Does the math and physics
From: Mark Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 10:12 AM
Subject: Does the math and physics add up?
I am sending this to some of you just that there are question, and others of you who I know are pilots and engineers. I don't have answers at this point, but I do have questions. This is not my original thought, but I am following up with this because I wanted to see the evidence myself before I asked questions after hearing others discussing it.
If the plane below was on its way from the East Coast to the West Coast it had to be about 3/4 full which means approximately 8600 gallons of fuel. How are the walls in picture one still white and not covered in sut/smoke stains after 8600 gallons. Not just the interior, but look at the front wall face in picture one. Granted, the top is smoldering.
Now look at the width of the building that was hit in picture 2. I'm trying to figure out how this plane hit. The best way to do this is to look at the steel guard rail at the bottom of the screen
Generally the space between each support beam for the guard rail is 4 to 6 ft. Lets give it the benefit of the doubt saying it is six. The length of the building damaged is 6 of these guard rails. You can not see on the bottom right of the building there is a slightly larger chunk missing right behind the front of the fire truck. So lets sat 6x6 = 36 ft now lets add 25% which should over compensate for the optical difference from the guard rail to the building. Now this is 45ft. Now look again at the specifications of the plane below. The wing span is 124 ft. Almost 3 times the size of this hole in the building. Also, looking at the front and top of the building. Even if the wings "broke off" I don't see any marks or cracks beyond the "hole" in the building. Now lets say the plane came in at a 45 degree angle from picture 3 below, we can see the plane's wing did not hit the ground or if it did, not by much because there would be a huge gouge in the ground or the wing would have broke off and or bent an taken out more of the building. Along with a boat load of fuel being all over the ground. So the distance from the top edge of one side of the whole to the bottom edge of the other side of the hole would be about 60 feet. So if the plane went in perfectly with the edge skirting on the ground, there is 56 ft of wing before you get to the Exterior Cabin, so you would have nearly the whole cabin and one entire wing sitting on the center courtyard if the airplane split in half.
|Technical Characteristics - Boeing 757-300|
|The Boeing 757-300 has the lowest seat mile operating cost of any single-aisle airplane on the market, and a lower cost per trip than any twin-aisle airplane. The 757-300 is already known for passenger-pleasing reliability. In its first year of revenue service, it achieved a reliability rate of 99.64 percent. The 757-300 has an all-new passenger cabin interior.|
I flew the Boeing 747 JUMBO Jet., but not this 757. I retired before this
came into service.
But, from what I see( or don't see) looking at these pictures; its hard to pick out aircraft
parts. The wingtips alone would have sheared off and bounced back into the street, the engines
(2) would have penetrated deeper into the wall and framing structure further than any other part making a definite hole. The belly of the aircraft contains, fuel tanks, baggage, mail bags, and cargo; none of this type debris can be seen. Assuming 8600 gallons of kerosene fuel @ specific gravity of approx 6.9 lbs/gal (temperature considered) weight of the fuel would be close to 60,000 lbs and would splatter everywhere. Where are the seats, those with passengers buckled in would be ripped our of the floor, for that matter, where are the passengers? I have never seen an aircraft accident where the aircraft evaporated upon impact, water, and or buildings. If these pictures were taken within 3 days after 9/11, there would have been definite remains of parts. I don't see any. However, digital computer photos can be doctored up to suit any lawyers cause.
From the photos shown, there isn't no fly in this pudding.
Big Al wrote:
Erk, you flew this type plane I'm sure when flying for Pam Am all those years. What's your take on this? Should there be any parts of the plane left? Why does it not show any plane parts at all? Dewey, you are a pilot also, what is your take on this? Has he a valid concern that no plane parts are left.
<Back to Flight 77 Page
AMERICAN PATRIOT FRIENDS NETWORK
"...a network of net workers..."
APFN Message Board
APFN Contents Page
APFN Home Page
Last updated 08/26/2010