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.
Originally posted by Astygia
The impact, and the resulting explosion, would have burned off most of the fuel immediately, and that would have been one hot fire.
Your thoughts?
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
In terms of the basement debate, see the video in this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...
In it there are clearly heard explosions, followed by dust rising from the bottom of the towers. and this is long after it was possible for jet fuel (if you actually believe it possible for jet fuel to reach down there) to be resposible for any damage at the bottom. Who in their right mind could believe that that much damage on the lower levels could be cause by a rush of jetfuel. It wasnt even fire damage in the bottom floors anyway from what i have seen in video footage.
Originally posted by Astygia
I follow what you're saying, and I remember that analogy clearly. But when he's referring to the screen-like grid, that's from a top-down view of the building, correct? .
Originally posted by earthtone
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
911research.wtc7.net...
This is coming from the construction manager of the towers. The 707 it really not much different from the 767 at all. In fact the the slimmer nature of the 707 probably might have 'punctured' the towers more effectivlety causing more structural damage.
Note that according to this, the towers were not specifically designed to survive the impact from a plane. Rather, Robertson carried out some calculations on the existing design to assess what the results of impact might be.
Further, whatever the truth about the speed of the plane, there’s no indication that the design considered the effects of the fire. Leslie Robertson says the towers were not designed to handle it:.
Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.
Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Not only that but it seems that the calculations were eventually lost and that the study done was carried out with existing designs, so the building was not designed to withstand jets.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
scott-juris.blogspot.com...
Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.
Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study.
Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
Well the idea of Jet Fuel travelling down from where the planes hit to the Bottom is ridiculous because of the way the Towers were built, and you know this Howard.
(If not, I am sure I or someone else could give a go at explaining it.)
Although I am sure we have already had this debate somewhere on ATS before.
Originally posted by Griff
I'd actually like to see the source of Robertson saying he calculated for a plane lost in fog and out of fuel and where he says that he didn't account for fire. I'd like the original quotes please because some guys blog doesn't count for me.
Leslie Robertson: One of my jobs was to look at all of the possible events that might take place in a highrise building. And of course there had been in New York two incidences of aircraft impact, the most famous one of course being on the Empire State Building. Now, we were looking at an aircraft not unlike the Mitchell bomber that ran into the Empire State Building. We were looking at aircraft that was lost in the fog, trying to land. It was a low-flying, slow-flying 707, which was the largest aircraft of its time. And so we made calculations, not anywhere near the level of sophistication that we could today. But inside of our ability, we made calculations of what happened when the airplane goes in and it takes out a huge section of the outside wall of the building. And we concluded that it would stand. It would suffer but it would stand. And the outside wall would have a big hole in it, and the building would be in place. What we didn't look at is what happens to all that fuel. And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing so. But for whatever reason we didn't look at that question of what would happen to the fuel.
originally posted by Howard RoarkThere is also this:
www.pbs.org...
[edit on 1-9-2006 by HowardRoark]
Originally posted by LeftBehind
They provide information and give you sources for it. They even provide the sources for the conspiracy side. They then ask you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.
Don't hate on a very well done site just because you don't agree with their conclusions.
Originally posted by earthtone
No, it would be impossible to fly a plane into the top, why would he be refering to that?! He was referring to the design of the outer structure and what effect he felt a plane(specifically a 707 which is v. similar to a 767) would have had on the building when it crashed into it at high speed.
These buildings were supported by the outer steel structure and the inner core.
Picture it. Like has been said about the pentagon 'crash' , the wings would disintigrate on impact, stopped by the steel mesh surrounding the outer building, then the fuelsage of the plane would , as he said , "poke through like a pencil." Could this pinpointed pencil of damage on this huge 'over-engineered' building really be responsible for a free-faill collapse and damge of ground level floors before the collapse? I don't believe so.
Originally posted by billybob
the top half sagging and creeping becomes plausible.
an all out instant collapse has never been probable.
make a 110 layer stack of ANYTHING.
now quickly whip out one layer from the bottom of the top one fifth of your stack( 22 layers, onto 87 layers, presumabaly, for accuracy, you should weaken the top part with either heat or fracture, depending on your material(s) of choice)
did the bootm layer explode into a cloud of ultrafine dust that covers an area hundreds of times larger than the original footprint of your stack?
does it happen, 'essentially at freefall' (-the NIST)?
are there pools of molten or really hot stuff at the botton of the stack?
or did the more massive, lower four fifths, which are coupled to the ground, arrest or deflect the falling layers?
did anything shoot out sideways with great force?
because, it's so simple i can't beLIEve there is a 'question' about how 'plausible' it is.
Originally posted by Astygia
Millions of tons of debris coming down all at once, collapsing the floors beneath it and thereby gaining more mass and more momentum, are going to eventually obliterate everything beneath it.
Originally posted by Astygia
Your example is accurate, but we gotta keep in mind the sheer weight we're talking about here. A scaled example of any collapsing structure will never damage itself in the same manner as the real thing. Millions of tons of debris coming down all at once, collapsing the floors beneath it and thereby gaining more mass and more momentum, are going to eventually obliterate everything beneath it.
But as to the 'squibs', the freefall speed, the secondary explosions that are definately not impact tremors...that's the hook.
Originally posted by Astygia
Millions of tons of debris coming down all at once, collapsing the floors beneath it and thereby gaining more mass and more momentum, are going to eventually obliterate everything beneath it.
Originally posted by Astygia
But, on the flip side, if it was even a couple hundred degrees in the impact zone, people wouldn't have able to hang out of the gaping hole in the building and wave for help...
Originally posted by tuccy
Just a quck note, most of the burning debris and fuel would end on the side of the building opposite to the impact point, carried inside the building by the inertia, so the surrounding of impact hole may be relatively without fire.