The Engine Cannon Theory

Could the famous engine identified in Weezula's thread really have been planted in the building and exploded out, like from a cannon? Or was the engine wreckage planted in the street/sidewalk somehow, among a camera-toting crowd (sleight of hand)? OR, did a Boeing hit the building?


Thanks to Beatprophet for pointing out the building damage at Murray and Church Streets (on the corner opposite the final location of the engine):


Thanks to Seatnineb for remembering Beat's video clip... and for questioning its relevance to the engine location:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/single/?p=405157&t=1829738

... and to Rasga for lining up the whole thing:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/single/?p=406792&t=1829738






And thanks to Weezula, who put up the original thread on Boeing engine model types. The ideas below stem from there.

...

While we have no witnesses to the engine landing in the street, we do have video and photos confirming the trajectory, which matches the location. (see a photo of the location with different wreckage, probably from the engine-building collision above) Remember, the engine was smoking in one photograph (an alleged Photoshop job, of course, to those who insist the engine was planted). Plus there is a witness to the heat, however sketchy the witness:

Quote:

 

You do not expect to see half of a smoking airplane engine on the ground, in front of the Burger King you eat at least once a week. I'm sorry, but nothing prepares you for that. Even worse, I did not expect to see the remains of what I believed was a little old woman, under half of an airplane engine, either. As I stared at the smear that was alive thirty seconds prior, I lifted the phone to my ear and remember wincing at the heat emanating off of the wreckage in front of me.

Quote:

 

Vesey and Church, Vesey and Church right there. We stepped off the rig, and there were plane engine parts and people yelling and screaming.

Quote:

 

I had two patients on my ambulance, vehicle 111. FBI Agents were telling us to move our vehicle from the corner of Vessey [sic] and West, cause there was debris from the airplane which they needed for evidence. I guess it was NTSB, they wanted the area secured. There was nowhere for us to move the vehicle, cause there was debris everywhere.

Quote:

 

It's interesting because, as we were there, there was a police car, I guess, on Vesey, on the corner there, and some debris comes down from whatever this explosion was, at the time we really didn't know, and it just crushes it, I mean, crushes the top front of the police car, which really scared me at that point.

Q.Could you tell if it was airplane parts?

A. It looked like an airplane part afterward, yes, it did. It looked like part of an engine. It was pretty big. It was probably the size of the hood because it kind of hit it, bounced, and then rolled off.

AGAIN note that was about a different engine or perhaps other wreckage 3 blocks away, not photographed on the scene OR a part of the official story, apparently. Hmmm. Only questions for that one.



Cannon Location

81st floor. Here's the official story, as told by NIST:





Here's what we're meant to believe the open-floor-planned office space looked like:



We're also supposed to believe the engine part luckily flew out from the building corner, an opening only JUST BIG ENOUGH. All other window areas were too tight (between 18 and 22 inches [sources vary]). That is, unless the engine could have hypothetically poked through the exterior steel columns again?


NOTICE: the corner space from where the engine ejected was a restricted area, meaning BEHIND WALLS. (How convenient there was an unprecedented power down in the South Tower the weekend before 9/11.)

NOTE: These 2 photos are not of WTC2.



How do I know the area was restricted?

Simply put, I found this molten steel debunking article: (Read here first!)

"UPS on the 81st floor of WTC2?" by Enrico Manieri - Henry62

"UPS" meaning "uninterruptible power supply" - or batteries - not United Postal Service... which NIST actually confused - and confuses! See this letter from NIST to the Enrico Manieri:

(click to enlarge)

OR was this "UPS" confusion the result of deception to downplay the importance of the massive collection of batteries that required the floor trusses to be strengthened... a collection of lead batteries that may have stood directly in the path of our alleged UAL175 engine? See the extended quote below that shows the batteries were without a doubt in a corner of the building-- and when 2 specific corners are mentioned they are the engine-exit Northeast (see fig. 13.2 below, although beside where it reads floor 80 and 1990, instead of 81 and 1991, as stated in 1-1 C, p.50) and Southwest corners (the SW was where survivor/plane witness Stanley Praimnath was located).

Praimnath testified to a "computer room" being near him in this vague phone call interview from Chris Bollyn (side note: Bollyn suggests the plane targeted the computers... and that the batteries and computers were cover for "thermite." He misses the direct UPS/molten battery metal connection... and leads us astray.)

Recall this scene RIGHT BESIDE and below the corner exit hole:

Paolo Attivissimo

based on research by Enrico Manieri

UPS vs UPS?

NIST speculates, in the chapter cited above and in its 2006 FAQ, that the fountain "could have been molten aluminum" from the Boeing 757 [sic] aircraft, which is largely made of alloys of this metal whose melting points are well below steel's.
The molten metal might have pooled within the building and then, as the floor trusses of the 81st and 80th floors failed and tilted, found a path to flow outward.

However, some rather unusual clues found by Enrico Manieri suggested in 2006 an alternative explanation.
NIST's NCSTAR1-1 report, which discusses structural alterations to the Twin Towers made by their tenants, shows that the part of the building where the glowing fountain occurred had been altered: specifically, the so-called "two-way trusses" (the trusses that span the corner area of each floor of the building) had been reinforced on the 81st floor in 1991 "in area occupied by United Parcel Service" (NCSTAR1-1, page 136).

The same alteration is mentioned in the NCSTAR1-1C report, on page xlviii, but with a slightly different wording which will turn out to be very significant: instead of referencing "United Parcel Service", it uses only the acronym ("UPS").

The same acronym turns up in the NIST report (NCSTAR1-1C) again in relation to alterations made by tenants to reinforce structural members: remarkably, it appears in the only two reported reinforcement alterations made to WTC2, as shown below.

Curiously, the floor is the same (the 81st), the trusses are the same "two-way" ones, but the year is given as 1999, not 1991, and the tenant is Fuji Bank.
Note that as mentioned, these are the only reinforcement alterations to WTC2 reported by NIST.
There is no mention of United Parcel Service being a tenant who made reinforcement alterations to the 81st floor. Moreover, the "UPS" referenced here does not stand for United Parcel Service, but for Uninterruptible Power Supply.
This is the name given to battery-based systems which must ensure the continuous supply of electric power for computer rooms and electrical medical devices which cannot tolerate the slightest power outage.
A bank, such as Fuji Bank, would certainly have an uninterruptible power supply for its computer systems.
.
These power supplies are extremely heavy: basically, they are massive racks of lead batteries, which would undoubtedly warrant truss reinforcement.
It is instead quite unlikely that Fuji Bank would perform very expensive truss reinforcement work to accommodate a United Parcel Service workspace. There's more.
.
In the NIST reports there is no mention of United Parcel Service ever being a tenant on the 81st floor of WTC2 at all, regardless of any alteration work.
And NCSTAR1-1H provides a list of all tenant alterations (including non-reinforcement work, such as installing an escalator) to WTC2.
.
In this list, shown below, Fuji Bank is given as a tenant of the 80th and 81st floors in 1990. Its locations are the northeast and southwest parts of the floor (the northeast part is where the plane exited). There is no mention of United Parcel Service.

Yougenedebs

Jul 9 2009, 12:47 AM

Matt~
I just had a question about that "...fictional cop's day..." found here:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=102815&blogID=85663937&MyToken=7c2cfb85-66aa-4f8e-bd09-a24764f15713

The part which goes: "You do not expect to see half of a smoking airplane engine on the ground, in front of the Burger King you eat at least once a week. I'm sorry, but nothing prepares you for that. Even worse, I did not expect to see the remains of what I believed was a little old woman, under half of an airplane engine, either." happens BEFORE UA175 hits WTC2, according to the time line in that "...fictional cop's day..."

How much real credibility should we give to fictional cops?

Matt

Jul 8 2009, 11:17 PM

and exploded out perfectly in time with the 9:02:59 impact?

heidimarie

 

it might make sense to set some things up to NOT make sense or look like a mistake. This would cause a lot of confusion and could cause good research to change direction.

heidimarie

 

Just a thought...if you were going to stage this event, which would be subjected to obvious scrutiny at a later date, it might make sense to set some things up to NOT make sense or look like a mistake. This would cause a lot of confusion and could cause good research to change direction.

Matt

Jul 9 2009, 11:29 PM

You know, I really wish that in the Naudet 2nd hit footage the frames showing the exit wound were not cut from the film.

New from Achimspok:






See "NIST's UA175 impact simulation wrong"
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/nist-s-ua175-impact-simulation-wrong-t181.html

femr2

 

The NE corner ejecta is also totally at-odds with a 0° impact.
With a 0° impact, how can the east side emphasis of all ejecta be explained...

It cannot.

That, I suggest, is why NIST chose those values.