The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been temporarily enabled; take advantage of it!

NIST's UA175 impact simulation wrong

Analysis of airplane impacts.

NIST's UA175 impact simulation wrong

Postby peterene1 » Sat Jun 27, 2009 4:37 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5LuUpcCwU

UA175 trajectory was exactly perpendicular to the south wall, the plane was also in precisely horizontal position.

Draw your own conclusions.....
peterene1
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:24 am

 

Re: NIST's UA175 impact simulation wrong

Postby femr2 » Sun Jun 28, 2009 3:52 pm

Thorough and detailed video. Good stuff, though my view is always to retain as much simplicity as possible.

Image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzRljtPjOhM
Hope this short animation simplifies confirmation of the entry angles.
femr2
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:08 am
Location: UK

Re: NIST's UA175 impact simulation wrong

Postby einsteen » Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:37 pm

What's this exactly, could you summarize what is wrong.
einsteen
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:19 pm

Re: NIST's UA175 impact simulation wrong

Postby peterene1 » Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:32 pm

I make these video posts for a good reason.I can summarize the content in a few sentences , but the video goes into very deep detail, so I would have to write a very long post.

Everytime when I post a video it is a high quality content and you should watch it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5LuUpcCwU

Anyway, if you want it:

A very precise 4D model of UA175's flight path has been done.From that model we can learn that the final moments of the flight were controlled by a computer.Why?

You should watch the two videos (15 minutes of time).

The important thing is that the plane took exactly horizontal vector and that the plane hit exactly perpendicular to the south wall (no measurable deviation).This is very strange, because the plane would not hit the ST if it weren't for the second last maneuver 5s before the impact.

Anyway what are the chances that the hijacker would fly the plane into exactly perpendicular and horizontal vector?.....

NIST says that the plane hit 6°downwards and 13°towards the east face.

Why they did it? Either some idiot was put in charge of the plane tracking or they were shocked by the preciseness of the strike - 0°downwards 0°sideways

Anyway the simulation is based on the wrong data, so every result of NIST simulation isn't precise.

BTW

The plane hit betwen the 77th and 85th floor.The bowing of the east wall was measured between 77th and 83rd floor.

You know what's funny?

The majority of 900 and 1000 row columns (the closest ones to the east wall) had box column/I columns transition at the 77th and 80th floor.

Image

Thermite has to be in direct contact with the column wall to collapse it.


Image

Image

Image

The attack on the transition is the most efficient type of attack on any of the core columns. (attack on the box column would require 4-5 walls and the contact of the molten iron with the column would be minimal, attack on I column would require 2-3 walls of armor/ceramic plate - the contact of the iron would be maximal, the attack on the transition would require 1-2 walls with maximal contact + this position is the most stable position (in regard to the stability of the charge position).

Image

It is only a coincidence that the plane flew to the area with these transitions and that the start of the bowing at 77th floor exactly matches the first row of the transitions?

I doubt it.

Please, give me your response.It would be nice to hear that at least somebody cares about the precollapse analysis.
peterene1
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:24 am

Re: NIST's UA175 impact simulation wrong

Postby femr2 » Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:36 pm

peterene1 wrote:what are the chances that the hijacker would fly the plane into exactly perpendicular and horizontal vector?.....

Given the 'last minute' trajectory manouvers..I'd say...ZERO.

NIST says that the plane hit 6°downwards and 13°towards the east face.

Why they did it? Either some idiot was put in charge of the plane tracking or they were shocked by the preciseness of the strike - 0°downwards 0°sideways

They had to try and explain the damage and ejecta from the building somehow.

With a 0° impact, how can this ejecta at the mechanical floor region be explained ?
Image
WTC 2 Mechanical Floor Damage

The NE corner ejecta is also totally at-odds with a 0° impact.
With a 0° impact, how can the east side emphasis of all ejecta be explained...

It cannot.

That, I suggest, is why NIST chose those values.

Please, give me your response.It would be nice to hear that at least somebody cares about the precollapse analysis.

It's quite a difficult topic to make response to, but if we can focus on the implications of the 0° impact for a short time, I'll try and form a decent response.
femr2
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:08 am
Location: UK

Re: NIST's UA175 impact simulation wrong

Postby Matt » Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:43 am

Brilliant. Thanks.


Now the ramifications...
Matt
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:03 am

Re: NIST's UA175 impact simulation wrong

Postby femr2 » Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:34 am

Image
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/1-0-137-3

A quick cross-check with the NIST figures for entry angle.

(Sorry about the landing gear. 767-200 models are surprisingly hard to get hold of, and slicing the wheels off can wait, as can impact damage. The aircraft is also a little big (176ft rather than 156ft wingspan, but it's just to see the orientation at the mo). Easily fixed. The engines are already inside :) )

Please note the significant amount of right wing which would not have penetrated the facade, at the point the tip of the left wing is about to pass the plane of the facade.

(I'll post a video containing rotoscope comparison between the actual events and the NIST specified entry orientation, and another with a nearest match, which will allow very precise reversing of the peterene process as a control.)
femr2
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:08 am
Location: UK

Re: NIST's UA175 impact simulation wrong

Postby femr2 » Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:26 pm

Dr. G. wrote:The engines do not appear to impact the south face at the same instant.

The following image shows the point at which the right hand engine makes contact with the facade using the NIST orientation angles:

Image
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/1-0-138

It's a frame from this draft video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4OOrEm3Wig

Notice that a significant portion of the left hand engine has already penetrated the facade, and compare to video of the actual event.

Image

The aircraft is sized correctly, but still haven't chopped the wheels off. No matter.

What would be very useful is very specific data on camera locations and nose-cone impact point.
femr2
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:08 am
Location: UK

Re: NIST's UA175 impact simulation wrong

Postby Major_Tom » Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:57 pm

In addition to the impact, the approach of the plane (quick drop in altitude and sharp last second left turn) shows these guys from Al Qaida were quite talented at the controls.


I think the NIST angle info comes from the approach as seen in the following femr clip, scenes 2 and 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js301BwGopc

The NIST angles seem to relate to the angle of the plane seen in the clip, not the actual angle upon impact.
Major_Tom
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:04 pm

Re: NIST's UA175 impact simulation wrong

Postby Dr. G » Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:42 pm

femr2:

You pose the question:

how can this ejecta at the mechanical floor region be explained ?


Well, I believe the air conditioning exhaust ducts for the Twin Towers were on the mechanical floors.
Dr. G
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:29 pm

Re: NIST's UA175 impact simulation wrong

Postby femr2 » Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:46 pm

Dr. G wrote:I believe the air conditioning exhaust ducts for the Twin Towers were on the mechanical floors.

How likely do you think it is that the same ejecta could be caused by two totally differing modes of destruction ?

One being impact of an aircraft and subsequent explosion, and the other being 'collapse' of the building.

Highlighted in the video posted in the previous comment by MT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js301BwGopc

Were the ducts only present in the north facing side of the mechanical floor region ?
femr2
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:08 am
Location: UK

Re: NIST's UA175 impact simulation wrong

Postby peterene1 » Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:57 pm

So, femr2, can we agree that the NIST angle is total ALI-BABA nonsense?

and that the almost perpendicular vector is more probable for now..?

to Major Tom:

Yes, they were some geniuses, their descent was very constant, then they took the same non-changing trajectory, that would miss the tower, in the last 5 seconds they made a maneuver that made the plane reach the tower and in the 2s mark they took the plane into exactly horizontal and perpendicular vector....

Hell, no.

Not even Dr.G would belive this, would he?
peterene1
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:24 am

Re: NIST's UA175 impact simulation wrong

Postby femr2 » Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:07 pm

Zero Degree Impact

The same bank angle is used, which will require tweaking to conform to the impact damage outline once I have overlaid it upon the simulated tower. I'll also have to ensure that the camera angle is as accurate as possible (Note at end of post. Hint.)

Image
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/1-0-139

It's a frame from this draft video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbEaRwR3xUQ

Notice that wing entry correlation appears much closer between simulated and actual, though the rear of the fuselage appears to be slightly off. This may be a camera angle issue.

Image

At this point...

NIST is well off. Not exactly zero degrees either, but a lot closer to zero than the NIST guesstimates (for want of a polite word).

Again, what would be very useful is very specific data on camera locations and nose-cone impact point.
femr2
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:08 am
Location: UK

Re: NIST's UA175 impact simulation wrong

Postby Dr. G » Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:59 am

If I recall correctly, I do believe the WTC 2 impact footage in question was supposedly taken from a location in Battery Park many kms to the South of WTC 2. Trouble is, some truthers showed there would be a bunch of trees in the way of the shots taken from the alleged location. This has been a big issue with the no-planers, .... which raises the ugly question of the authenticity of any of the 9/11 TV coverage.
Dr. G
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:29 pm

Re: NIST's UA175 impact simulation wrong

Postby femr2 » Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:57 am

Dr. G wrote:If I recall correctly, I do believe the WTC 2 impact footage in question was supposedly taken from a location in Battery Park many kms to the South of WTC 2. Trouble is, some truthers showed there would be a bunch of trees in the way of the shots taken from the alleged location. This has been a big issue with the no-planers, .... which raises the ugly question of the authenticity of any of the 9/11 TV coverage.

Well, a couple of km, and Battery Park is a good start for me. My current camera is around 1500ft away at the moment.
We can only go by the footage we have available, and I'll be using the same model with multiple cameras (one for each piece of footage) so if there are issues with one or more it'll come out in the wash.
I doubt any of those who doubt authenticity have actually gone to the trouble of using correctly scaled and accurately placed models, taken lens and perspective issues into account, depth of field, ...
femr2
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:08 am
Location: UK

Next



Return to WTC1 and WTC2 - Impacts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

suspicion-preferred