|
PART
4. EXPLOSION ANALYSIS AT 90 DEGREE FUSELAGE ANGLE The
only available energy source for such an explosion is the fuel load, which means
that the explosion must have been centred in the fuselage. An explosion
generates force equally in all directions. It had to have cremated both ends of
the plane, which means that the minimum force which can be postulated is one
sufficient to destroy a tail or nose from 77 ft away. That’s what was required
if the explosion occurred in the exact centre of the plane. Shifting it away
from the centre means that less force is needed at one end, but more at another.
Since the force must be generated equally in all directions, the smallest force
we can postulate is one emanating from the centre, if we assume the force needed
for cremation to be equal at both ends. Because any discrepancy in relation to
that question is not calculable, I will assume that to be the case. If it is
incorrect, it won’t effect the integrity of the following analysis, because it
reveals fundamental problems with the scenario as a whole, which can’t be solved
by shifting the problem from one part of the plane to another. An equal force
must have been generated forward of the centre point, behind it, above it, and
below it. (At least potentially so, if not blocked by the ground ) So we must
draw a 3D circle around the centre of the plane, and know that every point on
the edge of that circle was impacted by a force sufficient to cremate the tail
of a plane, and that all points closer to the centre were subject to an even
greater force. If
the plane blew up as it was entering the building, there are two basic
scenarios. 1) The centre of the explosion was inside the building. For example,
the plane entered with the wings sharply titled, and exploded after the wings
had entered (and passed above ) the impact area. 2) The explosion occurred
outside the building, because it happened earlier in the process than in
scenario 1). The
previous analysis of the depth problem tells us that scenario 1) is impossible.
If the plane was half way into the building (77 ft of penetration), then even
allowing for 12 ft of compacting, the nose would have been hard up against the
second ring when the explosion took place. There’s no sign of such damage to the
second ring. Nevertheless, I’ll explore the full implications of the “inside the
building” scenario, just to make sure that nothing is left
out. Assuming
half the plane to be inside the building, and the explosion to be just inside
the hole, at this time the tail is still about 77 ft to the front of the wall.
It’s exposure to the blast is partly shielded by the fact that the explosion is
actually inside the collapsing section of the building. The same goes for the
nose which is, allowing for compaction, about 60 ft forward of the blast centre,
outside the collapsing ring. And yet both were cremated. So we have to increase
the alleged power of the blast to account for the shielding of the front and
rear extremities. We can’t quantify the shielding, and must note that because
the wall had been smashed down by this time, the shielding may have been small,
but we can say that the force of the explosion was something greater than what
was needed to cremate the nose and tail, had the plane been in the
open. What
would have received the greatest impact from this blast? The centre of the
fuselage, and the first ring of the building. The explosion was right inside it.
So the building was subject to a force significantly greater than that of the
cremated nose and tail. What
was the effect on the building of this massive blast ? Nothing, apparently. It
had already been split open and weakened by the impact of the plane entering it.
It appears to have suffered no extra damage as a result of the explosion. The
wall face was negligibly damaged beyond a width of 65 ft - less, when we take
into account that the original hole was smaller. Neither was the inside area of
the wall, behind the face, significantly damaged width-wise beyond this point.
Neither did the force of the explosion have any effect further into the
building. The second ring, right next to the cremated nose, closer than the
cremated tail, suffered no damage. If the explosion was centred in the middle of
the 65 ft hole, just inside the building, then allowing for the width of the
fuselage, it means that the wall suffered negligible sideways damage only 26 ft
from the edges of the fuselage which was cremated. Speculation that the wall was
of an extraordinarily strong construction, apart from suggesting an impossible
strength, makes no contribution to explaining these anomalies. If it was so
tough, then how did the plane slice it’s way into it to begin with? We’d have to
believe that in the test of strength between the plane and the wall, that the
plane penetrated the solid wall, but was then completely obliterated by an
explosion which had no effect on the now damaged and weakened building. This
isn’t possible. There’s
a further problem. A number of alleged witnesses claim that small pieces of the
plane were scattered over a wide area. One (Mike Walter, who’s report I reviewed
in a previous article linked later in this article) said he saw debris up on the
overpass. Penny Elgas (report reviewed later in this article, said a piece of
the plane landed in her car. A number of photos ( examined later) purport to
show small fragments of the plane, flung out considerable distances from the
scene. But curiously, none of these alleged witnesses or any of the photos
describe showers of rubble from the building. Why aren’t there stone pieces
scattered all over the place, if the building was the centre point of the
explosion? But
this is an aside from the main proof. The scenario of the explosion inside the
building is impossible on two counts. In
order to keep the 757 theory alive, we must postulate that the explosion took
place outside the building. Then we have the same problem in reverse. Suppose
the centre point of the explosion was the centre of the plane. If it took place
when the wings were close to the wall, then the wall was still subject to the
maximum force. A greater force than that applied to the tail. And the nose is
now the part that’s shielded, inside the wall. If the 125ft wingspan was
parallel and right next to the wall and was cremated, then there should be 125
ft of severe damage along the wall, and an extensive area of gradually declining
damage beyond this point. If we tilt the wings at 45 degrees, to reduce the
effective horizontal width and effective height of the wingspan to about 90 ft,
meaning that no part of the wing was further than 90 ft from the blast, we must
still postulate an area of massively destructive force at least 90 ft wide along
the wall face, with gradually declining severity of damage further to the sides.
There can’t have been a sudden cut off point for damage to the wall. It would
have been pulverized to nothing at the centre point, gradually reducing in
severity, to cosmetic damage such as broken windows, blackening and superficial
face damage at a point significantly beyond the wingspan width. Since the wall
shows negligible damage beyond 65 ft, the damaged area isn’t wide enough to
accommodate speculation of the nearby wings being blasted into nothing. Even if
the plane went in at the crazy angle of a 90 degree wing tilt, the wing
extremities covering a total span of 125 ft, above and below the explosion still
have to be cremated, meaning that an equal span of force has to be generated
sideways along the wall face. And yet somehow the building escapes with
negligible damage beyond a total span of 65 ft. So this didn’t happen
either. The
last hope is to suggest that the explosion took place almost at the instant of
impact, before the plane had significantly penetrated the wall. This places the
centre of the blast the maximum possible distance from the wall - about 77 ft.
It makes no difference to try to compound this by suggesting that the blast was
also further towards the back of the plane, because then we have to increase
it’s power, to account for the cremated nose. The wall, at the point where the
nose struck, still has to be receiving a force equal to that necessary to
destroy the nose. If
we draw the 77 ft circle around the middle of the plane, the extremities of the
65 ft hole are only about 8 ft beyond the circle, meaning that this width of
wall should still have been subject to massive force, and that we should still
be seeing very significant damage beyond this width. At 50 ft either side of the
centre of the nose, creating a wall face length of 100 ft, the wall is only
about 16 ft from the circle. So although the scenario is not as ridiculous as
the previous scenarios, it’s still impossible to reconcile the narrow area of
significant damage to the wall with the enormous forces being inflicted on the
nearby plane. When one considers that only 16 ft away, the blast is powerful
enough to cremate a plane tail or nose, the impact on the 100 ft section of wall
should be dramatic. And
this scenario creates another problem. It requires the postulation that there
was no significant penetration of the plane into the wall. In this case, then
virtually all of the damage we see to the wall, was caused by the explosion, not
the impact. In this case, it’s very difficult to create a plausible scenario for
the shape and size of the damage. The force would have been at it’s greatest in
the centre where the nose was obliterated. It would have been gradually less as
you look to the sides. So the original damage should have been V shaped, with
the centre point of the V, in the middle of the 65 ft hole, and the wide shallow
area at the outside wall. No such evidence exists. What we see is a neat
rectangular hole. The obvious counter argument is that the original shape of the
hole has been masked by the later collapse of one wedge of the wall, and that
the early photos are too obscured by smoke and water to tell us exactly how far
and in what shape the original damage extended. Quite so, but this admits that
most of the damage wasn’t even caused by the explosion directly, but simply by
the secondary collapse, meaning that the original area of direct damage was
tiny. For example, the points on the wall 20 ft each side of the centre,
creating a total span of 40 ft, were only 5 ft further away than the tail, which
was allegedly cremated. So this area should have been ferociously demolished in
the original damage. Early photos show this wasn’t the case, and only 15 ft
further to each side - points which are only about 9 ft further from the blast
than the tail, all we see are broken windows. Some are still intact.
The
windows you can see just outside the damage area are only about 10 ft further
away from the blast centre than the nose or tail would have
been. Trying
to solve this problem is futile. The fundamental problem is that the modest
damage to the wall is not only irreconcilable with the impact of a such a large
plane, but also irreconcilable with the explosive forces needed to destroy
one. So
any scenario of the plane hitting the building at a 90 degree fuselage angle is
impossible. The wreckage is not inside the building, is not outside, and the
force of a blast powerful enough to cremate the missing wreckage was impossible
in the context of the wall damage. PART
5 ENTRY CALCULATIONS - FUSELAGE AT 45 DEGREES The
above calculations and analysis were based on the assumption that the fuselage
struck the wall at a 90 degree angle. This wasn’t because I necessarily believe
that whatever hit the wall did so at this angle. It was because it a) favoured
the 757 theory to the maximum, by keeping the entry point as narrow as possible,
and b) kept the maths simple as an introductory reference point to the problem.
The calculations change for every different angle assumed. It’s impractical to
do a separate analysis for every possible angle, but neither is it necessary. It
is sufficient to take a snapshot half way through the range of possibilities. By
assuming a fuselage angle of 45 degrees, we gain an insight into the trend of
how the problem changes by angling the fuselage. First,
the parallel plane scenario. Plotted on graph paper, this shows that at the
point that the fuselage strikes the wall, the inner wing tip is only about 18 ft
from the wall. If the fuselage continued to drive into the wall at this angle,
the wingtip would strike the wall about 65 ft from the near edge of the hole
made by the fuselage. If the wing was to slice into the wall, we should see a
continuos rip in the wall extending about 65 ft until it joined up with the
fuselage hole. Meanwhile, as the fuselage was driving deeper and wider, it would
create it’s own hole moving further away at 45 degrees. If the wall collapsed
along the fuselage impact area, then we’d see one long hole made by the
fuselage. If it punched through cleanly, we’d see a 45 degree tunnel, and a
separate hole starting 65 ft away from the southern edge, (assuming the plane to
have been coming from the south west.) From the size and shape of the damage to
the wall, we know that this didn’t happen. Let’s
straighten up the angle of the plane to try place the wingtip strike within the
65 ft hole area. The hope here is that then the entry point of the inner wing
might come within the area where it was masked by the later collapse. I’m going
to try to create a scenario where there might have been one point of entry for
the fuselage, and a separate one less than 65 ft away for the wing, creating two
holes within a 65 ft area. This would appear to unsupported by early
photographic evidence, but we may be able to argue that the thick smoke and the
water jets at the time obscured it. But
it doesn’t work. If we straighten the angle to 67 degrees, it only reduces the
distance of the wingtip strike from the near edge of the fuselage strike by a
few feet. Once we straighten the angle further, it’s almost back to the 90
degree scenario, so there’s no point in pursuing that further. This is before we
introduce the impact of the outer wing, which would slice a big hole to the
north of the fuselage area. Even if you ignore the previously examined problem
of compaction into the 65 ft depth, then connecting all this up into one hole,
creates one of about 140 ft wide before the second wing enters the building. So
the scenario of the fuselage having come in on an angle with the wings parallel
and penetrating the wall is impossible. Did
the wing break off and not damage the wall? If so, we should see big chunks of
the wing scattered to the south of the main crash site. No such wreckage exists,
so this didn’t happen either. What about an explosion? We have the same problems
as with the 90 degree scenario, but worse. Even if the explosion occurred the
instant of collision, the centre point would be much closer to the southern
stretch of the wall, than in the 90 degree scenario, where we were able to place
it 77 ft away. A section of wall more than 100 ft long would be closer to the
centre of the blast than the tail. And if debris was flung out, much of it would
have been hurled into the wall. There’s no significant damage extending for
anything like this length along the wall. So the scenario of an angled approach
with parallel wings, whether penetrating, breaking off or exploding is
impossible. Lets
look at a 45 degree approach with tilted wings. Nothing changes as far as the
explosion scenario goes, because the distance between the exploding fuselage and
the wall hasn’t changed. An impact scenario still gives a width way beyond the
65 ft hole. If the plane didn’t explode, and fully impacted from a 45 degree
angle with the wings tilted at 45 degrees, the total impact area would be about
125 ft wide, perhaps split into three separate areas - inner wing strike,
fuselage, and outer wing strike, or perhaps if the sections of wall between the
different strike areas collapsed, it would be one long hole. It makes no
difference which wing was titled up or down, but whichever one was up would have
a significant section pass above the building. Every
possible scenario has been examined. Straight approach, angled approach,
parallel wings, tilted wings, trying to fit the plane into the building, and
trying to construct a credible scenario for an explosion to explain the lack of
wreckage. None of them work. So it’s impossible for a plane of that size to have
caused the incident. This
really concludes the argument. When a plane hits a building, the wreckage must
be accounted for in one way or another - all of it. Either it is inside the
building, or it is outside the building, or it is disintegrated to nothing. If
none of these three happened, then it was never there. It
is acceptable, indeed predictable, for small fragments to be unaccounted for,
but not 99.99% of the plane. The plane weighed about 100 tons, so 1 ton of
alleged wreckage would represent 1% of the plane. The fragments claimed by some
to be wreckage of the plane ( which I will examine later ) would be struggling
to represent 0.01% of the plane. Nevertheless,
I anticipate that some people will still want to argue that 2+2 = 5, and claim
the 757 theory to be still alive on other grounds. |