Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Maybe They Will Fix It In Version 3.0?

My first couple of posts are from material I have already posted elsewhere, but I thought they were good, and this seems the appropriate place to archive them. This first example demonstrates an anachronism, poor logic and shoddy factchecking, especially given this is the second version.

Midway through this farce, in an illogical attempt to prove that a crashing airplane could not have caused the World Trade Centers to collapse, the movie claims a B-52 crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945 without causing a collapse.This is quite an accomplishment since the B-52 is a giant bomber with 8 engines, that did not fly until 1954, nearly nine years later.

The bomber that crashed into the Empire State Building was in fact a much smaller B-25 bomber that was lost in the fog. Well, maybe our filmmakers are just verbally dyslexic? So bad fact checking aside, how is this relevant?

Well let us look:
33,000 lbs normally loaded
974 gallon fuel load
230 MPH cruising speed

450,000 lbs maximum takeoff weight
23,980 gallon fuel load
530 MPH cruising speed

Using the formula, f=ma, which any high school physics student should know, which of the two airplanes would have caused more damage upon impact? Discuss among yourselves


At 02 May, 2006 12:33, Blogger Wild Bill said...

Hey James, you and Pat have got such an easy job picking this crapumentary apart. I just watched it for the first time. When he is describing the phone calls made on flight 93 he explains that cell phones would not work on an aircraft. All the phone calls he talked about on the video were made from the air phone located in the back of the seats of the aircraft. The flight attendant made a call with a flight phone also. I have made cell phone calls from an airplane before. What a load of hate America crap.

I'd say good luck with the new website, but you’re not going to need it. This crappy conspiracy theory has more holes in it that Swiss cheese.

At 02 May, 2006 12:51, Blogger James B. said...

Yeah, that is actually one of the things I am going to point out. If I remember right there were a few cell phone calls made, but these were most likely from United 93 when the plane was at a lower altitude and it would have been relatively easy to make a call. Even the "documentary" makes a point that it is only difficult, although not impossible, at a 35,000 cruising altitude.

Yes, I know it is easy pickings, but I am just stunned at the number of otherwise intelligent people who believe this crap, and I believe it is important to stand up against this kind of slander, before it becomes accepted as a revisionist truth.

At 10 May, 2006 14:59, Blogger Green Piece said...

One other point is that the 767 was fully fueled (by design). The B-25 may not have been fully fueled.

Bunch of crackpots.

At 03 May, 2007 05:33, Blogger orAaron said...

Peter Jennings made the same mistake on the morning of 9/11 around 9:15 on ABC's national broadcast. Start at 5:20 in the clip.

9/11 ABC Coverage

You're picking on some uneducated kids when a national icon made the same mistake on live national news. It could even be the source of Dylan's error, who knows.

The point is, we've been lied to, a lot. Scroll back in that video to 4:00 and you'll hear John Cochran state that Bush heard of the attack NOT in the classroom, NOT on the ride to the school, but BEFORE he even left his hotel to his previously announced, and therefore insecure, photo op.

9/11 Truth isn't simply about raising questions, but proaction. If you feel you can check your facts better than Loose Change and fill in all of the blanks we're drawing, please feel free. We're one country and need to move forward together.

At 01 June, 2007 11:00, Blogger Merch said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 01 June, 2007 11:10, Blogger Merch said...

You have to check your own facts. I listened to the clip and Jennings didn't state it was a B-52. Regardless of WHO said that, they were mouth pieces, reporting the news throwing out information they knew or were given. The garbage from Loose Change is more than just "poorly checked facts" it is a deliberate attempt to mislead people. You have no idea based on their GARBAGE how many people to this day will repeat things such as "Building 7 must have been destroyed by demolition, it was NO WHERE NEAR the collapsed towers and there is NO EXPLANATION for why it would have fallen"

True... if you get your facts from Loose Change. But if you find other sites and sources who are objective (or even biased against the "truth" told by Loose Change) then you find more detail and see smoke billowing out of the building, can see huge chunks of debris falling in that direction and can read statements from various sources (gathered but often linked back to original articles published years ago) that paint a very different picture.

How can the country move forward together when there are people who are so interested in twisting the facts to create their own truth?

(had to paste it back in with a typo correction, most errors I could let slide, but when it looks like a grammatical nightmare, I have to fix it!)

At 05 October, 2007 01:36, Blogger Jeff Scott said...

FYI, here's a more detailed comparison of the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building versus the Boeing 767's that hit the WTC.


The 767's created 100 times as much impact energy as the B-25 did.

At 03 July, 2008 08:05, Blogger Unknown said...

Well, F=ma is a ton less convenient to use than E=(1/2)mv². To use F=ma, you'd have to find the negative acceleration of the 767 from its speed that was caused by the crash into the buildings. To find that, you'd have to know the distance in which the plane went from cruising to (effectively zero) speed had the plane remained intact upon impact. Use the formula for kinetic energy and you'll see how much energy was transferred to the towers by the crashes, rather than the force applied.

At 16 November, 2010 00:11, Blogger Rbastid said...

If you search around, its easy to find but it's late, I'll try to source it later, the Empire State Building was built with Ceramic tiles protecting the steel pillars inside, a common practice during the time it was built but which became very costly in later years. The WTC on the other hand just used asbestos coating around the steel, which was a new and cheaper innovation that was thought to be just as good. The problem is that the coating will resist fire, it won't resist burning fuel cascading down it (see the French Documentary to see how the fuel flushed down the elevators and any open shafts)


Post a Comment

<< Home