole. Are you seriously saying that the SHAPE of an exit hole in a building caused by the nose or a missile would be noticeably different in this photo than an exit hole caused by an engine (or any other large part)?

[demodewd]

21. an engine?

Relating the two pictures together(emerging projectile and firey exit wound) they certainly do appear to be in tandem. That projectile looks like an engine to you?

[MercutioATC]

22. It looks like a piece of debris to me.

Since an engine was found on that side of the building, it seems reasonable that it was an engine.

It looks like a missile to you?

[demodewd]

23. too big

It doesn't look like an engine. It's too big. The
shape suggests a nose/fuselage. It looks like a missile but I don't believe it is. It punched out a hole taller than one floor. I could tell you what Leonard Spencer thinks it is...but you probably think he's a bit nuts...right?

[tngledwebb]

25. What the OCT supporters might say:

'Duh, (or more often HUH???) obviously what you are seeing is only an example of cylindrically solid lateral venting, common to recent skyscraper collapses.' What they Official Con folks will never ever say is- well I'm not sure, it certainly LOOKS strange doesn't it, I confess I am puzzled on this one.

[RH]

32. I confess to be being puzzled

as to what that sort of name calling heckling would hope to achieve.

Experience has taught me that when I've nothing usefully definite to say then it is better not to waste the space and the time.

[tngledwebb]

37. Please tell anyone where and

how any name calling occured. And did you, RH, of all people, really mean your last statement?

[RH]

39. c.f. #25

"Official Con folks"

:eyes:

[tngledwebb]

41. Sorry about this RH,

but don't see how how calling Official Conspiracy adherents (ie supporters of the Official govt version of 9/11 etc) Official Con folks (for short) qualifies as name calling. There are plenty of people here who support the official story, even if you may or may not. And some other folks get called Conspiracy NUTS and/or LIARS with nary a whimper. But from now on OCT'ers will do, in deference to your or others feelings.

[RH]

50. and your heckling would hope to achieve ....

what?

[MercutioATC]

26. You're seeing an object AND debris

ejected from the building. Even if it WAS the fuselage, why is that so difficult to believe? At the angle it entered the building, the fuselage didn't contact any major support columns, just glass and relatively thin walls.

A missile would have exploded upun impact (assuming a contact fuse)and there wouldn't be any missile left to exit the building.

[demodewd]

27. don't forget

Aren't you forgetting the concrete floors and trusses?

[demodewd]

38. Attn: Merc

You are seeing an object AND debris ejected from the building. Even if it WAS the fuselage, why is that so difficult to believe? At the angle it entered the building, the fuselage didn't contact any major support columns, just glass and relatively thin walls.

A missile would have exploded upun impact (assuming a contact fuse)and there wouldn't be any missile left to exit the building.

The average height of one story in the WTC2 was 12.38 feet in that the building measured 415 meters and had 110 stories. The fuselage therefore would have encountered a cement floor(s) with its steel reinforced trusses. That the fuselage would have succeeded in making the recorded exit is impossible under the given facts of measurement and physical circumstances.

[MercutioATC]

54. O.K, so it's not the fuselage.It's an engine...so what?

[LARED]

24. I thought you believe

the missile(s) were detonated inside the building.


So how does the missile wind up exiting the building if it was blown up inside the building to create the hollywoodish effects?

[demodewd]

28. not a missile

I don't believe it was a missile. I suggested that the projectile looked like one.

[LARED]

30. The projectile is an engine.

The FEMA report states the debris found at Church and Murray is an engine.

The imbecile from this web site http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer06.htm claims this engine was preplanted to fool people into believing it was a passenger plane;


I would suggest that the object that emerged from the NE corner of the South Tower was in fact a canister containing items of appropriate 'debris', which was propelled from the building to lend credence to the notion that a regular passenger jet hit WTC2. And if this canister did not originate from the plane we must conclude that it was already planted in the corner section the tower before the attack, to be fired out at the requisite moment. That it was a pre-planted device is strongly suggested both by its pristine condition when it emerges and its exit from the exact corner of the building.

[demodewd]

31. too small

The projectile is too large and shaped differently than an engine. A Boeing 767 Pratt and Whitney engine would be one third or less the size of the projectile.

[LARED]

33. Sure Dewd

You have no clue what the size of the projectile is.

But on the other hand, you can watch a video of the projectile leave the WTC. You can watch it travel to somewhere very close to the area of Church and Murray. You can look at the pictures of the engine found at Church and Murray. And then dismiss it all as something else.

Sure Dewd. It is plain to see you are yanking my chain.

[demodewd]

34. too big

It's at least one story high...too big for an engine.

[aeolian]

35. HAHAHAHA!!!

Wow!

1 story...well, it would seem that you've never seen a jet engine before. Or, you have no sense of distance.

So what is it? A keg?

[demodewd]

36. How tall is an engine... ?

hmmm...??? http://origin.midaddle.com/adView.aspx?requesturl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boeing.com%

[aeolian]

16. so...?

what exactly is your point?

Are you suggesting that, in the time between the aircraft striking the building and some blurry piece of debris exiting the other side, the airplane was somehow switched, removed, or replaced? To what end and purpose?

[impe]

29. Did the video end there?

...no one captured "said object" coming out the other side and zooming down the street.

[demodewd]

40. directional momentum of plane and engines

The angle of the plane's entry shows that the plane was actually veering to the left towards the center of the building as opposed to cutting to the right.If the engines were to have cut loose from the rest of the body upon impact their momentum would have sent them flying with the plane's momentum. To the left.

[aeolian]

42. again, I ask

so what?

What grand conspiracy does this "prove?"

[demodewd]

43. was not

Whatever popped out from that side of the building was not the plane or any parts of it.

[demodewd]

44. data and summary

The following taken from http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2220&start=15 poster-"endgame"

Plane Fuselage Penetration of South Tower. NOT POSSIBLE

It is time that we fully debunk that the 767-222 (if that is what it was) impacted the south tower of the WTC at a speed of 537 – 586 mph and that the fuselage and/or cockpit traveled through the tower and exited the far side of the tower.

Boeing 767-200 Fuselage Diameter

The maximum fuselage diameter is 16 feet 6 inches (5.03 meters).

http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jawa/boeing_767.shtml
Note: Excellent information on 767s from Janes at the above link. Highly recommended.

Height Between Floors

Source: Information is from the second chapter of the FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study in html format. The link below has comments added by an unknown critic, which are helpful and insightful.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch2.htm#fig-2-29

Floor construction typically consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) of lightweight concrete on 1-1/2 inch (38 mm), 22-gauge non-composite steel deck. In the core area, slab thickness was 5 inches 13 cm). See Figure 2-9 for a picture and the text after Figure 2-5.

The tower floors were 12 feet 5 inches (3.78 meters) high.

Floors were supported by trusses with an overall height of 2 feet 5 inches (74 cm). Adding the floor height of 4 inches (10 cm), we have a total floor construction height of 2 feet 9 inches (84 cm).

Therefore this provides a clear floor to ceiling height of 9 feeet 8 inches (2.95 meters).

Fuselage Diameter vs. Floor to Ceiling Height

The 767-222 fuselage maximum diameter is 16 feet 6 inches (5.03 meters).

The floor to ceiling height is 9 feeet 8 inches (2.95 meters).

The fuselage cannot fit into the floor to ceiling height.
If we eliminate the floor trusses, the floor to ceiling height is still 12 feet 5 inches (3.78 meters).

The width of the tower was 208 feet (63 meters).

The fuselage and/or cockpit would have to laterally bisect the floor a minimum distance of 208 feet (63 meters). Simply not possible.

Exterior Box Columns

The towers' had a series of closely spaced built-up box columns on the exterior. At typical floors, with 59 of perimeter columns on each faces of the building. These columns were built up by welding four plates together to form an approximately 14-inch (36 cm) square section, spaced at 40 inches (102 cm) on center. Note that these are not I-beams. Refer to text below Figure 2-1 in the following link:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch2.htm

The FEMA report only states the columns were made of steel sheet varying from ¼ inch to 4 inches (0.63 cm – 10 cm), depending on the location. I have no information on the spandrel plate thickness. Does anybody have this information?

With a fuselage diameter of 16 feet 6 inches (5.03 meters) and column spacing of 40 inches (102 cm), the fuselage would have to penetrate five box columns on entry and another five columns on exit for a total of ten columns. The cockpit might have to penetrate a total of 6 – 8 columns because of its smaller diameter (depending on where it is measured). Simply not possible.

Spandrels

The columns were interconnected at each floor level by spandrel plates with typically 52 inches (132 cm) in height. The vertical space between the pandrel plates would be 97 inches (246 cm). This is calculated by suptracting the spandrel height of 52 inches from the floor spacing of 12 feet 5 inches.

The cockpit/fuselage would have to penetrate at least one spandrel plate on entry and another spandrel plate on exit. Simply not possible.

Summary

For the fuselage and/or cockpit to penetrate through the tower it would be necessary to:

Bisect the entire concrete and steel floor laterally a minimum distance of 208 feet (63 meters);

Penetrate through numerous ceiling truses;

Penetrate through 6 – 10 vertical box columns;


Penetrate through two spandrel plates;

And penetrate through interior walls, piping, furniture ….

[LARED]

45. Your summary neglected to take into account

the engine found at Church and Murray street. The same engine that if you follow the flight path of said object in the video lands right around Church and Murray.

How are you going to explain that?

[demodewd]

46. part of core projectile

The directional momentum of the plane prohibits the engine from exiting at the location you insist that it exited. The engine found at Church and Murray was probably part of an ejected core projectile(the one we see emerging from the building). Bear in mind that the projectile you witness exiting the adjacent wall was not thrust there by the fuel blast which occurs a split second after the frame. There is no other feasible explanation other than it being surreptitiously placed there which I doubt. Please refrain from using such words as drivel and imbecile in your response.

[LARED]

48. Please explain what this means

The directional momentum of the plane prohibits the engine from exiting at the location you insist that it exited.

I have no clue what directional momentum means in the context you are using.

[LARED]

49. I just noticed this from another post

The angle of the plane's entry shows that the plane was actually veering to the left to the center of the building as opposed to cutting to the right.If the engines were to have cut loose from the rest of the body upon impact their momentum would have sent them flying with the plane's momentum. To the left.

Sorry, free body dynamics do not work this way. Once the engines are cut loose as you state they move in a straight line.

Think of a ball on a string - that you are spinning around - and you suddenly cut the string. The ball does not continue to rotate in the same arc it did. It flies straight the moment the string is not pulling into the arc.

[demodewd]

51. straight line

Sorry, free body dynamics do not work this way. Once the engines are cut loose as you state they move in a straight line.

Think of a ball on a string - that you are spinning around - and you suddenly cut the string. The ball does not continue to rotate in the same arc it did. It flies straight the moment the string is not pulling into the arc.

The engines are moving in a leftward direction as they enter the building which means that if cut loose woulkd continue in that direction..a straight line. They are not moving towards the right . They would not move in that direction.

[LARED]

52. Ok;

For the moment lets assume the the jet was moving in a leftward direction as you claim.

In an idealized world where the building is hollow and the walls are paper, were do you think the right engine would have exited the building?

[demodewd]

53. the engine that said it could

That question can only be answered relative to where the engine lands in the building. Is it freed from the imposition of the cement floor and the steel trusses? If so it would probably continue in its slightly left trajectory knocking out walls and blowing over furniture if need be until it reached a core column where it would probably come to a stop. If it evaded the core column(s)it would continue on to the far wall and emerge if it still had enough volition. If the engine were to hit on the cement floor section and steel trusses it would be slowed to a stop in short order. At any rate this whole speculation is moot considering that the projectile that emerged from the wall was way too long and too big to be an engine.

[LARED]

55. It was a simple request

Why all the distraction?

Lets try it again


For the moment lets assume the the jet was moving in a leftward direction as you claim.

In an idealized world where the building is hollow and the walls are paper, were do you think the right engine would have exited the building?

I only ask because I am trying to understand how much of a leftward vector you believe existed.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

47. An engine is not the fuselage,

an engine has a much smaller diameter than the fuselage. An engine also has the advantage of higher density material that would help to keep its momentum going.

On a side note, I find it quite appalling that so many people on this forum seem to go out of their way to make disparaging comments about those who's posts that they don't agree with. Can we grow a little maturity please.

[TrogL]

56. Two different camera angles

Look at the sunlight. Picture one shows what on picture two would be the left face of the building. The pictures are 90 degrees apart.