When people talk abut the impact of an airliner on the South Tower, you hear a lot of generalizations and that is to be expected. Personally I think
that only aeronautical engineers could hazard a guess as to which parts on a 757 would break and in what order, given an impact into one of those
towers.
The thing that I think people should remember when citing the speed and mass of the aircraft in making a case for the entry into the building, as
presented in the videos, is that once the aicraft hits the building, those same factors, the speed and mass of the aircraft, indeed of the separate
parts of the aircraft, start to work against the structural integrity
of the aircraft itself and not simply against the forces holding the
building's facing together.
None of that shows up in the videos.
I don't have time to discuss this in detail but in addition to previous discussion about eyewitnesses, it's useful to look at this video.
Considering the distance and the direction (some way north of the WTC), it is clear to me that the woman who says "that is not an american airlines .
. ." must have been saying simply that the plane did not look like an airliner to her.
I find it hard to believe that she was drawing a distinction, based on what she could observe from where she was,
between airline companies by
her statement.
Most people
north of the towers would not have even seen the second aircraft, prior to impact. Most people
south of the towers, the
direction from which the second plane came, would have been looking
north toward the first tower hit, and would not have seen the second
aircraft approach.
People east and west of the towers would have had the best chance to see the second aircraft prior to impact,
if they were far enough away from the
towers, otherwise they would have been rivetted on the North Tower like everyone else.
Only people far enough away from the scene to have a panoramic view would have an excellent chance of seeing the second aircraft approach.
Unfortunately the downside of being far enough away is that it reduces the accuracy of identifying
exactly what it is one is looking at.
I'm only speculating. I wasn't there. I do know that some people have exaggerated what they saw. I think, as I'm sure the "no planers" do, that
people's memories have been influenced heavily by what they saw on TV. The no planers believe that the broadcast video was meant to fill gaps in
people's perceptual memories with false information.
All I know is that I have a hard time believing the video I have seen of the impacts. I think we should see much more stress on the aircraft.
.
