Animations of Planes Hitting the Twin Towers
Two animations purport to model flights 11 and 175 crashing into the North and South Towers:
Here's the animation for WTC 1
Here's the animation for WTC 2
These animations were posted at the website of Engineering News-Record, a subsidiary of McGraw-Hill, back in 2003 (I just saw them yesterday for the first time).
And NIST has made 2 animations of its own:
NIST's animations are linked from this page.
Are these animations accurate, in the sense that they show what Boeings crashing into the Twin Towers would have looked like? If so, does that refute the argument that there should have been more aircraft debris outside of the Twin Towers?
If the animations are not accurate, would discrediting them also help to discredit animations of the purported Pentagon plane crash?
- Login to post comments
Ok, I'm confused. Why is
Ok, I'm confused. Why is World Net Daily entrenched in "conspiracy theory world" articles and do cumentaries , and even has some great 9/11 truth exposes(Pakistani ISI and 9/11, guns banned in cockpit before 9/11, WTC 1993 an inside job)
and now they are so focused on attacki ng the truth movement.
I was reading their latest hit piece, and there was a big ol ad for "America's Secret Destiny", a documentary about the Illuminati controlling America and the government...and I was thinking "WND is schizophrenic".
No commercial airliners struck their target on 9/11
I don't know what those grid lines are supposed to depict, but I do not believe that any normal commercial flights struck targets on 9/11.
Prepare for flames
Sure, the easiest debunk is shanksville (small hole and it allegedly vaporized? please). The pentagon is fought on, but I think it's safe to say no-757.
Then we get to the WTCs... and all hell breaks loose emotionally. :)
No source ?
Who made these? What experience does the maker have? Why the hell should I care about some no-source cartoons?
I'm not actually sure of the
I'm not actually sure of the original source, perhaps someone else is.. These animations aren't new, I've seen them a long time ago..
i don't think that's what
i don't think that's what would actually happen if a 767 hit the wtc. it certainly doesn't accurately depict what DID happen either. it seems like a lame attempt at passing off what we saw on tv as actually being within the realm of possibility.
I can't be trusted!
In both of the SIX frame two inch square High Definition (cough) images.... suggests that three of the four engines (the starboard eng in WTC 2 never possessed a trajectory heading toward the core) where able to make it to the far side of the massive and proportionally "tight" core construction (not depicted), as if odds would allow the engs. to pass without substantial deflection, nor loss of kinetic energy. All three eng. are depicted as passing through multiple vertical box columns, OR MISSING THEM. Which is it going to be?
Lets consider the odds of missing, and thus not damaging, the core box columns. Debate falls back on fire and its ability to fail the structure. Whatever.
Or, the more likely odds of striking numerous columns. There in remains the odds of severing enough box columns, to make it to the far side of the building's core, as depicted for all three engines with core bound trajectories.
The animation suggests, as logic would concur, that most of the outer by-pass turbo fans and shroud would be stripped away when passing through the outer walls, leaving the dense jet core to continue on. This eng. core may be calculated as still retaining five tons of mass. Lets make it ten, times two engines for WTC 1, makes twenty tons of dense engine core to pass through the building core.
At that building elevation, the box columns had reduced internal dimensions, thinning down the steel walls to say 1.5 inches. A trajectory allowing the worst case of passing through the most number of box columns, makes 5 to 8 columns to be severed, in worst case. 24 inches of vertical hight, 3888 cubic inches of steel per column, by 5 = 20k and by 8 = 31k cubic inches of structural steel (go with the pot metal value of 30KPSI) makes 933 million lbs of resistance for ONE ten ton core to remove....... I'm looking at a 1 to 46,000 ratio.
This is dumb already. In the worst case, both engines making it all the way through the building core... their are still 31 box columns that need to be weakened by fire.... in a perfectly symmetrical fashion.
This was a waist of time.... besides... I'm admittedly biased against the Bush Fucker Gang to be trusted calculating the chances that they would tell the truth.
What can I say.
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Impact orientation to the cores
George, I looked around at enr.construction.com for an article in which these animations appeared to no avail. Do you have any more info on the source?
The 9/11 Commission report described the cores of the twin towers as a hollow steel shaft. Only the completely cluless would still believe this.
What is interesting and simple about the animations, though, is the relative orientation of impact to the core of each tower and how each was distinctly different. While I knew that the "hollow steel shaft" was fabrication of the 9/11 Commission, embarassingly, I only realized the significant difference in impact orientation just a few months ago.
The animations show that WTC1 may have taken a more compromising hit to it's core than did WTC 2. Yet, WTC2 fell first and both collapses were symmetrical about their respective axis. Therefore, these animations may be useful for demonstrating to OTC believers the uniqueness of the impacts and possible resulting interior damage, fire spread, etc. which belie the fact that both collapses were symmetrical.
Simple, small file size, perhaps useful on a web page for illustration. Lift 'em while you can.
Waiting for more info
I haven't found any more info about these animations. I've written to McGraw-Hill asking for more info, but haven't yet received a response.
That dog don't hunt!
Many videos clearly show the nose of the second plane exiting the other side of the building.
These "animations" are a figment of someones imagination. They certainly are not based on clearly observable phenomena.
video of 2nd WTC plane strike
Nose out
Chris Rose is correct.
Which you can see here in a screenshot:
This isn't the only mistake the CGI did.
Here is another CGI nose out, then blankouted by FOX5, to hide the mistake:
more here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2377
that nose that pokes out the
that nose that pokes out the back of the tower seems to be casting a shadow but if you look at the side where it poked out it didn't leave any hole!
http://nineeleven2001.t35.com/images/newyork-5.html
click my name to see more strange 9/11 images.
James,
James,
the shadow doesn't come from the CGI
but from the cloud of the explosion IMO.
Just stop and go slowly forward the video and you will see how the shadow grows, after the CGI nose is not there anymore (possibly already cloaked or halted by upload software)
Here another screenshot a few milliseconds after 'CGI nose out':
Therefore this footage also couldn't have filmed a "missile"
that is SO just a weird shape the smoke/debris/hot gas had
at that particular instant in time... plus the rest of the tape has some weird flying blob that seems, um, de trop. this is just not convincing. i do try to keep an open mind but this is just not worth the effort from what I can see. certainly not worth all the hoopla being made and aspersions being cast about. got anything else?
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
Yeah, right
I gave you and your ridiculous meanderings the benefit of the doubt for a long time, Nico. But I don't believe that you actually think that looks like the nose of an airplane. You're not that stupid, are you? Why are you lying?
I didn't say that's the nose
I didn't say that's the nose of an airplane.
I said that's the 'nose' of the CGI.
Yeah
And you're lying.
prove, what else it was...
prove, what else it was...
Prove
Prove that you believe that it looks like a CGI'd nose plane. Because it doesn't and I don't believe you are actually that stupid.
"Nose exiting the other side of the Tower"
...
absurd and impossible.
The nose would have been crushed instantly upon impact.
Only a hardened missile could possibly have made it all the way through the Tower.
The plane would have been smashed into pieces immediately.
Never mind.
Never mind.
crushed instantly?
I agree, but neither the vids nor this animation seem to show this.
I think it was more of an artists rendition. What is needed is a few more frames in the mid range, and a few after the end (to see if the animation shows pieces eject) to see if this truly holds any sort of basis in reality.
wow that camera man did a
wow that camera man did a great job of zooming out at the exact right moment didn't he? how did he know to do that just then? for that matter all the videos shot from about that distance seemed to have great zoom-outs at the exact right moments - how did they all know to do that just then?
um, the sound of an approaching jet growing louder by the second
um, the sound of an approaching jet growing louder by the second
if you've done much videotaping, you know that the cameran is always very conscious of the level of zoom. zoom in, zoom out, it's just what you do while taping. any alert cameraman would hear the sound of an approaching jet and yes, if he knew he was zoomed in would instinctively zoom out to get the "big picture". again, you guys are really reading so much into so little here. I'm totally open to the possibility that things are not as they seem--of course I am--I'm a 9/11 truther and that should go without sayiing. this just is not evidence for what you are claiming.
i'm reminded of the devil's face that happens to appear in the expanding pyroclastic cloud--chances that a complex morphing shape like a cloud is going to at some instant look like something are pretty high. this is why people see shapes in the clouds all the time. we don't usually see things paused so we don't realize that a dynamic object/shape like an expanding explosion really does go through some odd looking shapes. it normally all happens so fast we just get the general idea of expansion. if you walked around taping everything and pausing, you'd see a LOT of stuff that looked weird. period!
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
oh i don't think the zooms
oh i don't think the zooms in and of themselves are indicative of anything - until they are put in the context of zooming in on a supposed plane that turns out to be a badly done video insert. for example, the plane in that little video above seems to be an amputee:
http://nineeleven2001.t35.com/images/newyork-10.html
i guess that could maybe be explained away as some kind of flaw in the video - but you'd also have to take into account that the sunlight would be just glaring off a real plane flying at that angle at that exact moment. instead we see yet another badly done silhouette of a plane.
ugh--a "truth" site with pop-ups!
I'd put a tiny bit more stock in those doctored photos (maybe) if the site wasn't making someone some dough by popping up some crap ad. Sorry but that's just crass...
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
oh i agree that pop-ups are
oh i agree that pop-ups are lame - there's a pop-up at every turn on that site - but excellent pictures though:
http://nineeleven2001.t35.com/
and you see the same amputee effect in the actual vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFxx1o84dj4
NIST appears to disagree
Their "super impressive" computer models show a different phenomenon
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_april0505.htm
The plane appears to have trouble attacking through the core, then it just shoots through. No large pieces remain for any length of time.
Not that I trust NIST and their ability to model! :)
Rick
thanks for finding this! I'm going to add to the story.
And Rick, I always appreciate your reasoned tone in discussing this issue.