Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Flight 11 Wheel Issue

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 Tags wtc1 , wtc , flight 11 , world trade center , 911 conspiracy theory

 17th January 2007, 07:57 PM #1 Brainster Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,745 Flight 11 Wheel Issue Ningen, a budding no-planer, thinks he's got proof that Flight 11's wheel and the columns from WTC 1 could not have ended up where they supposedly ended up, which is on Cedar Street, approximately 500 feet from the tower. He (I assume) goes into great detail but essentially the argument boils down to "I don't believe it." So I thought I'd do a little rough calculation. We'll assume that the wheel hit on the lowest level impacted by Flight 11, which according to Wikipedia is floor 93, which we'll estimate at approximately 1,189 feet above the ground. Therefore, we know that the freefall time to the ground would be about 8.6 seconds. How fast would the wheel and the steel columns have to be going to end up 500 feet away? Well, about 58 (500/8.6) feet per second, which works out to 40 miles per hour. This seems to be a pretty trivial calculation. Yeah, maybe with air resistance it might have to be a little faster, but nothing that seems impossible on its face. Anybody having a hard time believing the impact and explosion could have ejected the steel with the wheel away at roughly 40 miles per hour? Any problems with my logic/calculations? __________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
 17th January 2007, 08:05 PM #2 T.A.M. Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,795 Calculations...who needs them if you are a "no-planer". lol TAM
 17th January 2007, 08:07 PM #3 Zep Banned   Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,704 Hush-a-boom can do that, easy!
 17th January 2007, 08:09 PM #4 Anti-sophist Graduate Poster     Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,542 Originally Posted by Brainster Any problems with my logic/calculations? I have a slight problem with your calculation. Your assumption that the wheel would end up where it landed seems unfounded! In fact, it's likely the wheel ended up farther away then where it initially hit, making the impact point closer than the final spot. This implies a horizontal velocity below 40mph. __________________ A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire
 17th January 2007, 08:17 PM #5 Gravy Downsitting Citizen     Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,078 The alternative being that some guys with a crane planted this in the street? Or that after the landing gear became lodged in the panel, explosives blew it away from the building? Hmm. Those options seem equally likely to me. __________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard Last edited by Gravy; 17th January 2007 at 08:40 PM.
 17th January 2007, 08:18 PM #6 Brainster Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,745 Originally Posted by Anti-sophist I have a slight problem with your calculation. Your assumption that the wheel would end up where it landed seems unfounded! In fact, it's likely the wheel ended up farther away then where it initially hit, making the impact point closer than the final spot. This implies a horizontal velocity below 40mph. You need to look at the photo. The wheel is embedded in one of the windows (according to the text on the photo, which appears to be from the NIST report) and thus attached to a fairly large three-column chunk of metal. This didn't bounce much. __________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
 17th January 2007, 08:24 PM #7 Anti-sophist Graduate Poster     Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,542 Originally Posted by Brainster You need to look at the photo. The wheel is embedded in one of the windows (according to the text on the photo, which appears to be from the NIST report) and thus attached to a fairly large three-column chunk of metal. This didn't bounce much. I'd be willing to bet you that you are wrong. I have no idea how we'd settle it though. __________________ A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire
 17th January 2007, 08:30 PM #8 Brainster Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,745 Originally Posted by Anti-sophist I'd be willing to bet you that you are wrong. I have no idea how we'd settle it though. Maybe I could put a piece of cyclone fence on my front hood, get the car up to 40 mph near a cliff... __________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
 17th January 2007, 08:32 PM #9 Gravy Downsitting Citizen     Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,078 This diagram shows the landing gear to be much farther away, at Rector & West St. Unless that's a second landing gear? I don't think I've seen a photo or description of another from flight 11. __________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
 17th January 2007, 08:32 PM #10 JimBenArm Based on a true story!     Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 13,092 Originally Posted by Anti-sophist I'd be willing to bet you that you are wrong. I have no idea how we'd settle it though. Easy. You both send me the money and I'll hold it for you until I decide who the winner is. __________________ "JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom
 17th January 2007, 08:48 PM #11 defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami     Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 7,474 Originally Posted by Gravy The alternative being that some guys with a crane planted this in the street? Or that after the landing gear became lodged in the panel, explosives blew it away from the building? Hmm. Those options seem equally likely to me. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ee5fae68e7.jpg the wheel was installed on the inside of the panel during the power downs the previous weekend, i mean think about it, if you were a businessman working in teh towers, youd have more important things to do that wonder why a 3 foot, 1000 pound aircraft wheel it sticking out of the wall, right? Originally Posted by Brainster Maybe I could put a piece of cyclone fence on my front hood, get the car up to 40 mph near a cliff... if you end up going with this id like to place a bet on the quality of your brakes __________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
 17th January 2007, 09:19 PM #12 Brainster Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,745 Originally Posted by Gravy This diagram shows the landing gear to be much farther away, at Rector & West St. Unless that's a second landing gear? I don't think I've seen a photo or description of another from flight 11. Poking around, it looks like the 767 has two sets of four wheels on the back, one set of two on the front for a total of ten wheels. This is just an unspecified wheel. Since St Nick's was destroyed by Tower 2's collapse, this is a photo of evidence that likely wasn't visible only an hour later. It does speak a lot to the CT mindset that they leap to the conclusion that it was put in place by a truck and a work crew while everybody was looking up at the building. __________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
 17th January 2007, 09:30 PM #13 Gravy Downsitting Citizen     Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,078 Originally Posted by Brainster Poking around, it looks like the 767 has two sets of four wheels on the back, one set of two on the front for a total of ten wheels. This is just an unspecified wheel. Since St Nick's was destroyed by Tower 2's collapse, this is a photo of evidence that likely wasn't visible only an hour later. It does speak a lot to the CT mindset that they leap to the conclusion that it was put in place by a truck and a work crew while everybody was looking up at the building. You're right. Here's the piece that went farther south. The other photo shows the parking lot next to St. Nick's. __________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
 17th January 2007, 09:50 PM #14 CurtC Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,785 Originally Posted by Gravy The alternative being that some guys with a crane planted this in the street? Holy cow, I hadn't seen that before. Was the street not crowded with traffic when that landed there? I've often wondered, when I see videos of the crashes themselves, how many people were injured/killed by the falling debris from the crashes. __________________ Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.
 17th January 2007, 10:06 PM #15 Skibum Graduate Poster     Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,659 Originally Posted by CurtC Holy cow, I hadn't seen that before. Was the street not crowded with traffic when that landed there? I've often wondered, when I see videos of the crashes themselves, how many people were injured/killed by the falling debris from the crashes. I've read of one account of a woman who was hit and severely injured by a piece of the plane. IIRC she was partially eviscerated when a piece hit her in the lower back. I don't know if she survived or not though. ETA this might be about her... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...10/MN80965.DTL Last edited by Skibum; 17th January 2007 at 10:11 PM.
 17th January 2007, 10:15 PM #16 Pardalis Banned   Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817 And 28th Kingdom was blaming us for too much focusing on details...
 17th January 2007, 10:24 PM #17 Brainster Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,745 Originally Posted by CurtC Holy cow, I hadn't seen that before. Was the street not crowded with traffic when that landed there? I've often wondered, when I see videos of the crashes themselves, how many people were injured/killed by the falling debris from the crashes. I seem to recall a woman finally dying just last year who had suffered horrible burns from jet fuel while she was walking in the street next to the WTC. __________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
 17th January 2007, 10:32 PM #18 Gravy Downsitting Citizen     Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,078 Originally Posted by CurtC Holy cow, I hadn't seen that before. Was the street not crowded with traffic when that landed there? I've often wondered, when I see videos of the crashes themselves, how many people were injured/killed by the falling debris from the crashes. That piece landed on the sidewalk/parking lot next to 90 West St. and St. Nick's Church. Many people described it, including firefighter Dean Coutsouros here. I don't know if anyone was hurt by it, but others were apparently hurt by landing gear parts, as EMT Orlando Martinez describes here (warning: very graphic account). According to NIST NCSTAR 1-7, 18 bystanders/occupants of other buildings were killed by debris and jet fuel from the aircraft impacts. Another 17 people were killed at unknown locations (may have been in or out of the buildings). It's safe to say that many more were injured by the flying debris. __________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

International Skeptics Forum