9/11 - what happened to the planes?

[myyve]

Thinking on from that awful day after the anniversary yesterday, one thought has come to mind.

What happened to the planes and those onboard, once they were flown into the twin towers? I know this probably does sound silly and I'm so sorry if it comes across as ignorant, but I truly do not know, and the internet doesn't mention anything, either..

Did they come to a crash landing afterwards? Or did they continue flying? What actually happened to the plane and those poor souls on board?

You shouldn't be in such a job (although you don't sound very professional). Nastily judging children for their names and the fact that their parents aren't married, which could be for any reason. Then going on to mock them online. Revolting.

LOL, I'm being rude?!

Do you think that might possibly, just possibly, on a thread already running to 7 pages, already have been said?

A few times. 🙄

Please don’t apologise for asking for help. It’s clear there was no ill intent.

For so many (including myself) it was so traumatic seeing it happen (mostly in real time), the following few years, when you would still have been young saw the footage played over and over. But I can see how it might not be something you really knew existed.

What type of research is it? Is it humanities based or scientific/engineering?

If you couldn’t find anything specifically about your question have you researched similar events (unfortunately there are quite a few examples of airliners crashing into buildings).

To be fair, someone else's opinion can be a great starting point. It's like a summary that helps you shape which questions to ask, and where to look next.

If you just generally ask the internet you get hours and hours of information to sift through.

Glad it's not just me wandering what this poster meant.

https://www.flight93friends.org/flight-93-story - that flight crashed and the 40 passengers and crew died.

I also thought most got out the twin towers..

https://www.nationalworld.com/news/world/how-many-people-survived-911-number-of-survivors-pulled-from-rubble-of-twin-towers-and-their-stories-3377058

In terms of direct results of the attacks, more than 6,000 people sustained injuries, while 2,977 were killed.

It's horrific but people did get out.

If you genuinely do work with children, you shouldn't.

Not that I believe for a second you do.

Yeah, a number of posters seem to want to bully the OP into asking MN to remove the thread.

Please don't give into them OP, we all don't know what we don't know, and are entitled to ask questions.

Well what a stupid fucking question.
Thanks for your fucking answer.

Yes, The falling man, it's incredibly harrowing.

Don't give her a hard time because you are traumatised by the event

I'm not traumatised by it. I'm astonished that anyone thinks of MN as a first port of call to research a question like this when 'what happened to the planes that crashed into the WTC?' brings up 4 million hits on google.

Nothing inherently wrong with the question itself, however dumb it sounds, it's all part of research, however grisly some people find it.

I actually asked this exact question only a few days ago. My son, who wasn’t born when it happened, was watching footage on YouTube and as the plane went in I did say where did it all go because I too thought you might get a piece of the plane come through. I’m not stupid and watched on the day but I don’t think it’s a completely ridiculous question. I wondered if any plane debris hit the road below.

It was a shocking day and one that will forever be etched in my brain.

You're fucking welcome.

Three aircraft hit their targets, the 2 WTC towers and the Pentagon.

There is ample video of the WTC collisions, particularly the second. The aircraft is clearly smashed to smithereens. The one on the Pentagon was similarly destroyed.

The fourth, intended for Washington DC, crashed into open land after a passenger revolt. It was out of control and hit the ground in a dive. Little of what remained was recognisable as is usually the case in that type of impact; it wasn't the sort of forced landing where sections of the fuselage remain intact.

I was incredibly young when it happened too OP, I don’t know many details about it either. Don’t feel bad, older generations don’t seem to realise it’s not widely taught in school and half the current generations alive don’t know much more about it other than two planes crashed into two towers and many people died.

Dear heavens. They exploded in a massive fireball. It’s not like driving your car into your garage wall.

It's wonderful that so many of you rode your dinosaurs to the public library to pore over academic texts but the ways in which people research is different now. Lots of public libraries are closed if we're being honest. The internet has changed the way in which people communicate and engage, we want immediacy and the para-social, prod/user effects of ~online create spaces like mumsnet where information is shared and interpreted. Googling gets you so far, videos give you context but very little beats real time, real life interaction where you can discuss things. It's why forums exist. Most of you are referencing documentaries and articles that exist as a result of someone being curious, asking questions people want answers to and drawing out the personal elements that make something interesting to us, as humans.
There were countless posts about the titanic sub imploding because people were interested and had questions and that was happening now, not twenty years ago. Even now people still ask why did some of the sub implode but other bits didn't etc because sometimes our brain can't comprehend something so beyond our scope of rationality and the contextual constraints we have.
It's lovely to sit there and laugh and mock someone else seeking knowledge, I hope you feel good about yourselves. Telling someone that they are useless and can't conduct research is very mean and them posting to ask for opinions and answers isn't them saying that all they've bothered to do is post on mumsnet, it's probably one of a few avenues they've explored. And even if it is the only place they've looked, so what? Why is research only valid if it's carried out in a dim library basement? Why is research only credible if it's via academic papers? I've written academic papers that people have cited and I've also asked mumsnet for advice on stuff because sometimes you don't want an hour long lesson on something you just want a quick summary.
We could interrogate how the internet has led to a situation where everything is urgent and immediate and our patience and ability to regulate has been impacted but that's a conversation for a different day!

The footage stopped being shown at some point after a few years, as it was deemed to be disrespectful to the victims.

I think we forget, we saw the moment of impact replayed dozens, maybe hundreds of times in the following days and then on the first few anniversaries. It's imprinted on our memories. Some of the early documentaries also had footage interviewing firefighters near Ground Zero where you can hear the sounds of people falling from the tower and impacting the ground and buildings around. They are no longer shown. IIRC they were only shown a couple of times ever before victims' families objected.

You have to remember that this was the very first major event where a lot of people had cameras with them, so it was unprecedented. Previous to this, the only footage of major events would have been blurry accidental holiday camera footage and/or professional news reports, which would be carefully edited so that people did not see anything explicitly gory. The original footage that was constantly rerun of the twin towers was not gory as such, because it was from such a distance that you could not make out individual people (except for the poor souls who fell from height, and even then you could not see who they were), I know that I did not initially feel traumatised by it (I was 12) because it was like watching a stunt from a disaster movie. It was only looking back with an adult perspective that I really felt how awful it must have been for people seeing it the first time around.

I am sure you can find these things online, but honestly I would be incredibly nervous to search for any kind of disaster footage online in case I saw something even more graphic than these things. I expect there is footage online which would show things that you wouldn't be able to unsee. I can understand if OP does not want to search for it, just in case.

OP I would recommend the documentary Falling Man. Be aware it is not an easy watch but there is no graphic footage.

Because YouTube is SO much more likely to hold the 'truth' than asking any number of questions elsewhere?

I'm not sure watching any amount of footage would tell the whole story, nor be any more 'believable' than answers found anywhere else. I've seen a ton of footage and films, listened to loads of interviews read a lot of book, articles, research papers and asked a lot of questions about a million things in my life and never truly believed any one of those things gave the full, unbiased or truthful picture of any situation, scenario or event.

People who ask questions are to be applauded for doing so. I used to work with a woman who'd precede pretty much everything she asked with: 'This is probably a really dumb question, but....' and I used to say to her that there's no such thing as a dumb question and being curious to find answers is a mark of a person keen to improve their knowledge and understanding of the world around them. If we're to berate someone for that then WE'RE the 'stupid' ones.

OP, as best I can understand what happened to the planes that hit the World Trade Center buildings, they, along with everything and everyone on board we're crushed, vaporised and burned to a degree that identifying what was 'plane' and what was anything else (building materials, flesh and bone, office equipment, furniture etc was virtually impossible. However, just a quick Google search of 'how hot does jet fuel burn' immediately gives two conflicting answers - one says jet fuel burns at between 800 - 1,500 fahrenheit and the other says it burns at 2,750 fahrenheit... so 'even' Google isn't an expert 😉

It's wonderful that so many of you rode your dinosaurs to the public library to pore over academic texts

Well, it wouldn't be a true MN thread without the casual ageism, would it?

What would have happened to the engines though? Presumably if an instantaneous detachment some residual thrust would have moved them on inside the building? Or would an immediate loss of pressure negate that? I only ask because I did read a report years ago that two engines minus their casings were found in the streets below. I always presumed this was due to residual thrust rather than just momentum.

Ah yes, along with the anti vaxxers, Covid deniers, Trump supporters and the Queen faked her own death posts.

I agree that some posts on this thread are unjustifiably aggressive.

However, it's almost inconceivable that OP has been researching and not come up with her answer or at least a thought process that will help her towards her answer.

That coupled with the date of her thread makes it being a troll to be a relatively plausible conclusion.

And for many, the events were very traumatic. The question asked may well be stirring some emotion.

You can’t get any information or footage on the internet?! Oh come on. Really?!