Sunday, January 7, 2007

The little wheel that could not

NIST NCSTAR 1-2 states that landing gear from Flight 11 passed through WTC 1 and exited the south side at a speed of 105 mph, coming to rest at the corner of Recter and West. (1) See the diagram at the right.

NIST NCSTAR 1-2 states that in all of its simulations ---base case, less severe impact, and more severe impact---the landing gear stopped either inside the core or just outside the north side of the core. (2)
Update: I think I made a mistake - the models appear to say the landing gear was either stopped inside the core or just outside the other side of the core. My conclusion remains the same.

In no case did the landing gear pass through the core; in no case did the landing gear continue through workstations and other obstacles on the south side of WTC1; in no case did the landing gear pass through the external columns on the south side of WTC1.

How is it that a landing gear with initial velocity of 440 mph passed through external columns on both sides, and floors and offices on both sides, and also through the most massive part of the building, the core, and still maintained any velocity, let alone 105 mph?

Again, NIST's own models say that the landing gear stopping after passing through one wall of external columns and office space, either outside the core or partly into the core. See above update, and explanation in foot note (2). There is no way that the landing gear passed through the core, and then through offices, and the external wall on the other side.




















It could not have. Even the much more massive starboard engine of the modeled Flight 175, which was traveling at a higher velocity than the modeled Flight 11, did not pass through the opposite side of WTC2 in any of the simulations of NIST NCSTAR 1-2. And the trajectory of the starboard engine did not pass through the core, the most massive part of the building! (3)

This landing gear could not have passed through WTC1 at all, let alone with the residual velocity of 105 mph necessary for it to land several blocks south of WTC1. (4)

Therefore, this landing gear could not have come from Flight 11.

Why is it there, and why is the government representing this to be the landing gear of Flight 11?

Ray Ubinger, Jim Scott, and Rosalee Grable have already pointed out the absurdity of this landing gear being found where it was, let alone in virtually intact condition.

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/tire.htm

NIST has shown how absurd this is in scientific terms, yet continue with the pretense that this landing gear is from Flight 11. (5)

I infer that this landing gear was planted at this location to cover up the fact that no plane hit the North Tower.

--------------------------------------------------
Endnotes:

(1) NIST NCSTAR 1-2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers, pages 272, available online at http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-2index.htm

(2) NIST NCSTAR 1-2, p. 273. Update: NIST NCSTAR 1-2, p. 273 said that in all their simulations, all the landing gear was stopped "inside, or just outside, the core." I interpreted that to mean the landing gear either did not enter the core on the north side of the North Tower, or made it part way into the core. I think instead it means that in the simulations the wheel either did not exit the core or barely exited the core. The point is still the same, I think - the wheel would have lost most of its kinetic energy by the time it left the core, so how could it penetrate the external columns on the south side of the North Tower.

(3) NIST NCSTAR 1-2, p. 284. At a later date, I will discuss the starboard engine and other debris that did not pass through WTC2.

(4) The photograph is from NIST NCSTAR 1-2, p. 273. The same photograph is published in NIST NCSTAR1-5A, "Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis," p. 78, available online at http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-5index.htm

(5) Even NIST obliquely recognizes that this landing gear could not have passed through the core of WTC1. NIST NCSTAR 1-5 states: "Based on where it landed, it is considered likely that the wheel that landed on the corner of Rector and West Streets also passed through the core, although this conclusion is not as well supported as for the other wheel [found closer to WTC1 embedded in a panel section of external columns]. " NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, p. 78. Given the trajectory of the modeled Flight 11 which hit the building in dead center, the only alternative to the landing gear passing through the core is that the landing gear was planted in that location.

8 comments:

Democrat said...

How high are the buildings in front of the place where the wheel was found.

It should be an easy calculation based on the gravity of speed and the forward speed of the landing gear to find out whether it could hopp over a building to land on the street were it was found.

Notice the untouched rubber of the wheel. No damage at all.

Ningen said...

Good question. My high school physics could probably handle that calculation, and it wqould be good to do.

I am more concerned about the "Flight 175" wheel found at Murray and Church, simply because NIST says there is some possibility the wheel made it out of the South Tower, even though none of their models show that. I think it is implausible to think that it not made it out, but made it out with sufficient residual velocity to end up where it did, even without a high building in the way. The calculation you propose would preclude any possibility that the wheel is authentic.

Judy Woods and Morgan Reynolds question the "Flight 175" wheel here, showing pictures from above of 45 Park Place which is right next to Murray and Church:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam4.html#highhurdle

The trajectory does look completely implausible. I could not find the height of 45 Park Place on Google, but it looks quite high. Borrowing Dr. Reyolds' analogy, the engine would have to have done a Wile E. Coyote drop once it cleared 45 Park Place. If you can find the height and do the math, please post it here. Thank you!

Ningen said...

Whoops -- I left out "only"

"I think it is implausible to think that it not ONLY made it out, but made it out with sufficient residual velocity to end up where it did, even without a high building in the way."

Anonymous said...

The Church-Murray intersection is particularly suspicious because not only was the debris there found under an undamaged canopy, but the Naudets repeatedly filmed in that block.

at the instant of the 1st Hit:
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm

between the 1st and 2nd Hits, looking down Church instead of up it:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm

also more than one shot taken between the 2nd Hit and the 1st Demolition:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/blockwalk.htm

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/constructiondebris.htm

That first link
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
was shot with foreknowledge at 8:46 so the Naudets would have footage (the only known) of pedestrian reaction at the instant of the 1st Hit (in addition to getting the unique footage of the 1st Hit itself, 11 blocks farther north at Church-Lispenard).

In the background of that "bravenewworld" snippet you can see that the yellow caution tape was already in place around where the 2nd Hit "debris" would become "found" some 20 minutes later.

Furthermore, Church-Murray was also where Fox News' Rick Leventhal set up shop for several man-on-the-street interviews. Leventhal disapproved of what at least one witnesses reported to him.
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/itsabomb.htm

In an as-yet-unexcerpted Leventhal moment on the great Tim Canale archive, a spook accidentally gets himself interviewed by Leventhal after trying but failing to point Leventhal to someone ELSE to interview.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
exposing the Naudet-FDNY snuff film since 2004

Anonymous said...

ps
The undamaged canopy directly over big piece of debris at Church-Murray, can be viewed at the start of the excerpt in the top left corner at
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/bigjunk.htm

This appears in the Naudet flick.

The big black guy in a dark blue short sleeved short and light blue jeans, shoos away someone who was allegedly with the cameraman and kicking debris. The big black guy doesn't say who he is or why he's authorized to shoo people away. He's wearing something around his neck that might be a badge, but it's enclosed in something like a wallet. Nor are we told how he got there so fast. According to the Naudet narrative, Gedeon Naudet took this footage while walking quickly on his way back from WTC to the 100 Duane St. firehouse immediately after the 2nd Hit.

I also like how the debris precisely

(1) knocked off half of the Church-Murray intersection sign, so it only said Church, with the Murray part landing on the ground with the debris

(2) landed right next to a trash can with a PLEASE DON'T LITTER sign on it. That Osama bin Laden is so IRONIC, he specifically instructed his minions to strike the tower in such a way as to make the debris land right next to a don't-litter sign!


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
exposing the Naudet-FDNY snuff film since 2004

Ningen said...

Thank you, Ray. This is all so suspicious--the physics is just icing on the cake.

At the Brave New World link you say the specific location is unknown. At Big Jump it says the location is Church and Murray. Did you later identify the location? How?

After your work, it's amazing people assume this debris is authentic.

Now we know that NIST agrees with you, not that they say that clearly.

Ningen said...

The It's a Bomb video is very telling. An eyewitness is adamant is was not a plane, and asks who said it was a plane.

The "reporter" responds "That's what we're told, a second plane, we saw it on television."

Already the story is reinforced. Only people who say they saw a plane get interviewed. This does not have to be intentional on the part of the reporter, just bad training. The reporter could simply assume that must be mistaken if he didn't see what was on television.

The guy says "I was there, I saw everything." Next question--where were you exactly? What did you see? What is your name? We get names for people who say the saw planes, and no names for those who don't.

This is exactly why eyewitness testimony is not persuasive---it was contaminated by the media "reality." I imagine the perps know that this would be the case.

Anonymous said...

I'll keep this short because a longer previous attempt failed to post.

I discovered the Naudet 1st Hit Reaction Shot aka bravenewworld
http://911foreknowledge.com/braveneworld.htm
on June 30, 2004. At that time I didn't know where it had been shot. In early 2005 the location got figured out by me and a couple other people working together. It was shot in the east gutter of Church Street between Park Place and Murray Street, closer to Murray than to Park, looking north and west at the west half of the Church-Murray intersection. Not even my critics dispute this location identification.

I claim the timing of the clip as 8:46 a.m. on 9/11, the instant of the 1st Hit. My proof is from the context. That was the only time that day when people at Church-Murray were walking along normally but then suddenly a bunch of them all at once whirled their gaze around and/or up.

It couldn't have been shot after 9/11 because it doesn't show any of the collapse dust. It was first shown in March 2002 in the CBS broadcast of the Naudet movie.

Incidentally, the clip also establishes that that block of Church (btwn Park & Murray) was blocked. Normally busy with car traffic, it instead shows people walking out in the street, plus a trash can (to which yellow caution tape is tied) out in the street.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
exposing the Naudet-FDNY snuff film since 2004