Hey, Where'd That Engine Come From?
UPDATED BELOW
I kept waiting and looking for someone else to do this analysis, but I figured I'd go ahead and do it after I noticed Judy Wood alluded to it in her updated beam weapon paper (see Figure 9). She noted that the engine had to go over some fairly tall buildings to land where it was found.
That is why I was looking at this video:
because it has the best angle for seeing the eject from the South tower explosion.
Here is a diagram of where the engine landed:
Here is a diagram of the ejects from the South tower explosion taken from the video above:
I marked conservative trajectories for the ejects that have the chance of going the furthest. By conservative, I mean I actually extended the ejected debris' trajectories as much as possible to maximize the distance (you'll see why in a moment). Eject 2 is larger and more intensely flaming. It goes a shorter distance than eject 1. Eject 1 flames out very early and thus is unlikely to be the engine, but I've included it here because its' trajectory puts it on a further path than eject 2.
On a separate piece of paper (not shown), I extended the towers to ground level and extended the trajectories to surface level. While admittedly this is key analysis I am not showing, you'll have to trust me when I say that eject 1 (which is not even very likely to be the engine) could not have gone further than 4.6 WTC lengths from the North tower.
This is shown here:
Keep in mind, that I am trying to maximize the distance the ejected debris could have traveled, and it still doesn't get there-- again assuming the engine was not the largest most flaming ejected debris.
All in all, it seems rather likely the engine piece was planted, for the following reasons:
1) the engine was not clearly the right type for a 767 and was certainly never identified as a 767 engine by the government
2) the engine piece was found under a construction canopy, without any hole in the top and without any major disruption of the sidewalk
3) I know of no witness describing the flaming engine coming from the south tower
and landing on the sidewalk
4) the engine was much too far from the south tower to be the flaming ejected debris from the tower explosion
5) the engine was most likely too far from the south tower to be the ejected debris from the tower explosion that flamed out early in its path, and moreover the engine would be more likely to be the flaming debris
I welcome anyone's else analysis on this.
UPDATE, 11.7.06-- Here is the diagram to which I alluded:
Here is an updated map showing where the flaming debris came down:
It should be clear that the large flaming debris doesn't come close to where the egnine component was found.
ALSO NOTE: there is a VERY LARGE building between the maximum trajectory distance and where the engine was found. Thus, even if my trajectory distance analysis is too short, there is still the problem that the debris was getting low out at the end of its path and it seems essentially impossible that it could have hopped over the tall building in front of the Church and Murray intersection.
ALSO NOTE AS WELL: where the engine piece was found, at Church and Murray, is really quite off from the trajectory of the official plane path. It is not so noticeable in the cartoon shown above but it is very noticeable in the overhead photo. Thus, it seems even more unlikely that the engine came from a plane impacting the South tower, since it is unlikely an engine going through a building and deflected at an angle would travel so far.
The final killer piece of evidence, as noted by a commenter, is that officially the starboard engine HIT A FLOOR SLAB. Meaning that it is almost impossible that the engine could have flown at high speed out the other side after smashing into outer steel column, a steel spandrel plate and a concrete floor slab.
Since the "UA175" port engine officially had to travel through the dense steel network of the core section of the building, there is no way it could have made it through the building, and there is little sign of anything exiting the north face of the south tower near the core section.
I kept waiting and looking for someone else to do this analysis, but I figured I'd go ahead and do it after I noticed Judy Wood alluded to it in her updated beam weapon paper (see Figure 9). She noted that the engine had to go over some fairly tall buildings to land where it was found.
That is why I was looking at this video:
because it has the best angle for seeing the eject from the South tower explosion.
Here is a diagram of where the engine landed:
Here is a diagram of the ejects from the South tower explosion taken from the video above:
I marked conservative trajectories for the ejects that have the chance of going the furthest. By conservative, I mean I actually extended the ejected debris' trajectories as much as possible to maximize the distance (you'll see why in a moment). Eject 2 is larger and more intensely flaming. It goes a shorter distance than eject 1. Eject 1 flames out very early and thus is unlikely to be the engine, but I've included it here because its' trajectory puts it on a further path than eject 2.
On a separate piece of paper (not shown), I extended the towers to ground level and extended the trajectories to surface level. While admittedly this is key analysis I am not showing, you'll have to trust me when I say that eject 1 (which is not even very likely to be the engine) could not have gone further than 4.6 WTC lengths from the North tower.
This is shown here:
Keep in mind, that I am trying to maximize the distance the ejected debris could have traveled, and it still doesn't get there-- again assuming the engine was not the largest most flaming ejected debris.
All in all, it seems rather likely the engine piece was planted, for the following reasons:
1) the engine was not clearly the right type for a 767 and was certainly never identified as a 767 engine by the government
2) the engine piece was found under a construction canopy, without any hole in the top and without any major disruption of the sidewalk
3) I know of no witness describing the flaming engine coming from the south tower
and landing on the sidewalk
4) the engine was much too far from the south tower to be the flaming ejected debris from the tower explosion
5) the engine was most likely too far from the south tower to be the ejected debris from the tower explosion that flamed out early in its path, and moreover the engine would be more likely to be the flaming debris
I welcome anyone's else analysis on this.
UPDATE, 11.7.06-- Here is the diagram to which I alluded:
Here is an updated map showing where the flaming debris came down:
It should be clear that the large flaming debris doesn't come close to where the egnine component was found.
ALSO NOTE: there is a VERY LARGE building between the maximum trajectory distance and where the engine was found. Thus, even if my trajectory distance analysis is too short, there is still the problem that the debris was getting low out at the end of its path and it seems essentially impossible that it could have hopped over the tall building in front of the Church and Murray intersection.
ALSO NOTE AS WELL: where the engine piece was found, at Church and Murray, is really quite off from the trajectory of the official plane path. It is not so noticeable in the cartoon shown above but it is very noticeable in the overhead photo. Thus, it seems even more unlikely that the engine came from a plane impacting the South tower, since it is unlikely an engine going through a building and deflected at an angle would travel so far.
The final killer piece of evidence, as noted by a commenter, is that officially the starboard engine HIT A FLOOR SLAB. Meaning that it is almost impossible that the engine could have flown at high speed out the other side after smashing into outer steel column, a steel spandrel plate and a concrete floor slab.
Since the "UA175" port engine officially had to travel through the dense steel network of the core section of the building, there is no way it could have made it through the building, and there is little sign of anything exiting the north face of the south tower near the core section.
posted by spooked at 2:03 PM
5 Comments:
I never noticed on that NIST map that the exit hole in the South Tower is larger than the entry hole of the North Tower. LoL! Funny since there was hardly anything of an exit hole in the South Tower.
nice job spooked - please keep it up!
"On a separate piece of paper (not shown), I extended the towers to ground level and extended the trajectories to surface level. While admittedly this is key analysis I am not showing, you'll have to trust me when I say that eject 1 (which is not even very likely to be the engine) could not have gone further than 4.6 WTC lengths from the North tower."
LOL....good call, Spook! If I were you I wouldn't wanty another one of my "diagrams" out on the internet!
could those ejects have been from missiles? (if there weren't planes)
Looking at the video, is it possible to determine at what point the right engine hit the South Tower -- at a floor or between floors? I recall the NIST report showing the engine hit right at a floor, which would have slowed it down a lot more.
Post a Comment
<< Home