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 Swampfox46_1999
Robertson remains deeply affected by the towers’ collapse. “The World Trade Center was a team effort, but the collapse of the World Trade Center is my responsibility, and that’s the way I feel about it,” he told a New Yorker reporter in a Nov. 19 article, “The Tower Builder.”
Originally posted by Pilgrum
Basic laws of physics weren't violated there either if we consider the source of the explosion which strongly indicates jet fuel (no surprise) and no sign of high explosives. A large part of the fuel from the ruptured tanks was atomised so what we see is a crude fuel-air explosion ignited by the flames from the smashed engines although, I'm sure, there were plenty of other sources of sparks in all that chaos.
As to why the explosion seemed biassed in the direction of plane travel, how fast was the fuel moving? IE it was far from stationary and if it was travelling at say 400mph forward and the explosion propagated omnidirectionally at 400mph then the rear end of the explosion would have a net speed effect of exactly zero, effectively stopping any debris behind it without blasting it in a reverse direction (and out of the entry hole).
The design and construction of the buildings lived up to claimed capability by not immediately falling even partially on initial impact allowing many people to escape. I still suggest that the size (energy) of impact exceeded the design considerations by a factor of at least 4x the hypothetical slow moving 707 lost in the fog scenario. It doesn't really matter what model of 767 it was or how it was flown or even if it was a 767 at all. If it was the size and mass of a 767 moving as fast as a 767 it would do the same amount of damage as the supposed 767 wouldn't it? Bernoulli effect, Coanda effect, lift & drag, thrust factors, air density & pressure are all redundant considerations if the objective is to hit a building at max speed.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
Basic laws of physics weren't violated there either if we consider the source of the explosion which strongly indicates jet fuel (no surprise) and no sign of high explosives. A large part of the fuel from the ruptured tanks was atomised so what we see is a crude fuel-air explosion ignited by the flames from the smashed engines although,
Originally posted by OrionStars
Are you seriously claiming principles of explosions change because it happens from kerosene and not from something like dynamite? If so, why?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But as the photos, videos and reports show, the intial fireball of jet fuel was OUTSIDE the buildings causing little if any structrual damage.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
Well, actually they are very different and that's related to the detonation velocity of the explosive used but that's not the point I was implying because all the signs of that explosion say crude fuel-air explosion (far lower velocity than HE) just like we'd expect to see in any catastrophic plane crash. The point was the bias due to forward velocity of the centre of the blast affecting the rearward propagation of the forces in relation to a stationary object like the building which goes some way torward explaining your observation of what appears to be less than expected amount of debris being blown out of the entry hole. It's just Newton doing his thing again.
Originally posted by OrionStars
What about the backward force? What about the sideways force? Those occur also in explosions.
There should have been identifiable chucks, including engines, wing parts, fuselage parts, tail parts, luggage. etc. Anything to identify an exploded plane. Nothing.
Are you assuming a plane had already broken through the two exterior walls?
The principles of explosion do not change, regardless of type of explosion. It depends on how much of one has to be used, to equal the same explosive foot-pounds of pressure of another explosive being compared. For example, how many gallons of kerosene does it take to equal the same foot-pounds of pressure as 4 sticks of dynamite? The question is just an example and nothing more.
Originally posted by OrionStars
I do not lie. Never again deliberately attempt to impugn my intergrity by calling me a liar.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
They certainly do and you'll have to agree (I hope) that the radiation of force (the blast) from such an explosion is omnidirectional in relation to the centre of the blast as that is what you're implying and you're correct in that regard. But factor in the velocity of the source of that explosion which was a fast moving mass of atomised fuel (Newton again) and work out a vector plot of resultant forces around that source in relation to a fixed point like the building. The weakest direction of force will be to the rear. Then work out the speed of debris behind the blast centre (assuming any hadn't actually overtaken the centre of the blast by then) in relation to the (still) forward momentum of that debris and you'll have your answer. Small pieces of debris most likely were ejected on the side of the jet impact but there wouldn't be much of it with the majority being concentrated on the opposite side of the building.
You mean like the engine, landing gear and other bits & pieces that exited through the opposite side of the building in the direction of travel?
The plane, as a whole, only went through 1 wall from what I saw with a few major pieces managing to get through the other side of the building.
I doubt the stoichometric air/fuel ratio was anywhere near that required for a perfect fuel explosion there so it would be relatively weak in force but definitely sufficient to break the windows on the affected floors which allowed the fireball to be seen propagating outside the building. And note what I said above about resultant vectors due to motion and propagation of forces - then compare that info to the nature of the fireball outside the building whiich was far greater in the direction of the plane's motion just as Newton would have predicted
Explosives vary greatly in terms of how much you need for the job and jetfuel is not a very good one at all even at the perfect temperature/mix.
Originally posted by neformore
Originally posted by OrionStars
I do not lie. Never again deliberately attempt to impugn my intergrity by calling me a liar.
I see.
Concrete filled steel tubes in the outer walls? - you stated that as a fact.
Extra second steel wall? - you stated that as a fact.
Originally posted by OrionStars
Where is the debris that should have been on the impact side? There was none.
Do you have something that shows a plane actually penetrating a wall? I have found nothing like that. I have visited many, many websites and viewed many, many videos and photos. There was no visibility to see where any plane impacted, much less penetrated, any wall. I do not remember seeing it either the day it happened. I watched those clips over and over and over........all day and evening long.
Originally posted by OrionStars
The facade was steel, and so were the exterior primary loading bearing supports. That is not one, but two, steel walls.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
So I guess there indeed was "thousands of gallons of fuel".
You might want to sharpen up on your reading comprehension along with your research skills.
My statement was that there were no thousands of gallions that made it into the building. Since most of it was burned off in the intial explosion.
Originally posted by jfj123
Sorry I misunderstood what you MEANT to say as opposed to what you DID say. I will go ahead and sharpen my comprehension skills.
Originally posted by OrionStars
Were you the poster who thought the facade was aluminum? The facade was steel, and so were the exterior primary loading bearing supports. That is not one, but two, steel walls. What is your problem with that? All you have to do is research the WTC twin towers yourself. Have you done that yet?
Do you have something that shows a plane actually penetrating a wall? I have found nothing like that. I have visited many, many websites and viewed many, many videos and photos. There was no visibility to see where any plane impacted, much less penetrated, any wall. I do not remember seeing it either the day it happened. I watched those clips over and over and over........all day and evening long.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But as the photos, videos and reports show, the intial fireball of jet fuel was OUTSIDE the buildings causing little if any structrual damage.
Originally posted by jfj123
"Less than 15 percent of the jet fuel burned in the spray cloud inside the building. A roughly comparable amount was consumed in the fireballs outside the building.
(p.24 NIST Report) "
Just thought you might want to know what happened to the jet fuel.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
Sorry I misunderstood what you MEANT to say as opposed to what you DID say. I will go ahead and sharpen my comprehension skills.
If you would have read the post i was answering you would have known that.
Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
Regardless of what went in, I know this fact backed by the laws of physics. If supports are not symmetrically cut in split second succession, no building is going to drop down into its own footprints. No commercial aircraft or bomb was big einough to symetrically cut all the necessary supporting core supports in split second succession.
I also know yet another fact backed by the laws of physics.
A plane cannot both explode and remain intact.
That plane will not be doing much of anything substantial other than sending pieces and parts of a plane and contents in all directions.
The spooky part is not any plane parts or contents fell or blew outside either twin tower building on the smoke and flame side, which defies the laws of physics.