767 nose cone punch through

[njslim]

Trying to talk sense (I know attempting to use logic on a truther is futile) to
a typically dense truther who insists that a photograph shows nose cone of
the 767 punching through and exiting South Tower. Since the nose cone
(according to him) is made of fragile materials the photograph is obvious
faked. Attempting to point out that this is not nose cone but leading edge
of debris exiting the building. Need some of our aviation experts:

Location and size of aircraft keel beams

Any heavy duty equipment/structures in forward part of aircraft to account
for this

Thanx

[rwguinn]

Trying to talk sense (I know attempting to use logic on a truther is futile) to
a typically dense truther who insists that a photograph shows nose cone of
the 767 punching through and exiting South Tower. Since the nose cone
(according to him) is made of fragile materials the photograph is obvious
faked. Attempting to point out that this is not nose cone but leading edge
of debris exiting the building. Need some of our aviation experts:

Location and size of aircraft keel beams

Any heavy duty equipment/structures in forward part of aircraft to account
for this

Thanx

There was a huge thread about this here somewhere. thoroughly debunked, deloused, and discredited theory.
Don't need heavy--just energetic. The pressure wave travels at M=1, and 500 kt of airplane impacting a stationary tower makes a hell of a pressure wave.

Just another case of troofers hoping we've forgotten. Look for "Ace Baker" references...

[Hamradioguy]

This has been covered here and there- you might want to check Gravysites and the links therein. The consesus seems to be that what shows up in one video as a "large missile" exitiing the tower is one of the engines. Could also be the the front landing gear- it's pretty massive and dense.
What these truthers don't seem to understand is that while the so called "nose cone" of aircraft are usually lightweight fiberglass radomes, there's a lot of heavy material behind- radar and avionics for starters. Then landing gear, seats, and of course humans. But I'd go with landing gear or engine. (Don't these so called truthers understand that when you photograph a high speed event at the relatively slow frame rate used by video and film cameras you get blurry images.....?)

[Hokulele]

Thread #1

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2339101#post2339101

Thread #2

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2604892#post2604892

Scroll down a bit in this post, and cyclonic mentions that the inner part of an engine may have been responsible for the debris.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3699359&postcount=1

[Alferd_Packer]

Ace Baker, again, Huh?

[Reheat]

Since the larger part of an engine was found on a nearby street that's probably what it was. There are photos somewhere of that engine, so it obvious was ejected from the building.

[KDLarsen]

There are photos somewhere of that engine, so it obvious was ejected from the building.

Aye, but sadly Twoofers tend to think up the most 'Rube Goldberg'-like way of that engine ending up in the street.

[Brainster]

This claim is rather well-debunked by the movie September Clues Busted (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550) starting about 10:30.

[Horatius]

(Don't these so called truthers understand that when you photograph a high speed event at the relatively slow frame rate used by video and film cameras you get blurry images.....?)



No. They don't. And that's the fundamental problem with all of the "no planers", both at the WTC and the Pentagon.

[jaydeehess]

No. They don't. And that's the fundamental problem with all of the "no planers", both at the WTC and the Pentagon.

Worse yet they will often use dubbed and dedubbed video with all the attendant loss of digital clarity to then state that an object was solid when in fact it was a loose collection of objects

[Walter Ego]

Since the larger part of an engine was found on a nearby street that's probably what it was. There are photos somewhere of that engine, so it obvious was ejected from the building.

One of the Naudet brothers (the one not inside the WTC) photographed a large piece of debris from a plane on Church Street after the second impact.

You can see it at the minus 1:17 mark on this video (http://911vids.blogspot.com/2008/03/911-inside-world-trade-center.html).

[cyclonic]

At the end of this video you can hear flight 175 hit wtc 2 and debris landing close by.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sr41WXMACDI

In this video you get a brief look at the debris which appears to be al cladding from wtc2 pushed out by the remnants of an engine seen in walter ego's post.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zm7PTPcKrtQ

this is only my opinion and has not been proven.

the remnants of the engine.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/911-16cut.jpg

[ktesibios]

Since the larger part of an engine was found on a nearby street that's probably what it was. There are photos somewhere of that engine, so it obvious was ejected from the building.

See NCSTAR 1-5A, fig. 7.5 (pdf page 187). This photo captures two large pieces of debris falling after exiting the north face of WTC2- one through the northeast corner and the other through the middle of the north face. The picture is taken from the north-northeast of the tower, so it shows a "head-on" view rather than the "profile" view the twoofers get so exercised about.

Section 7.4.3 (pdf page 215) notes that a part of an engine was found on the ground near the intersection of Church and Murray Streets and that a building at 45 Park Place was damaged by a landing gear that penetrated its roof, both consistent with the recorded fall of the two objects.

Figure 7.34 (pdf page216) is a photo of that engine piece on the ground.

[Jonnyclueless]

This is definitely one of the funniest nonsense 9/11 cult conspiracy theories. Maybe not as funny as the whole $20 bill one, but quite close.

[Minadin]

For a great debunking of the Nose Cone BS, see the Hardfire episode with Arthur Shumerman.

[pomeroo]

For a great debunking of the Nose Cone BS, see the Hardfire episode with Arthur Shumerman.



Actually, we discussed Ace's lunacy in the two shows with Steve Wright.

[Minadin]

Oh snap.

For a great debunking of the Nose Cone BS, see the Hardfire episode with Steve Wright.

The Shumerman shows were also great. I got crossed up, my apologies. :boxedin: