It Fits!!!!! (NOT)
The old FEMA diagram superimposing a 767 over the WTC2 hole, where the plane doesn't quite fit:
The final NIST diagram superimposing a 767 over the WTC2 hole, where NOW the plane fits perfectly:
Wow, those NIST guys are GOOOOD!
So, the question of course is: has NIST changed the hole shape and dimensions fairly significantly from the FEMA hole?
Here are two photos of the hole:
My inspection of the photos says that...er... it's really hard to tell what diagram is more accurate, in terms of the hole.
However, what clearly seems to be the case is that somehow, NIST got the engines to align with the holes better. So let's look at the engines more carefully.
Interestingly, the FEMA diagram has the engines spaced just about 5 sets of columns (3 columns per set) apart, whereas the NIST diagram has the engines only 4.5 sets of columns apart.
Now, we know how big these column sets are (9.9 feet wide per group of three), and we also know how far apart the engines on a 767 are (I calculate 51 feet)-- so we can readily check which diagram is more accurate.
As it turns out the NIST engine spacing is better, as the ratio of five sets of columns to the NIST engine spacing is 1.1 (should be 1.0), whereas it is a larger ratio for the FEMA model (1.2).
So this explains why the NIST engines fit better. NIST also has a higher bank angle than the FEMA diagram, for reasons that are not entirely clear. NIST also doesn't line up the port wing with the gash very well, and you can see why: if they moved the port wing up to line up with the gash, then the fuselage would be blocked significantly. I suppose official story supporters could argue the port wing was flexed upwards from the turn, although I have not seen any photos of the plane right before it hit that show such a strong wing flexing.
The bottom line is, there are still significant problems with even the NIST alignment:
1) the port wing doesn't line up with the gash in the wall
2) there is no way the port horizontal stabilizer could have gone into the building without breaking off (it's completely blocked by columns)-- but no such thing is shown in any video of the plane hitting
3) it is not clear what happened to the tips of the wings, since they do not break off in the videos, but the columns where the wingtips hit are not severed.
4) the entry hole is blocked by a large amount of debris that would appear to block the path of the plane. It's very hard to believe the plane would push this debris aside upon entry, then this debris would get pushed back into the hole after disintegration of the plane, without any part of the plane also getting pushed back into the hole.
This is on top of other problems with the second hit:
1) the plane in the videos does not slow upon impacting,
2) the various videos of the second plane have a large number of serious anomalies,
3) no black boxes were found,
4) very few if any plane parts were found in the WTC wreckage.
So, apart from the videos of the plane, this strange hole in the building and a few plane parts that may well have been planted on the streets, what IS the evidence that a plane hit the South tower?
NOTE: my initial calculations on the NIST engine fit were flawed and have been removed.
The final NIST diagram superimposing a 767 over the WTC2 hole, where NOW the plane fits perfectly:
Wow, those NIST guys are GOOOOD!
So, the question of course is: has NIST changed the hole shape and dimensions fairly significantly from the FEMA hole?
Here are two photos of the hole:
My inspection of the photos says that...er... it's really hard to tell what diagram is more accurate, in terms of the hole.
However, what clearly seems to be the case is that somehow, NIST got the engines to align with the holes better. So let's look at the engines more carefully.
Interestingly, the FEMA diagram has the engines spaced just about 5 sets of columns (3 columns per set) apart, whereas the NIST diagram has the engines only 4.5 sets of columns apart.
Now, we know how big these column sets are (9.9 feet wide per group of three), and we also know how far apart the engines on a 767 are (I calculate 51 feet)-- so we can readily check which diagram is more accurate.
As it turns out the NIST engine spacing is better, as the ratio of five sets of columns to the NIST engine spacing is 1.1 (should be 1.0), whereas it is a larger ratio for the FEMA model (1.2).
So this explains why the NIST engines fit better. NIST also has a higher bank angle than the FEMA diagram, for reasons that are not entirely clear. NIST also doesn't line up the port wing with the gash very well, and you can see why: if they moved the port wing up to line up with the gash, then the fuselage would be blocked significantly. I suppose official story supporters could argue the port wing was flexed upwards from the turn, although I have not seen any photos of the plane right before it hit that show such a strong wing flexing.
The bottom line is, there are still significant problems with even the NIST alignment:
1) the port wing doesn't line up with the gash in the wall
2) there is no way the port horizontal stabilizer could have gone into the building without breaking off (it's completely blocked by columns)-- but no such thing is shown in any video of the plane hitting
3) it is not clear what happened to the tips of the wings, since they do not break off in the videos, but the columns where the wingtips hit are not severed.
4) the entry hole is blocked by a large amount of debris that would appear to block the path of the plane. It's very hard to believe the plane would push this debris aside upon entry, then this debris would get pushed back into the hole after disintegration of the plane, without any part of the plane also getting pushed back into the hole.
This is on top of other problems with the second hit:
1) the plane in the videos does not slow upon impacting,
2) the various videos of the second plane have a large number of serious anomalies,
3) no black boxes were found,
4) very few if any plane parts were found in the WTC wreckage.
So, apart from the videos of the plane, this strange hole in the building and a few plane parts that may well have been planted on the streets, what IS the evidence that a plane hit the South tower?
NOTE: my initial calculations on the NIST engine fit were flawed and have been removed.
posted by spooked at 8:43 AM
6 Comments:
HA!!
Give them enough time, and they'll alter and rearrange the exterior column damage to make a B-52 fit through...if they have to. Just like they did here.
:-)
Hey, P.S. --check out the updated post!
So, apart from the videos of the plane, this strange hole in the building and a few plane parts that may well have been planted on the streets, and thousands of eyewitnesses, what IS the evidence that a plane hit the South tower?
This reminds me of Monty Python's the Life of Brian.
Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
"thousands of eyewitnesses"
ahh, yes, the claim that there were 'thousands of eyewitnesses' never ceases to amazes me..
i have watched the 911 chronolgy source material a few times. it's put together nicely and displays what FOX and CNN were showing on the morning of 9/11, side by side. You need to adjust the aspect ratio to display the video properly, and it's helpful to switch between audio channels and focus on one particular broadcast: (http://www.archive.org/details/911-Chronology-Source)
pay attention to the CNN coverage just before the first tower was 'hit'. i believe that CNN had clicked over to a local WCBS(?) feed. either way, there is an interview with a man who is onsight outside WTC1 as WTC2 is 'hit' by the 'plane'. he doesn't hear any jet engines sounds, and immediately assumes that whatever explosion has just occured happened in WTC1, not in WTC2.
point being, here's one eyewitness who is obviously uncertain about whats going on. can we really continue to credit 'thousands of eyewitnesses' as seeing the 'second plane hit'?
thousands of people were eyewitnesses to the events of that day, but certainly thousands of people were NOT eyewitnesses to the 'second plane'.
keep up the great work, spooked!
good one, anon-- except for the thousands of "eyewitnesses", that is.
And, perhaps you can explain how the port horizontal stabilizer entered the building?
so you see a part of a plane travelling, hundred of miles an hour, smashing into a solid wall and not being able to find a huge peice of the plane as more suspicous than the footage was manufactured, or that the governemt had an invovlement in destroying and killing hundreds of people, and running the risk of getting caught, or prhaps that everyone in new york that day was in on it, or shall we go with the undeniable truth that of course the bulding were rigged to fall.
by the way seen as you appear to have trouble from telling fact from fiction i am of course being sarcastic.
Post a Comment
<< Home