It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Photo of Madrid skyscraper fire (still standing)

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

The engineers on public record that also say they the towers could have survived a 747 at cruise velocity. A boeing 707 and a 767(the impact airliners) are only slightly different. The 767 is a little heavier, while the 707 is faster.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707 is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767 is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

Here is the physics

The Kinetic energy(1/2mv^2) of a 707 at 600 mph is 5,607,720 Kilojoules

The Kinetic energy(1/2mv^2) of the 767's that struck the towers are:

AA Flight 11 at 470 mph is 3,950,950 Kilojoules
UA Flight 175 at 590 mph is 6,227,270 Kilojoules

Therefore AA flight 11 had 30% less energy than the towers were built to withstand. And UA Flight 175 was only within 10% more.

[edit on 14-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]


I was thinking more about these numbers and see a problem with them. They miss a important part of the energy the fuel. A gallon of normal car gas can equal like 10 sticks of TNT in explosive force. Its like you figured out the energy of a Tomahawk Missile just by its speed and weight not factoring in the explosives.

And those planes had alot of jet fuel since they were ready for a long flight. When the engineers designed the building to survive a 707 impact they were invisioning a plane getting lost in say fog/clouds while trying to land in a new york airport so fuel levels would be low. Not a fully loaded plane crashing into the towers on purpose.

[edit on 14-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 14-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]




posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   
If the towers were not bought down by controlled explosives, then the New York Firemen who were on the scene were lying when they said they heard a series of explosions one after the other, right before they callapsed...
(BTW jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, otherwise the engine it's used in would melt, no?)

See the documentary "911-In Plane Site" you can find it on the web if you know where to look



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
If the towers were not bought down by controlled explosives, then the New York Firemen who were on the scene were lying when they said they heard a series of explosions one after the other, right before they callapsed...
(BTW jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, otherwise the engine it's used in would melt, no?)

See the documentary "911-In Plane Site" you can find it on the web if you know where to look


If I am not mistaken they didn't exactly say that they heard explosions. They heard something that "sounded like explosions." You might think that this is a trivial point but it is not. The two statements are completley different.

Furthermore, how could they be 100% sure that the sounds that they heard were prior to the collapse? How do you know that that wasn't the sounds of the floors starting to hit each other and the sounds of the columns snapping like twigs as the collapse began?

I think we went over this in another thread. Someone went over to a firefighter forum and asked some questions about 911. As one fireman put it (paraphrase): "If we thought for one second that the government or anyone other than the terrorists had anything to do with this, there would be no way to contain our anger towards those people."

As a rule, the rank and file has nothing but contempt for conspiracy theorists. If you don't believe me go over to the firehouse.com forums yourself and find out.



but once again we are straying off topic

Once again I ask, What does the fire in the madrid high-rise have to do with the WTC collapses?



[edit on 14-2-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

(BTW jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, otherwise the engine it's used in would melt, no?)



Im taking a guess that you dont really know how a jet engines or any engines work.Heres a little experiment for you, Drain all the coolant of of your car and see well how it does.

BTW whats with all this steel melting stuff? steel only has to get soft to fail not melt. Steel holding up weight or under pressure will fail long before it ever melts.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Everyone is forgetting one key element. WTC was brought down by Arab rage. No Arab rage in Madrid so the building is still standing. Debunk that!



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by ANOK

(BTW jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, otherwise the engine it's used in would melt, no?)



Im taking a guess that you dont really know how a jet engines or any engines work.Heres a little experiment for you, Drain all the coolant of of your car and see well how it does.

BTW whats with all this steel melting stuff? steel only has to get soft to fail not melt. Steel holding up weight or under pressure will fail long before it ever melts.


Anok should read this:

What jet engines are made of



[edit on 14-2-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:47 AM
link   
LOL I know what jet engines are made of I was a jet engine mechanic for 6 yrs in the Navy...

I could let all the coolant out of a car (don't own one, don't want one) but it's still not going to melt and collapse...LOL
It will seize due to heat generated by friction not the burning fuel.
Your radiator water mostly cools the friction created by metal on metal parts, along with the oil...Gasoline on it's own does not burn hot enough.

The point is jet fuel burns at a pretty low temperature, the highest it would have got in the towers is 257C...
Here is the calculation;
911review.org...

Most of the jet fuel would have burnt off or evaporated within 30 seconds, and all of it within 2-3 minutes. If any quantity of liquid jet fuel did manage to accumulate in the building, then its volatility would lead to large amounts of it being evaporated and not burnt (pyrolysis) in the interior of the building. This evaporated fuel would burn on exiting the building, when it finally found sufficient oxygen.

See this thread;
globalresearch.ca.myforums.net...

IMHO there is now way in hell planes crashing into or jet fuel burning could have collapsed 3 buildings. Especially not in the controlled downward way they did...

The owner of the buildings (yes all 3, with lots of insurance) Larry Silverstein ordered building 7 destroyed. It takes weeks to set up a controlled pull, how did they do it in a couple of hours?

www.infowars.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
LOL I know what jet engines are made of I was a jet engine mechanic for 6 yrs in the Navy...


rofl. Brilliant. that was very funny.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Jet Engines are made of sugar and spice and everything nice. WTC was made of wicker. Silverstein is made of money. I mean that's one rich Jew. You'd think with all the money these guys have they could afford the once daily male enhancement pill. Guess not.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Ive got a video on my pc with 4 NYC firefighters the day of 9/11 talking about CLEARLY hearing EXPLOSIVES in the buildings as they "pancaked." Anyone who wishes to deny ignorance, will like to expain to me how a fella could uplink such a thing..

edit: after reading all of the posts now, i see my post is apparently become moot..


BTW...I love this question "The owner of the buildings (yes all 3, with lots of insurance) Larry Silverstein ordered building 7 destroyed. It takes weeks to set up a controlled pull, how did they do it in a couple of hours?"

Damn right controlled demolitions take at minimum WEEKS to set up. You dont just toss a #load of C4 into a building with millions of people around..POP it and hope everything falls where you want it..# takes PLANNING!! where to place charges, how large to make them, when to set them off in the chain, on and on..Not to mention youve gotta actually obtain the explosives and set them up...And this all supposedly happend in a matter of hours ON 9/11.....bull#.

[edit on 15-2-2005 by spetsialnaya]

[edit on 15-2-2005 by spetsialnaya]

[edit on 15-2-2005 by spetsialnaya]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by spetsialnaya

BTW...I love this question "The owner of the buildings (yes all 3, with lots of insurance) Larry Silverstein ordered building 7 destroyed. It takes weeks to set up a controlled pull, how did they do it in a couple of hours?"

Damn right controlled demolitions take at minimum WEEKS to set up. You dont just toss a #load of C4 into a building with millions of people around..POP it and hope everything falls where you want it..# takes PLANNING!! where to place charges, how large to make them, when to set them off in the chain, on and on..Not to mention youve gotta actually obtain the explosives and set them up...And this all supposedly happend in a matter of hours ON 9/11.....bull#.


planning can be done 'on paper', or these days, using a CAD program. the actual placing of thermite, or other chemical reactants capable of melting or compromising steel strength, wouldn't need to 'take weeks'. a crack team of well trained operatives could probably do it in a weekend. the only hitch would be having someone on the inside. but, seeing as george bush's brother, marvin, was the head of security, obviously george bush couldn't have arranged it. i mean they're only brothers, for pete's sake.
what about bomb sniffing dogs? they were pulled from duty? wow. sounds like another 'stand down order'.


edited, because there is no such thing as a 'bopmb', or a 'bopmb sniffing dog'.



[edit on 15-2-2005 by billybob]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
ANOK, Most of your assumptions are totally wrong. For instance

Originally posted by ANOK
The point is jet fuel burns at a pretty low temperature, the highest it would have got in the towers is 257C...


Is so totally wrong that it is funny.


Your calculated estimate contains a number of errors and unsupported assumptions. For instance :
  1. The biggest flaw in these calculations comes from the assumption that the fire heated the entire floor, (the floor slabs, the columns etc,) evenly. That would hardly be the case. Those areas directly impinged by the flames would have absorbed the bulk of the heat energy.

  2. The heat of combustion value of 44MJ/Kg for jet fuel is the value for the net heat released. Therefore that site has subtracted the energy required to heat the air twice.

  3. The author of that site comes up with a value of 282 degrees C added to the heat released by a typical office fire. You, ANOK, have chosen to read that as meaning that the fire could not have been higher that 282 degrees C. That is not the case. Even your links states “So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed” But since a typical office fire can easily produce temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees C, that is still a pretty high temperature. For instance, firefighters estimated the temperature of the Windsor tower fire in Madrid to be about 1300 degrees C. Add 282 degrees to that!!!

    Even if we stipulate that the maximum temperature in the building was only double the amount that was calculated, (564 C), that temperature is hot enough to significantly weaken exposed steel.



  4. Finally, the author of that fails to take into account the other additional fuel load added to the building. Aircraft cabins are largely plastic and upholstery.






    ONCE AGAIN, OF COURSE, THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD HAS BEEN IGNORED.

    ANOK. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOR THE FIRE IN MADRID RELATES TO THE WTC?




    [edit on 15-2-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
ONCE AGAIN, OF COURSE, THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD HAS BEEN IGNORED.

ANOK. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOR THE FIRE IN MADRID RELATES TO THE WTC?



if you notice the initial post, there is a little 'eyes rolling up in head' 'smiley' at the end of the post.
as a conspiracy theorist who has a penchant for filling in the blanks, i am assuming this means, 'compare this to the WTC'. so, although there was no actual mention of the WTC, it IS implied.
of course, you will need 'proof'. in this case i believe it could be forthcoming, if the original author would brave the waters and admit trying to lead us into a comparison of the two events.

and howard, 'add 282 C'? look at the flames. madrid is clearly burning MUCH hotter and MUCH longer. there are something called 'flames' that are evidence of intense heat. something called 'black smoke' indicates 'smouldering', which happens when the already spent 'fuel' or 'flammable' debris is physically covering any unspent fuel sources, and starving them of oxygen. AKA 'inefficient burning'. i though you, of all people, would know this
.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Cool Howard, go ahead and add all those temps together, is it hot enough for you yet?...

Do you think there was much plastic from the plane left to burn? Most of it was destroyed on impact surely?
Those figures were based on the fuel being evenly distributed in a space, but like I said the majority of the fuel would have evaporated or simply have been blown out of the building on impact.
And I am on topic, like billybob says the thread is comparing the fire in Madrid to the towers....But if you don't like my input then don't read it. The ignore button doesn't scare me.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Doing Nothing but arguing Semantics, billybob


Originally posted by billybob
wow. i thought skyscrapers all 'pancake' after a few hours! what a surprise. obviously that raging inferno is nowhere near as hot as the WTC big smoke. fascinating.
perhaps the laws of physics are different in spain, and steel doesn't lose integrity when you boil a pot of water, or lightup the candles on a birthday cake.



What? That the best you could come up with billybob?
Oh wait, was the building hit by a speeding jet liner, billybob? Any structural weakness' attributed to such an impact on the building, billybob? The buildings of the same inherent structural designs, billybob? Eh? What? Please clarify....your breaking up....

Your analogy/comparison to the WTC's makes no sense whatsoever and the two incidents, nor the buildings, are not identical and thus cannot be compared realistically, billbob.
But please.....spin as you will, k? You look cool as hell spinning.






seekerof

[edit on 15-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Look, I'm not gonna sit here and try to convince those who obviously will NEVER begin to admit to even the slightest possibility that the WTC were brought down by controlled demolitions and not airplanes, so I won't try. Life is too short.

As far as I'm concerned, what tells me that they were brought down by controlled explosions is the fact that they pancaked down upon themselves.
Weakened steel and airplanes and rising temperatures, that's all sheep chow. Mmm mmm good!!!

Peace



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
As far as I'm concerned, what tells me that they were brought down by controlled explosions is the fact that they pancaked down upon themselves.


I’m curious, then. Just what do you think “Should” of happened when the floors failed?

Did you honestly think that the buildings would have toppled over like a tree?



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Do you think there was much plastic from the plane left to burn? Most of it was destroyed on impact surely?


Destroyed how?

Even if it was crumpled and shredded, and torn into tiny pieces, the fuel value would have still been there. The only way to destroy plastic is to burn it.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Dr Love
As far as I'm concerned, what tells me that they were brought down by controlled explosions is the fact that they pancaked down upon themselves.


I’m curious, then. Just what do you think “Should” of happened when the floors failed?

Did you honestly think that the buildings would have toppled over like a tree?


I'm not exactly sure how they should have fallen because I'm not a professional demolition engineer. What I do know is that people pay demolition companies a lot of money to demolish buildings the right way so as to minimize the effect on the surroundings. That looked professional to me, how 'bout you??

Peace



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love

I'm not exactly sure how they should have fallen because I'm not a professional demolition engineer.


Yet professional building engineers have said that the structure fell as it was designed to in a catastrophe on this scale.
The towers were built to collapse rather than topple.
They're the ones who'd know, seeing as a professional demolition engineer would know how a demo'd building would fall, eh?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join