Tuesday, December 06, 2005

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?


At 7 December 2005 at 00:57, Blogger Imaad Udeen said...

Do you have any links to the studies or comments from 'scientists' referring to the collapse of the WTC towers on September 11th?

You have to prove you are comparing apples and apples and not apples and oranges.


At 7 December 2005 at 05:20, Anonymous An Iranian said...

Well, the plane didn't the crash into the building, a wing clipped the side. The pilot had tried to crash in the street nearby to save lives. But the wing was full of fuel nevertheless and caused gas pipes to explode.

At 7 December 2005 at 09:05, Blogger Mustaqim said...

As a primer on WTC demolition and building collapse you might want to start with http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/index.html which contains a wealth of detail. Then, if your science is up to it, refute the claims and I will happily publish your thesis here!

At 7 December 2005 at 10:59, Anonymous Londoner said...

How dare you try to get us to use our brains ?
We are all tired and far too busy for that sort of thing. Much easier to watch the x factor, eastenders and then sky news rather than monitor or question our political masters.

Hmnn me thinks you make a fair point. The towers thing was just so hollywood . Nothing normal can happen in America it has to be spectacular. Besides, is it not a fact that the buildings insurance for the towers up for renewl and being was refused due to the substandard materials used?
Soo many things just don't add up.

At 7 December 2005 at 19:14, Anonymous Majid said...

Very interesting stroy. In fact Official Iranian News Agency (IRNA) has found the story intersting enough to quote it from you.

The Persian web link is as below:

At 8 December 2005 at 12:18, Anonymous Londoner said...

This story got a brief mention in yesterdays media today it has been dropped.

were there not any Americans or Brithish on board???

At 17 April 2006 at 02:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think your comments regard the collapse of the twin towers is rubbish, are you so hateful towards the USA you look for anything with which to condemd them. The world would be a far better world if you was not so full of hate.


Post a Comment

<< Home