Make that a STEEL REINFORCED BUILDING and HAVE THE BUILDING FALL WITHIN Its OWN FOOTPRINT!!!!! DAMN!!!!! That'd be some WILD PHYSICS CALCS TO RUN TO HAVE THAT BE DONE THAT WAY!!!!!! Ehhhhhh??????
When I was in engineering school back in the 90s we did a bunch of experiments with this engineering company that built hurricane shutters in Miami. This was right after Andrew and they were testing things and changing the rules around how they were made.
Anyways, we went through a bunch of different things hitting block walls at speeds between 50mph to 177mph (the highest recorded wind gust from Andrew). And then we used a special pneumatic cannon they had to test firing 2X4s at garage doors se we could launch stuff at around 450 mph - it was a pneumatic cannon with a barrel that was 36 feet long!
We launched a bunch of stuff at this cinderblock wall, a ball of ice, a wood sphere I made, and this hollow aluminum ball we made to simulate a beer can.
The ice made a shallow crater that looked like a meteor hit and it had the fps of a .357 magnum. The wood balls punched a clean hole through the wall at 450mph.
All of that stuff is way denser than an airplane nose, but the aluminum ball/can was super interesting. We made a dozen of them and I accidentally crushed one when I set my notebook on it, so they were fragile.
At 177 mph, the hurricane speed, it flattened itself so hard against the wall that I had to use my pocket knife to peel it off.
But at the 450 mph test the damn thing crushed into the wall and embedded about 3/4 through the wall at the energy that was double of a .44 Magnum. Because it embedded into the wall, all of that kinetic energy stayed in the wall and it pulled the whole thing down. It was the only object that knocked the wall down.
The aluminum ball was a half ounce and it knocked down a block wall. A boeing 767 weighs 175,000 pounds without fuel. The 20,000 gallons of jet fuel that were in the 767 add 135,000 lbs on top of that! That's 310,000lbs, then add the 90 people on board of the first plane to add another 15,000 lbs if they average out to 175lbs.
Can you tell I'm an engineer?
Add 7,000 lbs of luggage - could've been more because back then you could carry more luggage on and the weight restrictions weren't as bad.
But, I just looked it up, and Grok says the plane weighed 132 tons, 264K lbs, so let's go with that number. Now, let's go back to the wall and the beer can.
I'm doing quick math here but something that heavy at 450 mph would boost it from about 4000 fps, double a .44 magnum for the beer can weighing a half ounce to something like three gigajoules. Three gigajoules is 1000 times the energy of a tomahawk cruise missile.
I went back to grok and asked what would happen if you fired a 132 ton aluminum can at a row of 25 cinderblock walls and it said that the walls might as well have been made of tissue paper and it wouldn't matter what the object was made of at that speed because this is basically 10X orbital strike velocities and carries the kinetic energy of the MOAB.
For the row of 25 cinder block walls when I do the math, it looks like this:
The First 5 Walls: They wouldn't even slow the ball down. The air pressure wave preceding the ball (the "bow shock") would likely shatter the cinder blocks before the aluminum even touched them.
The Middle Walls: The energy ball is roughly 15 feet in diameter. It wouldn't just "punch a hole"; it would pulverize the walls into a fine concrete powder. The energy transfer would turn the moisture in the cinder blocks into instantaneous steam, causing the walls to essentially explode outward.
The Final 5 Walls: Even after passing through 20 walls, the ball would still be traveling at nearly 490+ mph. It loses almost zero momentum because its mass is so much greater than the combined mass of the 25 walls.
So it would not only go through them all, but it would just evaporate most of it. Now add all that fuel and the explosions. I'm not surprised what happened to the towers happened. It's just physics.
The whole falling down thing is where the debate really begins though, not the impact damage. That turns into a discussion about fire safety, fire hardening, structural engineering, concrete density and hardening, all that stuff.
It's a super complex topic that can't really be compared to an airplane bumping into a truck and falling apart.
For sure, they are not steel bars or rebar though, it's thin sheets of very light alloys, hell on some smaller planes they're glued and not riveted. And, they don't have the crumple zones and frames that cars have for crash protection because they just aren't designed to crash in any other way than an emergency belly landing.
Not that thin. And you have lots of very heavy parts. Beams,trunions, terminal fittings..... I am a heavy structure sheet metal aircraft mechanic. And I belive they did the damage shown.
Another thing that gets missed is that you don't have to cut the steel,just break the bolted joints holding them in place. These bolts are designed for sheer strength, not for tention/ side loads. I belive that mass at that speed will punch a big hole. Their could be lots of fukery after that,IDK.
Well, that was a mouthful of equations. But you didn't touch on the compressive strength of the different materials (aluminum vs. concrete and steel), the cube factor with regards to the geometric mechanics of the objects, especially with regards to to a non-perpendicular angle of the plane when it hit.
Any idea how some of the steel columns had linear but downward angle melted cuts to them?
How about why the building didn't topple to one side first before falling, instead of the low probability "all the columns giving way at the exact same time"?
Here's a video where the BBC on-air live reporter says "Building 7 just collapsed", while it's still standing in her background image:
https://jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/wtc7-bbc_lies.htm
BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell
Kind of interesting how that wasn't even hit by a plane, yet 50+ columns all gave way at the exact same instant.
I'm not arguing about anything like that, I don't know much about the whole 9/11 thing in general, I was just talking about the airplane in the picture and some engineering stuff I've done. There are endless factors to tear into. Hell, even hurricane shutters deal with that. They fire 2X4's directly at these things, but then they don't fire them at an angle, which we found can rip off shutters - but the shutter companies don't talk about that.
Nope. It doesn't weigh enough and the material matters when it's 20 grains.
It's not JUST about weight, it's weight and speed. A beer can going 100 mph will flatten against a brick wall. A beer can going 450 mph will knock it down. A beer can going 1000 mph will obliterate the wall.
Look at .50 vs .22. 22 LR is a fast round, but it's like a bug being fast, it doesn't mean anything. A 50 caliber round weighs 100 grams and a 22 weighs 2 grams.
I'm no engineer and maybe have no right to say anything, but take a look at the thickness of the outer steel beams of the twin towers, and the relatively small distance between beams, not to mention the inner steel frame around the elevator shaft. Big difference between cinder blocks and high grade super thick sreel frames, not to mention one of the videos they showed, the airliner as well as it's wings cutting right into the building and then the nose the jet coming out the other side of the building with no damage. Respectfully,Tri-simulating that. And then there's the fact that jet fuel Burns at well below what it takes to melt steel, and burns off rapidly, seems to me if one tried really hard they could explain the building collapsing above where the planes hit, but what about the rest of the building below? Not to mention falling straight down, not leaning over, at near Free Fall speed as you alluded to. Then there's steel framed,high-rise building 7 that collapsed that day, only had small office fires, not hit by a plane, which did collapse at freefall speed, straight down into its own footprint. Yikes! Is it any Wonder many don't believe the government narrative,yet there are many who don't question, and I question them not questioning it. It's almost a great of a Marvel, people believing the government's narrative, then it is to believe that three hijacked airliners stayed in the air for an hour and 20 minutes, and not one fighter jet intercepted the hijacked planes.
I was curious, so I dove into people making aluminum bullets because I never heard of it done. Apparently a few have tried it and they suck because they're too light, but also they're too hard. The lead conforms in the barrel and doesn't scratch, but the aluminum stays rigid and basically will recut the rifling of a barrel.
Time to close this fucking airport. Laguardia is a shithole thats not meant for modern air travel. It was grandfathered in. Its literally America's most unsafe state airport
The Atlanta airport has the most accidents per flight capita, then Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Nashville, Denver, and Orlando - LAG doesn't even crack the top 25 of accidents per traveler.
But yeah, it is a shithole, I hate flying through there and I do it at least once every few months because I somehow always wind up with a layover there for a few hours.
So, the Air Canada pilot and copilot died, a flight attendant who was in her seat was somehow ejected through the front of the plane (and survived) and is in the hospital while the 72 passengers and 4 crew members are "being evaluated". Two Port Authority officers were injured (broken bones) and are expected to survive.
That had to be a pretty powerful impact to send that flight attendant, while still in her seat, sailing through the front of the plane, no? Were they taxiing for takeoff or on their way to the runway? How does a maintenance or emergency vehicle end up in the path of a moving plane at an airport? DEI issue? Many questions...
.
According to the NY Post article --
"... Sources said the plane was carrying a group of Orthodox Jews from the New York area. ..."
Also... Is it just me or why does that airplane have what looks like windows all the way to the very front/tip of the aircraft? Don't windows usually go only as far as the passenger compartment? I feel as if we're looking at another fake/blow-up (balloon) aircraft.
Thanks for the reply. I thought the pointed front was the intact tip/nose of the aircraft with perhaps the bottom section torn off/down on one side. How the heck does that even happen with the front torn off like that? Just seems strange, but I admittedly don't know much about large-scale impacts like this.
Accident - sure. Damage - yes. Ripping off the nose, sending a seated attendant airborne - has to be high speed.
I just can't imagine how a maintenance/emergency vehicle could possibly be in an area where a plane would be at a speed to cause a severe accident. This was reportedly a take-off so the firetruck would have had to be closer to the end of the departure runway, but before the plane's nose started lifting.
EDIT -- my mistake. It was a collision after landing, not during a takeoff. Anon Archon69 linked a BBC article stating it was a 24 mph crash speed.
Got a link for that speed claim? Anon u/mundania, below, claims the 24 mph speed was post-collision during the skidding. I'm seeing other outlets reporting "about 30 mph". The damage, to my admittedly untrained eyes, seems more in line with a higher speed collision.
Early hours and there seems to be some conflicting info circulating (which, in and of itself is not unusual). The following link, in one of the first sections (for as long as it remains) shows a satellite image of the "approximate" location of the collision (satellite map, NOT post-collision). This looks like a low speed off-ramp of some sort. I think we're going to have to wait for the proverbial smoke to clear to get a better understanding of what actually transpired.
AS a material science/physics prof once said: when all the information comes together there is a picture that can be constructed and once that picture is constructed to the "ACTUAL" event then the REAL picture comes out...still holds true even now...WOWZA!!!!!!!
Well, that would account for ripping off the nose and sending the seated attendant through the air. Do you have a link for that mph data point? I'm bleary-eyed, woke up in the middle of the night here and got online to check news when I came across this incident so haven't read any articles on the speed as yet.
If you're interested, take a look at some of the threads/comments in this post by u/RacinetheMeme, even a video on plane impacts and I have to agree with RtM that this is NOT a 100+ mph crash. Also, other anons providing info on aircraft design, etc. Interesting stuff and there's usually lots of conflicting info when an incident like this occurs. Hard to sift through at times, especially if the topic is not in one's bailiwick.
That 24 mph speed is what FR24 (public aircraft transponder tracking) caught about 30 seconds AFTER the collision when the plane was skidding to a stop. Based on the landing speed of the jet and where it was on the runway it would have been somewhere above well 100 mph when it hit the truck.
Can you look at that satellite image regarding the alleged crash location in the link in the comment above where I tagged you? Does this line up with the location you're seeing for the collision location?
24 mph? Wow. As I mentioned in another comment, I don't know much about impacts/collisions, but that "seems like" (to my perhaps uninformed viewpoint) excessive damage for that speed.
u/WildMassGuessing112 - this seems to contradict your statement that it was moving at 130 mph.
If the plane was landing and came down on the firetruck - which would account for the bad parking job - it wouldn't be going 24 or it would've dropped from the sky far before it got close to the runway. It would need to be at 130-150. That's if it hit coming in. If it hit at the other end after landing who knows.
It looks like that because the cockpit broke off. The flight attendant was strapped to the wall behind the pilots door so she got catapulted out of the plane when it broke. She's honestly very lucky to not have gotten her head squished!
Interesting... I've seen a couple "information alterations" now. Confusion during the initial time period or, as you say, being ordered to remove it? I'd made the note of a group of the passengers being Orthodox jews because my first thought, while reading "mass casualty" and "LaGuardia" had been a terrorist attack of some sort. You know, 7/10 and wondering who, of note, might have been on an aircraft with "an incident".
I did download the original article, just checked and, yes, the NY Post has removed that line (quoted as my above comment). Did they feel their sources were not reliable or is there another reason for the removal of their initial statement on this?
Exactly, I don’t believe what’s the pilot it was the truck driver who was driving at the moment the airplane was landing. How’s that possible?, maybe intentionally?
It's 100% fault if the ATC clearing the firetruck to cross runway, truck probably should have looked for planes before crossing though, but mostly ATC fault
Edit: ... And... Oddly enough, the bottom section of the above post by OP is now gone, disappeared, and when trying to locate the particular NBC article that was linked, I'm seeing no mention of them responding to a "odor" on a United aircraft, only that they were responding to "a separate incident". Something seems hinky here... (Edit3: And now that section is back. Go figure?)
Edit2: I found the NBC article (I'd downloaded it so was able to retrieve the link). This is the one claiming there was an odor on another aircraft --
I just watched Under the Silver Lake, and apparently the bad smell is somebody got skunked. Same for the DC air traffic control center a few weeks ago.
I was watching Fox and they said there was a fuel leak smell the firetruck was responding to, they'd parked the other plane out at the far distance of the tarmac in case it blew up and there were already 2 trucks there. This was a local FD that was waved in and told to follow another vehicle which lead them right in the landing path.
The ground team working on the fire didn't notify ATC, which was operating at 50% of what is considered a skeleton crew, that a firetruck was crossing the landing strip and they found out exactly what happens with you do that.
Listen to the audio provided in the link, below, by anon u/MidnightToker - excellent link which also contains a visual/graphic of the movements of the aircraft and the truck while the audio plays.
According to the audio, the truck had stopped and requested to move onto the runway, was given the go-ahead by ATC and then seconds later ATC told the truck, repeatedly, to stop. Too late - those few seconds of delay made avoidance of this tragic incident inevitable.
I don't know ATC protocol, seems as if there's a lot of repetition of requests and commands. Was the ATC operator just repeating the request to clarify he'd heard it correctly, NOT giving the command to actually proceed onto the runway? Or did he give the go-ahead to the truck, but then tried to pull it back by telling the truck to stop a couple seconds later?
"... at least 100 injuries reported..." As per the post's Nick Sortor X post.
There were, reportedly, 72 passengers, 4 crew (including the 2 pilots?) (above post screenshot states 76 passengers, 4 crew) and two men in the collision vehicle. Lots of info circulating during the initial hours that may be incorrect. Time may clarify some of this. Early hours as yet...
Haunting photos. Almost as if the plane was still trying to fly and get out of danger. Just sitting there like that in what I believe is called V1 position.
According to ground control audio and tracking: The plane had just landed and rolled out to the end of the runway.
It made a hairpin turn onto the taxiway and was moving at about 24 mph.
Bam. Firetruck was right there on the taxiway.
If it had been on the runway and traveling at 120 mph when it hit that truck, most of the plane would have been obliterated and almost certainly would have exploded with no survivors.
Planes are made of aluminum and plastic. Aircraft aluminum is, by necessity, very light. As someone else here said, Planes are made to fly - not hit things.
Most of the answers to that are emerging. It wasn't closed. There was another plane with a "odd fuel leak smell' they parked at the far end of the tarmac to send a fire crew to. The two airport fire safety folks responded and were checking it out, and the local FD truck showed up and they were let in and told to follow another car.
The super understaffed ATC either missed or didn't get the notice - or the guy in the lead car didn't radio he was there - they're still figuring that part out. But he drove right across the runway and the plane landed right into the FD Truck.
About working late night hours, at LGA tons of people do, it's a massive airport and they were responding to a possible fire.
I have not seen a plane looking like it got decapitated. Praying for the victims' families, I'm sure this is not the way the pilots saw themselves leaving this world.
This counts as a 3/22 event, since it mustve happened at least 34 min before the above video
So in essence they didn't have a 3/22 sacrifice scheduled, or the Italy anarchist explosion one didn't pan out (or there are others we will find out about). So they droned a firetruck onto the runway to masscrash some canadians
It sounded like the ATC made a mistake in agreeing to let the requesting Firetruck cross the runway, after listening to the audio. Of course, I don't know if the firetruck couldn't turn their head to see the oncoming plane that was taxing to the gate after landing. Very tragic stupidity at play here. . .
Plane coming in over 120mph with landing lights on, bright lights everywhere anyway since it was night, ATC cleared truck, truck tried to get across runway fast, ATC pulled their head out of their ass, noticed the plane, yelled STOP STOP STOP to the truck (who couldn't because they were already on the runway), and - chaos.
100% on ATC. All the truck could do is try to get off the runway. Looks like they tried to keep going forward - since they were moving that way. If they tried to stop and back up it could've been even worse as it would've taken longer for the truck to stop and back up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx-GFeErXD8 This is Captain Steeeve YT channel - and he provides more context with experience with LaGuardia and the ground weather conditions at the time too. I was too een too harsh on the tower guy.
Truck pulled out infront of landing plane. Pilots dead. RIP.
Look at plane damage done at 66mi/hr and tell me again a plane can take down a steel clad building.
Make that a STEEL REINFORCED BUILDING and HAVE THE BUILDING FALL WITHIN Its OWN FOOTPRINT!!!!! DAMN!!!!! That'd be some WILD PHYSICS CALCS TO RUN TO HAVE THAT BE DONE THAT WAY!!!!!! Ehhhhhh??????
Always fun to ask the sleepers, how long did each tower burn before it fell?
Good observation
Not even that. Airplanes don't even fare well against bird strikes.
I hope this opens a lot of minds to how fragile planes are.
When I was in engineering school back in the 90s we did a bunch of experiments with this engineering company that built hurricane shutters in Miami. This was right after Andrew and they were testing things and changing the rules around how they were made.
Anyways, we went through a bunch of different things hitting block walls at speeds between 50mph to 177mph (the highest recorded wind gust from Andrew). And then we used a special pneumatic cannon they had to test firing 2X4s at garage doors se we could launch stuff at around 450 mph - it was a pneumatic cannon with a barrel that was 36 feet long!
We launched a bunch of stuff at this cinderblock wall, a ball of ice, a wood sphere I made, and this hollow aluminum ball we made to simulate a beer can.
The ice made a shallow crater that looked like a meteor hit and it had the fps of a .357 magnum. The wood balls punched a clean hole through the wall at 450mph.
All of that stuff is way denser than an airplane nose, but the aluminum ball/can was super interesting. We made a dozen of them and I accidentally crushed one when I set my notebook on it, so they were fragile.
At 177 mph, the hurricane speed, it flattened itself so hard against the wall that I had to use my pocket knife to peel it off.
But at the 450 mph test the damn thing crushed into the wall and embedded about 3/4 through the wall at the energy that was double of a .44 Magnum. Because it embedded into the wall, all of that kinetic energy stayed in the wall and it pulled the whole thing down. It was the only object that knocked the wall down.
The aluminum ball was a half ounce and it knocked down a block wall. A boeing 767 weighs 175,000 pounds without fuel. The 20,000 gallons of jet fuel that were in the 767 add 135,000 lbs on top of that! That's 310,000lbs, then add the 90 people on board of the first plane to add another 15,000 lbs if they average out to 175lbs.
Can you tell I'm an engineer?
Add 7,000 lbs of luggage - could've been more because back then you could carry more luggage on and the weight restrictions weren't as bad.
But, I just looked it up, and Grok says the plane weighed 132 tons, 264K lbs, so let's go with that number. Now, let's go back to the wall and the beer can.
I'm doing quick math here but something that heavy at 450 mph would boost it from about 4000 fps, double a .44 magnum for the beer can weighing a half ounce to something like three gigajoules. Three gigajoules is 1000 times the energy of a tomahawk cruise missile.
I went back to grok and asked what would happen if you fired a 132 ton aluminum can at a row of 25 cinderblock walls and it said that the walls might as well have been made of tissue paper and it wouldn't matter what the object was made of at that speed because this is basically 10X orbital strike velocities and carries the kinetic energy of the MOAB.
For the row of 25 cinder block walls when I do the math, it looks like this:
The First 5 Walls: They wouldn't even slow the ball down. The air pressure wave preceding the ball (the "bow shock") would likely shatter the cinder blocks before the aluminum even touched them.
The Middle Walls: The energy ball is roughly 15 feet in diameter. It wouldn't just "punch a hole"; it would pulverize the walls into a fine concrete powder. The energy transfer would turn the moisture in the cinder blocks into instantaneous steam, causing the walls to essentially explode outward.
The Final 5 Walls: Even after passing through 20 walls, the ball would still be traveling at nearly 490+ mph. It loses almost zero momentum because its mass is so much greater than the combined mass of the 25 walls.
So it would not only go through them all, but it would just evaporate most of it. Now add all that fuel and the explosions. I'm not surprised what happened to the towers happened. It's just physics.
The whole falling down thing is where the debate really begins though, not the impact damage. That turns into a discussion about fire safety, fire hardening, structural engineering, concrete density and hardening, all that stuff.
It's a super complex topic that can't really be compared to an airplane bumping into a truck and falling apart.
They should make airplanes out of Saudi passports. Those can survive anything!
Not just survive. They remain clean and intact.
Planes are made of a lot of 7075 T6 not quite steal but a lot harder than pure aluminum.
For sure, they are not steel bars or rebar though, it's thin sheets of very light alloys, hell on some smaller planes they're glued and not riveted. And, they don't have the crumple zones and frames that cars have for crash protection because they just aren't designed to crash in any other way than an emergency belly landing.
Not that thin. And you have lots of very heavy parts. Beams,trunions, terminal fittings..... I am a heavy structure sheet metal aircraft mechanic. And I belive they did the damage shown.
Oh for sure, I don't know much about airplane structures to be honest. I'm just rattling on about mass and weight.
Another thing that gets missed is that you don't have to cut the steel,just break the bolted joints holding them in place. These bolts are designed for sheer strength, not for tention/ side loads. I belive that mass at that speed will punch a big hole. Their could be lots of fukery after that,IDK.
Very solid points!
Well, that was a mouthful of equations. But you didn't touch on the compressive strength of the different materials (aluminum vs. concrete and steel), the cube factor with regards to the geometric mechanics of the objects, especially with regards to to a non-perpendicular angle of the plane when it hit. Any idea how some of the steel columns had linear but downward angle melted cuts to them? How about why the building didn't topple to one side first before falling, instead of the low probability "all the columns giving way at the exact same time"? Here's a video where the BBC on-air live reporter says "Building 7 just collapsed", while it's still standing in her background image: https://jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/wtc7-bbc_lies.htm BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell Kind of interesting how that wasn't even hit by a plane, yet 50+ columns all gave way at the exact same instant.
I'm not arguing about anything like that, I don't know much about the whole 9/11 thing in general, I was just talking about the airplane in the picture and some engineering stuff I've done. There are endless factors to tear into. Hell, even hurricane shutters deal with that. They fire 2X4's directly at these things, but then they don't fire them at an angle, which we found can rip off shutters - but the shutter companies don't talk about that.
Will have to dive on that.
Now on to make some aluminum bullets. Seems like a 22 can take down a moose.
Nope. It doesn't weigh enough and the material matters when it's 20 grains.
It's not JUST about weight, it's weight and speed. A beer can going 100 mph will flatten against a brick wall. A beer can going 450 mph will knock it down. A beer can going 1000 mph will obliterate the wall.
Look at .50 vs .22. 22 LR is a fast round, but it's like a bug being fast, it doesn't mean anything. A 50 caliber round weighs 100 grams and a 22 weighs 2 grams.
Mass is a HUGE factor.
I'm no engineer and maybe have no right to say anything, but take a look at the thickness of the outer steel beams of the twin towers, and the relatively small distance between beams, not to mention the inner steel frame around the elevator shaft. Big difference between cinder blocks and high grade super thick sreel frames, not to mention one of the videos they showed, the airliner as well as it's wings cutting right into the building and then the nose the jet coming out the other side of the building with no damage. Respectfully,Tri-simulating that. And then there's the fact that jet fuel Burns at well below what it takes to melt steel, and burns off rapidly, seems to me if one tried really hard they could explain the building collapsing above where the planes hit, but what about the rest of the building below? Not to mention falling straight down, not leaning over, at near Free Fall speed as you alluded to. Then there's steel framed,high-rise building 7 that collapsed that day, only had small office fires, not hit by a plane, which did collapse at freefall speed, straight down into its own footprint. Yikes! Is it any Wonder many don't believe the government narrative,yet there are many who don't question, and I question them not questioning it. It's almost a great of a Marvel, people believing the government's narrative, then it is to believe that three hijacked airliners stayed in the air for an hour and 20 minutes, and not one fighter jet intercepted the hijacked planes.
Great points regarding WTC.
kk, got that. Thanks
I was curious, so I dove into people making aluminum bullets because I never heard of it done. Apparently a few have tried it and they suck because they're too light, but also they're too hard. The lead conforms in the barrel and doesn't scratch, but the aluminum stays rigid and basically will recut the rifling of a barrel.
Yeah makes sense. I will still try but will see if one could copper coat or use molybdenum disulfide or even a combo.
Time to close this fucking airport. Laguardia is a shithole thats not meant for modern air travel. It was grandfathered in. Its literally America's most unsafe state airport
It's also so gross and dirty. Thought i was going to catch a disease last time i was there just from being there
La Giardia
The Atlanta airport has the most accidents per flight capita, then Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Nashville, Denver, and Orlando - LAG doesn't even crack the top 25 of accidents per traveler.
But yeah, it is a shithole, I hate flying through there and I do it at least once every few months because I somehow always wind up with a layover there for a few hours.
So, the Air Canada pilot and copilot died, a flight attendant who was in her seat was somehow ejected through the front of the plane (and survived) and is in the hospital while the 72 passengers and 4 crew members are "being evaluated". Two Port Authority officers were injured (broken bones) and are expected to survive.
That had to be a pretty powerful impact to send that flight attendant, while still in her seat, sailing through the front of the plane, no? Were they taxiing for takeoff or on their way to the runway? How does a maintenance or emergency vehicle end up in the path of a moving plane at an airport? DEI issue? Many questions...
.
According to the NY Post article --
"... Sources said the plane was carrying a group of Orthodox Jews from the New York area. ..."
https://nypost.com/2026/03/23/us-news/air-canada-flight-firetruck-collide-at-laguardia-reports/
.
Also... Is it just me or why does that airplane have what looks like windows all the way to the very front/tip of the aircraft? Don't windows usually go only as far as the passenger compartment? I feel as if we're looking at another fake/blow-up (balloon) aircraft.
The cockpit is missing, thats why the windows look as if they reach right to the nose.
Thanks for the reply. I thought the pointed front was the intact tip/nose of the aircraft with perhaps the bottom section torn off/down on one side. How the heck does that even happen with the front torn off like that? Just seems strange, but I admittedly don't know much about large-scale impacts like this.
I know, these type of planes can rip high rise towers with reinforced steel structures apart.
It’s as if they are made of lightweight aluminium frames with a really thin aluminium skin.
Kek. Yeah... About those towers...
Accident - sure. Damage - yes. Ripping off the nose, sending a seated attendant airborne - has to be high speed.
I just can't imagine how a maintenance/emergency vehicle could possibly be in an area where a plane would be at a speed to cause a severe accident. This was reportedly a take-off so the firetruck would have had to be closer to the end of the departure runway, but before the plane's nose started lifting.
EDIT -- my mistake. It was a collision after landing, not during a takeoff. Anon Archon69 linked a BBC article stating it was a 24 mph crash speed.
News just reported that plane was traveling 120mph.
Got a link for that speed claim? Anon u/mundania, below, claims the 24 mph speed was post-collision during the skidding. I'm seeing other outlets reporting "about 30 mph". The damage, to my admittedly untrained eyes, seems more in line with a higher speed collision.
Early hours and there seems to be some conflicting info circulating (which, in and of itself is not unusual). The following link, in one of the first sections (for as long as it remains) shows a satellite image of the "approximate" location of the collision (satellite map, NOT post-collision). This looks like a low speed off-ramp of some sort. I think we're going to have to wait for the proverbial smoke to clear to get a better understanding of what actually transpired.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/air-canada-laguardia-collision-live-updates-rcna264682
AS a material science/physics prof once said: when all the information comes together there is a picture that can be constructed and once that picture is constructed to the "ACTUAL" event then the REAL picture comes out...still holds true even now...WOWZA!!!!!!!
Mechanical Engineering!!!!!
Apparently it was a 130 mph collision
Well, that would account for ripping off the nose and sending the seated attendant through the air. Do you have a link for that mph data point? I'm bleary-eyed, woke up in the middle of the night here and got online to check news when I came across this incident so haven't read any articles on the speed as yet.
Sadly it was CNN's article I saw it on. They updated it to 104 mph.
Thanks for the reply.
If you're interested, take a look at some of the threads/comments in this post by u/RacinetheMeme, even a video on plane impacts and I have to agree with RtM that this is NOT a 100+ mph crash. Also, other anons providing info on aircraft design, etc. Interesting stuff and there's usually lots of conflicting info when an incident like this occurs. Hard to sift through at times, especially if the topic is not in one's bailiwick.
Interesting. 104 days starting today is right around the 4th of July.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c620w12y59nt
The plane, carrying 72 passengers and four crew, was travelling about 24mph after arriving from Montreal on Sunday evening, local time.
That 24 mph speed is what FR24 (public aircraft transponder tracking) caught about 30 seconds AFTER the collision when the plane was skidding to a stop. Based on the landing speed of the jet and where it was on the runway it would have been somewhere above well 100 mph when it hit the truck.
Landing speed is ~150mph so yeah, above 100 totally possible and the truck was pushed for a ways.
Can you look at that satellite image regarding the alleged crash location in the link in the comment above where I tagged you? Does this line up with the location you're seeing for the collision location?
24 mph? Wow. As I mentioned in another comment, I don't know much about impacts/collisions, but that "seems like" (to my perhaps uninformed viewpoint) excessive damage for that speed.
u/WildMassGuessing112 - this seems to contradict your statement that it was moving at 130 mph.
.
Heavy plane amd heavey truck. 24mph can do some damage. Plus tjose planes aint really mad of much.
I guess it's like slamming into a brick wall.
They're designed to fly, not run into things.
There's that, yes. Interesting comment, above, with your engineering experience. I grabbed a screenshot to read it again later, too.
In your estimation, is the damage to the plane (from various photos in various links) more likely to occur at 24 mph or 120 mph?
If the plane was landing and came down on the firetruck - which would account for the bad parking job - it wouldn't be going 24 or it would've dropped from the sky far before it got close to the runway. It would need to be at 130-150. That's if it hit coming in. If it hit at the other end after landing who knows.
Nope, under 30mph.
It looks like that because the cockpit broke off. The flight attendant was strapped to the wall behind the pilots door so she got catapulted out of the plane when it broke. She's honestly very lucky to not have gotten her head squished!
Jews? You know it is a big lawsuit, they are good at it. Something is not right here.
I did not see this information. Maybe the New York Post was ordered to take the information out? Orthodox Jews from the New York area.
Interesting... I've seen a couple "information alterations" now. Confusion during the initial time period or, as you say, being ordered to remove it? I'd made the note of a group of the passengers being Orthodox jews because my first thought, while reading "mass casualty" and "LaGuardia" had been a terrorist attack of some sort. You know, 7/10 and wondering who, of note, might have been on an aircraft with "an incident".
I did download the original article, just checked and, yes, the NY Post has removed that line (quoted as my above comment). Did they feel their sources were not reliable or is there another reason for the removal of their initial statement on this?
Female pilot again?
Either a DEI pilot, Fire Engine driver or Air Traffic Control Operator.
I guarantee it.
Edit: right before atc tells the truck to move, they cleared the truck to cross. ATC error
100% - that's what I got out of the audio last night.
U can hardly lay blame on the pilot. Plane thst big cant maneuver.
Exactly, I don’t believe what’s the pilot it was the truck driver who was driving at the moment the airplane was landing. How’s that possible?, maybe intentionally?
Truck moved when ATC cleared it. Trucks don't just drive across active runways. Everyone on the flightline area takes direction from ATC.
Ok
It's 100% fault if the ATC clearing the firetruck to cross runway, truck probably should have looked for planes before crossing though, but mostly ATC fault
BBC reported they were on HALF of what is considered a skeleton crew at the ATC tower. Newark was helping with flight control.
Maybe, another DEI Rebecca Lobach, who had failed to heed instructions in 2025 collision with the aircraft?
That should buff right out. 🤪🤪
7/10 ?
I'm glad you guys are looking at this closely. This incident hit me as being in the "Weird as Shit" category.
I mean, don't you always, when a plane is landing, get an urge to drive a vehicle in front of it?
"DEI hire" seems to be on people's bingo cards.
“Mass casualty event” is now used to describe everything. How about titling it “Airline crash?” Then the article describes injuries, not casualties.
Why was the fire truck there, to prevent a fire or obstruct the plane??🙄
Click the nbc link in the post's lower section. It says they were responding to a separate incident, some "strange odor" on another aircraft.
cc: u/Godisglory1
.
Edit: ... And... Oddly enough, the bottom section of the above post by OP is now gone, disappeared, and when trying to locate the particular NBC article that was linked, I'm seeing no mention of them responding to a "odor" on a United aircraft, only that they were responding to "a separate incident". Something seems hinky here... (Edit3: And now that section is back. Go figure?)
Edit2: I found the NBC article (I'd downloaded it so was able to retrieve the link). This is the one claiming there was an odor on another aircraft --
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/incident-reported-plane-vehicle-new-yorks-la-guardia-airport-rcna264677
I also saw the 'strange odor' explanation.
I just watched Under the Silver Lake, and apparently the bad smell is somebody got skunked. Same for the DC air traffic control center a few weeks ago.
I was watching Fox and they said there was a fuel leak smell the firetruck was responding to, they'd parked the other plane out at the far distance of the tarmac in case it blew up and there were already 2 trucks there. This was a local FD that was waved in and told to follow another vehicle which lead them right in the landing path.
The ground team working on the fire didn't notify ATC, which was operating at 50% of what is considered a skeleton crew, that a firetruck was crossing the landing strip and they found out exactly what happens with you do that.
Listen to the audio provided in the link, below, by anon u/MidnightToker - excellent link which also contains a visual/graphic of the movements of the aircraft and the truck while the audio plays.
According to the audio, the truck had stopped and requested to move onto the runway, was given the go-ahead by ATC and then seconds later ATC told the truck, repeatedly, to stop. Too late - those few seconds of delay made avoidance of this tragic incident inevitable.
I don't know ATC protocol, seems as if there's a lot of repetition of requests and commands. Was the ATC operator just repeating the request to clarify he'd heard it correctly, NOT giving the command to actually proceed onto the runway? Or did he give the go-ahead to the truck, but then tried to pull it back by telling the truck to stop a couple seconds later?
The friking odor again. That’s correct, are some pychos trying to kill everybody with the odor thing, maybe is a chemical like Covid?
What it was doing there? Exactly the right question
Atc was yelling at the truck to stop after they had cleared it, then the controller said they screwed up.
"... at least 100 injuries reported..." As per the post's Nick Sortor X post.
There were, reportedly, 72 passengers, 4 crew (including the 2 pilots?) (above post screenshot states 76 passengers, 4 crew) and two men in the collision vehicle. Lots of info circulating during the initial hours that may be incorrect. Time may clarify some of this. Early hours as yet...
I don't know if Nick Sortor who lives in Oregon is a good source though.
Haunting photos. Almost as if the plane was still trying to fly and get out of danger. Just sitting there like that in what I believe is called V1 position.
According to ground control audio and tracking: The plane had just landed and rolled out to the end of the runway.
It made a hairpin turn onto the taxiway and was moving at about 24 mph.
Bam. Firetruck was right there on the taxiway.
If it had been on the runway and traveling at 120 mph when it hit that truck, most of the plane would have been obliterated and almost certainly would have exploded with no survivors.
Planes are made of aluminum and plastic. Aircraft aluminum is, by necessity, very light. As someone else here said, Planes are made to fly - not hit things.
Understaffed tower so one guy was doing both ground and air, and he's recorded saying,"I messed up." Horrible, tragic story...
Listen to ATC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8guQVvXo3g
It's on ATC and the truck. ATC gave the order to cross and didn't make it clear for them to stop. The truck didn't look before crossing.
The runway was closed from what I gather so the flight crew didn't get the message.
I really want to know who was flying the plane.
Also why the hell was a fire truck on the runway?
Who works late night hours on a runway?
Most of the answers to that are emerging. It wasn't closed. There was another plane with a "odd fuel leak smell' they parked at the far end of the tarmac to send a fire crew to. The two airport fire safety folks responded and were checking it out, and the local FD truck showed up and they were let in and told to follow another car.
The super understaffed ATC either missed or didn't get the notice - or the guy in the lead car didn't radio he was there - they're still figuring that part out. But he drove right across the runway and the plane landed right into the FD Truck.
About working late night hours, at LGA tons of people do, it's a massive airport and they were responding to a possible fire.
this is the most important question of those you asked, in my opinion
was there even anyone IN the fire truck or was it rc-car'd onto the runway
I have not seen a plane looking like it got decapitated. Praying for the victims' families, I'm sure this is not the way the pilots saw themselves leaving this world.
This counts as a 3/22 event, since it mustve happened at least 34 min before the above video
So in essence they didn't have a 3/22 sacrifice scheduled, or the Italy anarchist explosion one didn't pan out (or there are others we will find out about). So they droned a firetruck onto the runway to masscrash some canadians
BTW, Laguardia is pronounced La Giardia
Don't touch any surfaces there and then your face
It sounded like the ATC made a mistake in agreeing to let the requesting Firetruck cross the runway, after listening to the audio. Of course, I don't know if the firetruck couldn't turn their head to see the oncoming plane that was taxing to the gate after landing. Very tragic stupidity at play here. . .
Plane coming in over 120mph with landing lights on, bright lights everywhere anyway since it was night, ATC cleared truck, truck tried to get across runway fast, ATC pulled their head out of their ass, noticed the plane, yelled STOP STOP STOP to the truck (who couldn't because they were already on the runway), and - chaos.
100% on ATC. All the truck could do is try to get off the runway. Looks like they tried to keep going forward - since they were moving that way. If they tried to stop and back up it could've been even worse as it would've taken longer for the truck to stop and back up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx-GFeErXD8 This is Captain Steeeve YT channel - and he provides more context with experience with LaGuardia and the ground weather conditions at the time too. I was too een too harsh on the tower guy.