Letter to an American Muslim

#173 Urstruly

{{I do not belive that the heat due to fuel oil was so extreme that it had evaporated each and every part of the plane, including seats, turbines, and structural units, however, the steel frames of the building retain their shape and form.}}

The aircraft that is said to have struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757. It has an empty weight of about 57 tonnes and a maximum take-off weight of about 100 tonnes. I would estimate approx 20 tonnes of the MTOW could be fuel.

Of all the elements that made up the aircraft before the crash (structural members such as spars, ribs, stringers; wing and fuselage skin; integral fuel tanks; control surfaces; engines and their nacelles; undercarriage – wheels and tires, struts; flooring and paneling; overhead bins; seats and seat cushions; etc. etc. – not to mention passengers and luggage) – which of these are engineered to withstand a head-on or moderately oblique (about 45 degrees to the vertical) collision with a hard massive object (or a series of such objects – such as hard reinforced concrete columns, one after another) at 300 mph or more?

Apart from the known high-temperature parts of the engines – combustors and turbine blades - what fraction of the aircraft do you think is designed to survive prolonged exposure to temperatures in excess of 1100 C? How about 800 C?

What, roughly, is the melting point of aluminium alloy? When elements made of such a material are exposed to a prolonged kerosene fire (say about 800 C to be conservative) what happens to them? Do you expect them to evaporate, to melt, to burn, or to stay largely intact? What happens in the same circumstances to CFRP? What about paneling, seats/seat cushions, tires, etc?

{{the first question should be how that plane managed to squeeze itself into the pentagon building through a hole almost half its size.}}

A 757 has a wingspan of 38 meters (125 feet). The collapsed section of the Pentagon seems to be about 25 meters wide at the top – the entry wounds seem somewhat wider nearer ground level (I can’t tell exactly because of collapsed floors on one side of the hole). Why is that not consistent with the likely distribution of massive elements in the airplane (i.e. filled fuel tanks extending across the belly to about 4 metres from each wing tip, + engines at about the one-third points on the wings + fuselage)?

{{I think the question where the parts of the planes have disappeared should be the second question}}

Urstruly, do you know the weight of the Pentagon? Care to estimate the weight per 100 meters of side for a ring of the Pentagon, thus the weight for about 25 metres of width of collapsed section of the outer ring? [My quick (probably under-) estimate based on publicly available data – about 3000 tonnes for the collapsed section of the outer ring.] What proportion of the 57 tonnes of the empty aircraft would survived the initial impact at 300-400 mph into a series of concrete columns, and then the subsequent fire, to be in any recognizable shape, even distinguishable from surrounding building wreckage that outweighs it by a factor of 50 at least? [I would guess – maybe 5 per cent at most – turbine disks and blades, landing gear struts perhaps, some small massive counterweights.]

BTW, Urstruly, do you think you have good ‘physical intuition?’

Urstruly #173,

Any other opinion I give you will be guesstimates...but that pentagon fireball was a petroleum fire, that much I can place my life savings on.

About the small hole created by the hit, I can offer a couple of studied conjectures.

Firstly the pentagon is no ordinary building. During the cold war it was one of the top targets for a soviet nuclear strike. So, I think its reasonable to say that the pentagon is a `hardened` building.

Second, the flight path of the plane. Perhaps NHK can confirm this...its easier to climb rapidly, say at 50 degrees, than to descend at 50 degrees. These passenger planes are built with excellent aerodynamics and are designed to GLIDE by default (and not fall steeply) in the absense of engine power.

So...the vertical path shown in that website I linked earlier is all wrong. No passenger plane (at speed) can descend at that angle. Therefore the plane must have been flying rather low for a considerable time. And that means it was flying around 200 mph or so.

Even if the pilot was flying at 150 feet, he still was considerably higher than the top floor of the pentagon. So he must have done something to drop the plane even lower seconds before the hit. That means he would have lost further speed. So the force of the hit was magnitudes lower than the WTC hit.

If he skidded on the grass outside (and there are marks that look like skid marks)...then the hit was really low quality.

These might explain the small hole, but what about debris?

As I said earlier, there is no data on what happens when a plane has a head-on collision with a vertical wall. Planes are not built to withstand such forces.

I remember that first couple days the newsreaders would simply mention about the pentagon hit, but no photos. I think a coule days are more than enough to remove all identifiable debris from a high security area like the pentagon.

Well, all this is educated conjecture...except the petroleum fire and the pentagon being a hardened building.

Malik:

I am your polar opposite, politically. But I agree with your response to the first question. That is a fair assessment.

ballukhan# 170

I absolutely agree with malik99`s replies to your questions.

Ironman. # 166

I do not belive that the heat due to fuel oil was so extreme that it had evaporated each and every part of the plane, including seats, turbines, and structural units, however, the steel frames of the building retain their shape and form. I think the question where the parts of the planes have disappeared should be the second question; the first question should be how that plane managed to squeeze itself into the pentagon building through a hole almost half its size. I dont thnik we need new common sense rules here.

ballukhan # 170 - First of all I want to thank you for asking these questions. Instead of making some generalized assumptions and drowning the real debate you took the trouble of asking me. There are some people on this board who blame everything under the sun, including their marital problems, constipation etc on mullahs. These people are the ``reverse mullahs`` in that they impede debate just like the mullahs do. Now let me answer your questions:

1. Do you think that the American Jews are actually controlling the ``war on Terror`` efforts being made by the Americans?

No I do not believe that they ``control`` the war. However, I do believe that because of their dual loyalties (to Israel and America) they do ``influence`` the war. Even if they were ``controlling`` the war, it would be a very rational and admirable thing on their part to do. Any minority living in the ``Rome`` of today with strong religious and ideological association to their ``back home`` would do the same. Its just that jews do it better than anyone else. So to reiterate my point, it would be absurd to think that american jews are indifferent to war on terror.

2. Do you believe that America has corrupted and defiled the Muslim world, has stolen its wealth and whose foreign policies obstruct the attainment of the muslim political goals?

What America is doing to Muslim countries, and lets not forget what it did to non muslim countries like vietnam, combodia, colombia, panama, haiti, cuba etc, is what is expected of any ambitious empire. All the empires in history did the same. Empires do not care whether they would be remembered thousands of years later as ``nice`` people. They like to be remembered as powerful. Empires have ambitions, they constantly need new sources of wealth, they look for opportunities in disasters, and they create a ``new world order`` around their ideals. So to sum it up, I believe America is doing what is in its best interest. Whether they are right or wrong, they have a rationale for their actions. Those who oppose this hegemony are doing so out of their convictions that they would not be enslaved. And this is a continuous story of human struggle since Adam walked on earth.

A good question to ask here would be: are muslims doing what is in their best interest?

3. do you believe in the notion of Jehad as having the following goals and objectives:
· Establishing the rule of God on earth.
· Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God.
· Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity.

Unlike those who have taken this word out of its context, i believe every human being (muslim or not) should engage in Jihad every single day of their lives. Jihad means struggle. Struggle to establish justice in their home, their street, their town, their city, their country. Struggle to do good in life; to fulfil obligations to other human beings; to respect others rights; to fight corruption; to abstain from vices.

Your taking your time to ask me these questions is also an act of Jihad on your part to learn about me. I congratulate you on your jihad. I hope i have answered your questions.

was urstruly born a rabid, terrorist-sympathizing baby ?

malik: please take some laxatives

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

UrsTruly, malik, Romair,HE can you answer these question?

1. Do you think that the American Jews are actually controlling the ``war on Terror`` efforts being made by the Americans?

2. Do you believe that America has corrupted and defiled the Muslim world, has stolen its wealth and whose foreign policies obstruct the attainment of the muslim political goals?

3. do you believe in the notion of Jehad as having the following goals and objectives:

· Establishing the rule of God on earth.
· Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God.
· Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity.

Urstruly #142,

``A pertinent question to ask here is where is the aeroplane or pieces of it in the burning wrekage. Why US government had to remove those parts from the crash sight while it was burning at 3000 degrees Fahrenhiet before shooting these pictures (I am being sarcastic here ok.``


Your question is a good one (no sarcasm there). This is probably what most laymen are questioning too.

We often see big pieces of broken/exploded planes being fished out of the water or picked up from a hillside. Now you ask...how come we see no such big piece in the twin-towers or the pentagon.

At the outset, let me assure you that there is **NO data anywhere** about what happens when big passenger jets packed with aviation fuel are slammed into vertical walls at 500 mph (like those car air-bag ads we see on TV with dummies).

Since it looks like you have no doubts about the fact that planes did indeed hit the twin-towers, we`ll skip that.

I had a look at one of these crank sites. http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
It has good shots of the gas station camera recording of the pentagon crash.

Look at slide#5 particularly (down the page). Speaking from my experience in the aerospace industry I have no doubt that this is a petroleum fire. Its impossible to get this from a bomb or missile (which carry high-explosive, which `detonate` and not `deflagrate` (thats the tech word for petroleum-type burning).

The pervasive orange fireball and intense billowing black clouds are signature petroleum fires.

I repeat, its **impossible** to get this from a bomb or missile.


(Never mind the imbecile `reasons` why the US should do this to themselves to `malign` the good name of Saud).

Ballukhan #159 and HE #157: These posts deal with the issue of the costs and justifications for the anti-US rhetoric that flows so easily from the tongues of many muslims.

COSTS: As I had pointed out earlier, the reason illegal alien pakistanis were deported (or decided to leave on their own rather than face deportation) while illegal alien indian muslims or bangladeshis did not face similar deportation is a direct result of the anti-US sentiment in pakistan that the US perceived (rightly or wrongly). This perception was a (a) a direct result of the fact that tens of thousands of pakistanis had gone to afghanistan to become taliban for the express purpose of conducting jihad. and (b) the street demonstrations where mullahs burnt the US flags. In addition, as I also pointed out, thousands of young pakistanis who dreamt of coming to the US are now unable to do that. To these very real monetary costs (who pays for them? mullah fazloo who was in front of everyone in the street demos? mullah hussain whose own son is legal and comfortable in the US?)
Add to these costs the costs in human life: at least 50-60 bright young pakistanis were killed on 9/11 by the hijacking ooperation that Al Qaeda carried out (and urstruly`s obviously bogus attempts at clearing Al Qaeda of this crime does not matter). Who pays for those Pakistani lives?? Do we behead 60 bloody mullahs for that? Or their supporters??

As a Pakistani I get furious at how think of the costs we pakistanis have had to pay at the hands of these people. Someday perhaps more of my countrymen will wake up to their real enemy - the enemy within.

On JUSTIFICATIONS:

HE says that the anti-US demonstrations were after civilians were killed. Firstly, this is factually wrong: thousands of pakistanis went to afghanistan to get trained for jihad well before even 9/11. The street demos in Quetta and other places started well before the US invaded Afghanistan - indeed their express purpose was to try and deter the US from going after Al Qaeda and their hosts, the taliban. HE can deny knowledge of history that took place before he was born (on the matter of the 1965 war that I have dealt with separately below). He cannot deny something that we all lived through just three years ago.

Second, as for the civilians getting killed: the US did not deliberately kill civilians. Those are the deeds of the terrorists whom HE seeks to defend. So, the relevant question is: Was the US justified in attacking Afghanistan. And the answer, using common sense, is yes. We all know the events well enough to claim that the US should have backed down simply because the taliban ignored its demands to hand over bin laden. The burden of the civilians killed due to US bombing rests on the shoulders of the mullahs - and I realize this simple fact will be anathema to the mullah apologists on chowk. But as I advised urstruly: dont be afraid of the truth. Even if it challenges things you take for granted.

HE #155 I agree with you that there was no Massoud was one of the Afghan commanders in the anti-soviet struggle.

I disagree when you say that ``Ahmad Shah Masud was not included in the 7-party alliance. This is because he didn`t have a political party. He was a brave commander, but not a leader with millions of followers. And commanders can only lead battles, not freedom struggles. ``. I disagree on this point for the following reason: The fact is that NONE of the afghan commanders was the leader of a political party. After the Soviets left, it was not the Afghan people who were given a role in determining their leaders and their constitution (as the international community is now doing in Afghanistan). Rather, it was zia who determined who the leaders would be - and he chose these hikmatyar and co because their islamist ideology was more to his liking than the more secular outlook of Massoud. History will never forgive the pakistani generals for imposing the taliban on afghanistan, and for the resulting civil war and years of misery that millions of afghan refugees had to endure.

Incidentally, on the first point, note that there is a reason there was no central Afghan figure in the war - since the central coordination was done by the ISI. In this sense, the much maligned ISI can at least take this to its credit: it coordinated the historic defeat of the Soviets. But note also that the ISI too would have been ineffective if it was not for the US supplied weapons - notably the Stinger that neutralized russian air power. Prior to the stinger, the afghan mujahadeen were losing the war. So ultimately, it was all three - the US, the Pakistani army, and the afghan mujahadeen who get credit for the final straw (defeat in Afghanistan) that broke the back of the camel (i.e. of communism).

malik #158 I have no wish to have a discussion with you - on the previous board, you proved to be a deceiptful, abusive individual. At a minimum you owe me an apology for the unwarranted personal abuse and for your outrageous twisting of my words.

PS: I didnt bother to read more than the first line of your above post. I really dont care what you have to say there.

HE #157 you write ``In the event of a war, only these Islamists will sacrifice their lives for Pakistan, whereas America will suddenly develop dyslexia (like it did in 1971). ``

I beg to differ. In 1965 and 1971 it was the regular pakistan army that fought. The Islamists were nowhere to be seen. My own uncle (who was commanding officer of the armored regiment that led the tank attack that chased the indians all the way from Chhamb to Jaurian, and who was badly wounded and lost his leg defending Sialkot had the following story to tell of the mullahs: Prior to the war, his regimental mullah loved to talk big about defeating the Indians. When his regiment was ordered to move to the front, the mullah came to him virtually in tears - he begged to be left behind because of his wife and children. You may wish to reflect on this.

Also, I remember in 1971 we were on the brink of total defeat in Pakistan. I myself saw two Indian planes strafe Chaklala airport unchallenged (they had evaded our radar, and there was not even an air raid siren when they came). While we did have some reserve strength (an armored division in the south e.g.), the fact is that had it not been for international pressure led by the US, we could not have held back the Indians in the West for very long. The movements of the US seventh fleet (which the US sent to the Indian Ocean to back up its words) were in fact one of the few straws we had at the time. Now of course, with the nuclear bomb and missiles we can feel secure, but that was not the case in 1971. The main role of the mullahs in 1971 was in east pakistan where they committed (along with the other paramilitaries) some of the worst atrocities against civilians. I dont have to refer to books - I lived through all that, had relatives and family friends who fought and died defending the lost cause.

My disgust with the mullah is based on decades of observing their behavior, of trying to understand their viewpoint (including even on chowk when I tried one last time to see if they had anything to say), of satisfying for myself the vast gulf between their ideology and the peaceful message of the Quran.

Thanks hamidm2
I don`t run into this problem. We like to go on some weekends with buddies in the neighborhood. She doesn`t go for it, it comes in handy, in case somebody needs to drive us back home:-)
Look me up. YM hossp12.