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.

 

Jet Fuel Made the WTC Fires Cooler

page: 10
3
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



i will agree that the wtc's had more internal usable floorspace. thats a function of both the internal open floor plan and the height difference. there were simply more floors.

the ESB is BIGGER at the base than the wtc was. i cant find ANYTHING that says the dimensions of the building at each taper so i reserve comment on perimeter size on that one as i just do not know, and wont pretend i do.



reply to post by six
 



ive speculated on the overall effects of the initial fuel/air explosion a few times but as there were gaping holes in the building, the overall effects wouldnt have been real huge if not negligible. thats whats refered to by some as a thermobaric. think daisey cutter or MOAB and those are typically used in open areas or near caves (suck the air right out of yer lungs if yer in one of those caves) but they are also mixed with other things to increase the punch. using a thermobaric (typically improvised) inside a building will do a LOT of damage to the building but thats under the assumption that most of the windows are closed and the doors etc so that once the overpressure impulse passes, the air is sucked out of the room by the explosion and it will actually cause an implosion and thats where most of the structural damage will occur. (think of a backdraft flashover on steroids)

but even most of the "experts" who've analyzed it will say that the explosion of the jetfuel was pretty negligible to the structural integrity.

IMHO where the jetfuel explosion would have been a disaster would be to any demo charges that my have theoretically been in the area. HE doesnt like high heat if its still expected to work...



reply to post by six
 


just want to make sure im perfectly clear. on a call when a bomb is suspected, you wait for eod. does that also include if the building is on fire or if there are people inside?

what im ultimatly trying to clear up is IF FDNY suspected there were bombs in the WTC towers...would they have entered per protocol?

my understanding is they would NOT. and contrary to what one former member tried to imply i am NOT saying that these men were cowards. thats a protocol issue and not a reflection of their integrity or intestinal fortitude. and i just want to make sure my understanding of such things is clear. (cuz by the time my team showed up, if any local fd or pd had entered our scene (wmd or explosive) our colonel would have given them a reaming)



six

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


According to who? What source did you use to determine that tidbit of information? You are telling us that a B25 did more damage than a 767? Proof please.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
ive speculated on the overall effects of the initial fuel/air explosion a few times but as there were gaping holes in the building, the overall effects wouldnt have been real huge if not negligible.



Dam,
What about a Fuel/air/thermite device (Hellhound) ?





[edit on 14-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
You are telling us that a B25 did more damage than a 767? Proof please.



No i am stating in comparision the B-25 did almost the same amount of damage because it hit a smaller area of the building.

I am getting the information from reports and photos of the scene.



[edit on 14-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


six

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


You are correct. If there was thought to be, or known to be any explosives in the building, no one from FDNY would have gone/should have gone into the building. Even if it was on fire. I have not seen FDNY's SOP/DOG's , but I would think that they would be similar to ours. The one thing that I am having a hard time reconciling in my mind is the people trapped on the upper floors, in this scenario. That call may be up to the commander onscene. I dont know. I have to think about that. I'll look at our DOG's and see what they might say about such a scenario. At some point in time, the unsavable are just that, unsaveable... No matter what you have done and resources you have available.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
You are correct. If there was thought to be, or known to be any explosives in the building, no one from FDNY would have gone/should have gone into the building.


Yes, and as proven in the 1 video where they believe there is a device in the building and you hear them saying to get away.


[edit on 14-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


six

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


2 floors on ESB as opposed to 10 on WTC? And you honestly think that both buildings suffered comparable damage??
Thats like crashing a small car, into a masonry structure at say 30 mph, and then crashing a fully loaded semi into a structure with the outside lined with burglar bars at 90 mph. You really think that they would suffer the same amount of damage??



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
2 floors on ESB as opposed to 10 on WTC? And you honestly think that both buildings suffered comparable damage??


If you compare the size of the planes to the size of the area where hit.

history1900s.about.com...

At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.






[edit on 14-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 

thank you very much for that info. i feel vindicated in a way lol. for a lot of my training later in my career i worked alongside EMS and Fire/Police and got to know a lot of their protocols etc. (even have my IC cert) but its been a few years and things change so knowing that i havnt forgotten it all yet feels good. thanks



reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


id have to admit im speculating on this but im not sure it would have done any more damage than just exploding jet fuel. a hellhound/daisey cutter/moab type bomb is deployed over open area and most of the damage done to anyone/thing exposed is from the initial overpressure (and thats going to be mostly humans) and then the vacuum created as the fire consumes the air in the area. oh, and of course the actual fire is going to ruin your day as well.

now as to the theoretical possibility that there was such a device in the airliners, i think that it would still be the same thing as such a device wouldnt be able to deploy as it would when dropped from a plane*. so the thermite would add a higher initial temp, but as it would burn off almost instantly...yer still left with an office fire.

*fab's are deployed out of cargo planes usually and float down on a parachute. at a predetermined altitude they release their fuel/magnesium mix (or thermite) so that it creates a vapor cloud which is then detonated.

i could be wrong on that as thats more an airforce toy. when myself or my team did a thermobaric, it was a lot "dirtier" so to speak. i wont discuss in open forums how we did it but you'd laugh. you'd laugh hard.


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes, and as proven in the 1 video where they believe there is a device in the building and you hear them saying to get away.

but isnt it also true that during a chaotic scene, things can get convoluted and initial reports or reactions are not always correct?


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
If you compare the size of the planes to the size of the area where hit.


but we really cant compare them as no one has posted just exactly how wide the ESB IS at that level...i cant find it anywhere so if you have found it id love to read it, you may have a valid point but until we know how wide the building was at the impact site, its still kind of an apples/oranges comparison. IMHO anyway.


six

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


This web site descibes a 18'X20 foot hole. Not the same as a 767. Also, interistingly, it describes fuel going all the way down to the 75th floor. And remember that the B25 only carried approx 670gallons

history1900s.about.com...



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
but isnt it also true that during a chaotic scene, things can get convoluted and initial reports or reactions are not always correct?


Yes thats true, but there are quite a few radio calls and reports about car bombs. But it shows that when the thought there was a device the left the area.

Also that call about the truck with the painting of the plane crashing into the towers on it. The police radio calls about it exploding and the police fighting with and arresting people.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
[This web site descibes a 18'X20 foot hole. Not the same as a 767. Also, interistingly, it describes fuel going all the way down to the 75th floor. And remember that the B25 only carried approx 670gallons



How big is the hole in the WTC made by the airframe of the 767?

The feul went down 4 floors in ESB. We were told in the WTC it went all the way to the sub basement.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


but you see, and this is off topic i know but its a good place to illustrate a point.

either they didnt REALLY think there was a bomb in the area OR, they screwed the pooch in the handling of the situation.

STEP ONE: carved into granite like it was from god himself is when you suspect a bomb, ALL radio, cellular transmitters are shut OFF ASAFP! you dont think about it you just do it. that is unquestionable. you suspect bomb, all transmitters go off NOW.

if anyone really wanted i could scan a chart from one of my "reference books" that shows minimum safe distances from various watt xmitters to bombs but trust me when i say the weakest transmitters is STILL a 30m standoff radius. so, handheld, cellphone, and how much power you think those remote news vans pump out? or that tower on top of the WTC center?

so either they didnt think there really was a bomb just acknowledged that there COULD be but didtn believe it, or they screwed up and handled it wrong.

i could tell a funny personal story about such things, but i wont as its long, embarrassing to me and could be seen as an opsec violation for a major military post. (lets just say that i accidently got the local agents to test their training on that whole radio coms thing)



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
STEP ONE: carved into granite like it was from god himself is when you suspect a bomb, ALL radio, cellular transmitters are shut OFF ASAFP! you dont think about it you just do it. that is unquestionable. you suspect bomb, all transmitters go off NOW.



Yes i know the drill. I was a federal police officer for 12 years. I also had a best friend that was an EOD tech.

I know we could hold a radio close to a fire alarm panel and when you keyed it the radio would set of the fire alarm sytem.

Of course we had coded radios too. Kind of helped out when the bad guys thought they were smart and had a normal police scanner, they could not pick up our radios.




[edit on 14-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes i know the drill. I was a federal police officer for 12 years. I also had a best friend that was an EOD tech.

then doesnt the footage of them talking about bombs strike you as odd?


I know we could hold a radio close to a fire alarm panel and when you keyed it the radio would set of the fire alarm sytem.

that actually made me chuckle a little lol


Of course we had coded radios too. Kind of helped out when the bad guys thought they were smart and had a normal police scanner, they could not pick up our radios.

yeah we had encrypted radios also, but inside a hazmat suit its hard enough to hear standard radios, our encrypted ones were a lot quieter and broke up a lot so we typically went unencrypted for normal ops. of course if there was a suspected IED or something we did verbal/hand signals which was jsut more annoying all together.


six

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I dont know how big the holes were. I would be willing to be alot larger than that. John Lear has some pics somewhere of one of the impact areas. I think Damocles referenced it in his thread about how the damage was pointing inward.

670 gallons as opposed to 11,000 gallons. I think that there points the the possibility that jet fuel may have just made it down to the basement, Plus the fact that WTC was a open space design.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   
quote]Originally posted by Damocles
then doesnt the footage of them talking about bombs strike you as odd?

Well at least they are not talking on the radios. But it does almost seemed a little staged.




Originally posted by six
I dont know how big the holes were. I would be willing to be alot larger than that. John Lear has some pics somewhere of one of the impact areas. I think Damocles referenced it in his thread about how the damage was pointing inward.

670 gallons as opposed to 11,000 gallons. I think that there points the the possibility that jet fuel may have just made it down to the basement, Plus the fact that WTC was a open space design.


Well isn't the 767 about 14 feet in diameter?

But we were told the fuel went down an elevator shaft, but the shafts do do not go all the way down to the basments.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 14-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   
this may help explain a bit, maybe not but it may



see in the picture how everything in the center is open? the elevators were installed into those spaces as well and while the individual elevators didnt run all the way top to bottom, the central shaft was, i believe, open all the way to the basement.

so, IN THEORY, fuel could have leaked all the way to the ground, and as six pointed out in another post, even if they had put a floor inside the core on the mechanical floors, there would still be openings for wire conduits, hvac, elevator cables, etc so said floors likely wouldnt have been waterproof and had fuel flowed down and hit said floor (should it have existed which is actually kind of unlikely) it could still have easily found its way down further in a decent quantity.

but again, tahts only in theory and only my opinion of said theory.

also, this is more pertinant in another thread, but look at the perimeter walls.

you still think that those walls are going to offer significant resistance to a 767 at nearly 500mph? just an afterthought to this post. (and yes, i know things look smaller from a distance)



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
you still think that those walls are going to offer significant resistance to a 767 at nearly 500mph? just an afterthought to this post. (and yes, i know things look smaller from a distance)


I will state again. The 767 barely made it through the outter steel latice being shredded as it entered, causing little damage to the inner steel beams.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join