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.

 

FOUR Napalm bombs were attached to the fuselage

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


I would like to add that Ultima is confusing the FEMA and NIST reports here.

NIST is the one that put more emphasis on the fires as the cause to the collapse. But that's not to say you're wrong, Anonymous.

The airplane impacts did indeed severe a good deal of the (what I believe I can quote NIST) "relatively light-weight steel" beams. They go into detail on pages 22 and 23 of their report. They were also the principle carriers of the fuel that got atomized inside the buildings when the fuel tanks got ruptured.

Without the planes' impacts, there would be no starting structural damage and no fuel fires.




posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
APPLES AND ORANGES.


How is a buildings structural damage Apples and Oranges? STRUCTURAL DAMAGE IS STRUCTURAL DAMAGE, it does not matter if it done by planes or fire.

You failed to post any quote from the 9/11 commission or any other agency that agrees that it was combination of plane impact and fire that casued the collapse, as stated most reports including FEMA state the buidling withstood the planes impacts and that the fire alone casued the collapse.

Most reports state that the towers withstood the planes impacts, please do more research.

www.firehouse.com...

The report confirmed the emerging consensus that the twin towers could have withstood the impact of the hijacked airliners but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework.


www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse (Figure 4).


jnocook.net...

IT WAS THE FIRE,
CAUSED THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE
To enter the debate as to whether the plane crashes or the resultant fires caused the collapse of World Trade Center Towers I and 2, I would like to weigh in on the side of the fires. These buildings were designed to take the impacts of large plane crashes, and I doubt whether either building would have collapsed and whether multitudes of people would have been trapped above the crash floors except for the fire, smoke and heat. Apparently the effects of the inevitable explosion and fire after the simulated plane crashes were not considered in the design of the building. The point is; these buildings didnt immediately collapse, they took almost an hour for Tower 2 and well over an hour for Tower 1 the North Tower to collapse. According to Ronald Hamburger a structural engineer investigating the disaster, We have reason to believe that, without the fire, the buildings could have stood indefinitely and been repaired. The fire caused most of the life loss and building damage and the buildings were evidently deficient in fire protection.

Using CAD simulations Tony Fitzpatric of Arup America determined that it took a direct hit by the engines shaft at 200 mph to punch through one steel H column and box columns are stronger than H columns and the interior core columns were stronger than the exterior perimeter columns. The planes would have been shredded passing through the perimeter columns, possibly taking out a few, and the number of interior core columns destroyed would have been much less. When the B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945 the fire damaged several steel beams but the impact did not take out one steel column.





[edit on 3-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
I would like to add that Ultima is confusing the FEMA and NIST reports here.

Without the planes' impacts, there would be no starting structural damage and no fuel fires.


No, i am not confusing any reports, its others on here that need to do more research and see all the reports that state that the buidlings withstood the planes impacts. The planes may have done some damage but it was the fires that casued the collapse of the buidlings.

Also as stated and proven many times, the majority of the jet fuel burned off OUTSIDE the buildings causing little or no structural damage.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

No, i am not confusing any reports, its others on here that need to do more research and see all the reports that state that the buidlings withstood the planes impacts. The planes may have done some damage but it was the fires that casued the collapse of the buidlings.

Also as stated and proven many times, the majority of the jet fuel burned off OUTSIDE the buildings causing little or no structural damage.


I'm curious as to how it was "proven" that most of the jet fuel burned off outside.

I can show you a quote that says that a minority of the fuel burned off outside of the buildings and close to a majority if it was left to atomize and burn inside the building.

Both the NIST and FEMA reports have the fireballs consuming around 30% of the 10,000 gallons with the rest being distributed inside the building. It burned quickly, but set any and everything flammable alight.


I do not see how you could have missed Anonymous ATS's post of the statement from FEMA and a link to the Executive Summary that states exactly the quote he posted. FEMA concluded that it was a combination of the airplanes' strikes and the fire.


What I see Anonymous ATS's point being is whether or not those other buildings actually had structural beams broken or destroyed in any way by the fires. The fact still stands that the airplanes managed to break and damage multiple beams. Also, what constitutes "greater damage" in those cases?

Even after the buildings survived the impacts themselves, the overall structure is still in a weakened state, yes?


But since you're posting so many quotes saying that the fire was the reason for the collapse, I can assume that you do believe that much? If not, then why bother defending it?

[edit on 3-7-2008 by HLR53K]

[edit on 4-7-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
I'm curious as to how it was "proven" that most of the jet fuel burned off outside.


I have posted many quotes from sites that state the majority of jet fuel was burned off outside the building.


It burned quickly, but set any and everything flammable alight.


Yes, what was left of the fuel burned off quickly meaning that what was left was pretty much just a normal office fire.


FEMA concluded that it was a combination of the airplanes' strikes and the fire.


But i posted a quote from FEMA that stated the buildings survived the plane impacts and it was the fire that was the main cause of the collapse.


Also, what constitutes "greater damage" in those cases?


I have posted facts and information on several steel buildings that had as much or more structural damage then the towers and longer lasting fires and did not collapse.


But since you're posting so many quotes saying that the fire was the reason for the collapse,


Yes i have and can post a lot of quotes from reports that state the fire (ALONE) was the reason for the collapse, which proves my point.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by PeaceUk
I do believe that the United States Government is withholding key information about the attacks but I am sure that they would not do this to their own citizens.


Why?

You do know that the United States Government has sacrificed it's own citizens for various reasons and exposed/subjected them to horrible tests without their knowledge that lead to major health issues...and lead to a slow and painful death?

It is historical fact.

Now I am not saying that we are the perpetrators behind 9-11, but I am not naive enough to believe that our government would not commit such an inside attack for reasons that they felt would be for the greater good.

It is on record that such a thing was even discussed.
Look into it.

- Lee

[edit on 4-7-2008 by lee anoma]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma
tests without their knowledge that lead to major health issues...and lead to a slow and painful death?


Kind of like the EPA telling the first responders the air quality was ok at ground zero even though they knew it wasn't.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


So just saying you have posted quotes from websites is your proof? I have also posted quotes from official sites that say less than a majority burned off in the fireballs. Which is correct?

So it's your opinion as an expert firefighter or fire / arson investigator that it was a "normal office fire"?

Also, what confuses me here is that you have a firm stance that fire was what brought the WTC towers down. But yet you say that it was only a "normal office fire". So does that mean that you're saying that a "normal office fire" was the end reason for the collapse? Seems like your just strengthening the conclusions of the "official story", as you put it. You're even using other websites to corroborate that stance.

But still, what quantifies those other fires as "more destructive" than the WTC fires? What was the unit of measure that was used?

[edit on 4-7-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
So just saying you have posted quotes from websites is your proof? I have also posted quotes from official sites that say less than a majority burned off in the fireballs. Which is correct?


Please go back and read my post that i quoted from sites about the majority of the fuel being burned off and what was left being burned off quickly.


So it's your opinion as an expert firefighter or fire / arson investigator that it was a "normal office fire"?


Well my experience in working with jet fuel and training in fighting aircraft fires along with all the reports stating that after the jet fuel quickly burned off all that was left was an office fire.


But still, what quantifies those other fires as "more destructive" than the WTC fires? What was the unit of measure that was used?


Please see the following photos of buildings (including other WTC buildings) that had longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the towers or buidling 7 AND DID NOT COLLAPSE.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...


[edit on 4-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Please see the the NIST report's section on the fire. I'm sure you're familiar with its internet location. This is from Section 2.4 on page 24. I'll leave it at that:


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 of the building. Thus, well over half of the jet fuel remained in the building, unburned in the initial fire.


So from them we get 15% + 15% = 30%. 30% < 50%


Please see FEMA's (which in U2Us with me you implied that they didn't make any mistakes) report in which they approximate the fireball's consumption of fuel to be between 1,000 - 3,000 gallons of the 10,000 gallons. That's from Section 2.2.1.2 of their report.

I'm pretty sure any "normal office fire" would not have 5,000+ gallons of jet fuel as an accelerant. But then again, you are saying that the fire was the final cause of the collapse, so we agree on that.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Please see the the NIST report's section on the fire.



I do not accept a lot from NIST since they made so many mistakes like not recovering any steel from building 7 for testing and thier contridicting reports.

Please see all of the following reports that state A MAJORITY of the fuel was burned off OUTSIDE the building. Also that what was left of the fuel burned off in a few minutes leaving only a office fire.

www.firehouse.com...

A large quantity of the approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane was quickly consumed in massive fireballs that caused limited structural damage.


jnocook.net...

I believe the intensity of the fire (as it relates to building collapse) was comparable to a heavy ordinary combustible fire after the explosion dissipated much of the jet fuel.

According to G. Charles Clifton HERA structural engineer, speaking of the fires in the Towers; In my opinion, based on available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-story fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be.(Elaboration..., p5)


911research.wtc7.net...

Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both Towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA1,

Your firehouse quote was written by an AP reporter, named Shannon McCaffrey. The whole quote is this:

A large quantity of the approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane was quickly consumed in massive fireballs that caused limited structural damage. But the rest of the fuel quickly snaked across floors and down elevator shafts, setting ablaze furniture, computers, paper files and the planes' cargo.


Large quantity is not the same as majority. That report actually agrees with the FEMA report. Thank you for providing more proof that it is a valid document of what transpired that day.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Large quantity is not the same as majority.


No actaully you are wrong. Because between all the quotes i have and can post state that the majority of the fuel was burned off, but also proves that what was left of the fuel burned off in a few minutes and left only a normal office fire.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
It's amazing to me that you're allowed to continuously troll with the statements about the "majority of fuel" being burned when there is so much documentation that it was not the majority. 30% is not a majority.




posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
30% is not a majority.


Please take your time and reread the following statements as long as it takes to understand.

A large quantity of the approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane was quickly consumed in massive fireballs that caused limited structural damage.

A LARGE QUANTITY is greater then 30%

Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both Towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse.

VAST MAJORITY is greater then 30%



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
GREAT post IMO!! I've Never saw the direct pic of the gaping hole of the first tower after it got hit! Check the distance from the hole to the top of the tower!! To those that know anything about physics.......think about it!! How could the steel core NOT hold up the rest of the building?? There is absolutely NO WAY the steel core would collapse!! Any good welder would know this.

To those that debunk this...try this.. think about the physics and think about it logically..



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



Please take your time and reread the following statements as long as it takes to understand.

A large quantity of the approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane was quickly consumed in massive fireballs that caused limited structural damage.

A LARGE QUANTITY is greater then 30%


Where did it state that a large quantity was greater than 30%? I dont show that information in ANY of the links you have provided. All of the data shows the 30% number to be fairly accurate. What official source are you quoting?



Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both Towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse.

VAST MAJORITY is greater then 30%


Consumed in first 5 minutes. Now the story has changed from consumed in the inital fireball to first 5 minutes? Changing your story to suit your needs?



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
A LARGE QUANTITY is greater then 30%


30% of 10000 gallons is a large quantity in anyone's language but the remaining 70% (7000 gallons) is an even larger quantity. That 7000 gallons is a lot of accelerant to spread around a building and no matter how quickly it burns off it's going to start fires wherever it goes provided there's a source of ignition which is what the impact explosion itself provided.

It's pointless arguing over minor variations in estimates because accurate measurements are not available and those variations really wouldn't make any difference to the outcome. No matter which way you estimate it there was a huge amount of accelerant added to the buildings and ignited. Accelerants start fires quickly by getting material to flashpoint or higher rapidly - they don't sustain the fires they start.

There were NO napalm bombs attached to the planes - I thought the 'pod theory' was buried years ago.

Just out of interest - does napalm burn hot enough to melt steel?



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
That 7000 gallons is a lot of accelerant to spread around a building and no matter how quickly it burns off it's going to start fires wherever it goes provided there's a source of ignition which is what the impact explosion itself provided.


But the point is that the jet fuel left over after a large quanity of it was burned off burnt off quickly so all that was left was a office fire, NOT A JET FUEL FIRE.


I thought the 'pod theory' was buried years ago.


I have already shown photos of airliner and civilian aircraft being able to carry pods.



[edit on 10-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Have you ever seen film of Napalm burning?

Did you see Apocalypse Now?

I think we would have noticed that event long ago. The fireball would have spread like a canopy over most of manhattan, as the heat vaporized the concentrated napalm.

Nice try! You picked the wrong payload.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join