Another plane crashes into tower building
An Iranian military plane crashed into a tower block today causing significant damage. All 94 people on board are said to have died as did 34 in the building. Eyewitnesses said that the building was engulfed in smoke and dust and a huge fire swept through the block before the fire brigade arrived.
I am not trying to score points out of a tragedy. The loss of a plane and its crew and passengers is sad, and because of the size of the plane and the building casualties are greatly increased. However, there are some pertinent questions.
The Lockheed C-130, also known as the Hercules, is widely used as a military transport plane. It is a heavy machine, although not as heavy as a Boeing 767. The 10-storey apartment block, on the other hand, is a dwarf compared to New York skyscrapers. It certainly wasn’t built to withstand this kind of impact nor had the kind of steel support structure they did.
So a heavy plane crushes into a relatively weak building. It causes a fair amount of damage and heavy loss of life. But it does not bring the building structure down. There is fire and wreckage, but not the sudden collapse of a building in a matter of seconds we saw on our television screens on 11 September 2001. What we saw then is not normal.
Many scientists have since come out to state publicly that a re-enforced building like the New York towers could not simply collapse due to the impact by a plane or the heat generated from burning aircraft fuel. They allege that only an explosive charge inside the building could have had that effect, a planned demolition.
Today, amidst the tragedy in Iran, we have seen proof positive that planes don’t vaporise buildings. We’ve been told fibs about 9/11. When will we be told the full truth?