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.

 

C-130 hits apt building, no collapse

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
A little old, but.. not widely reported.

A C-130 military transport that had just taken off, perhaps full.. or recently fueled, crashed into a 10-story apartment building while attempting an emergency landing. It ignited a huge jet fuel fire that firefighters extinguished.

As the below photo shows, the mighty 10 story apartment building took the punch and stood tall:



Where in the world does such superior engineering exist?

I'm sure the Iranians would be happy to school us on constructing buildings that can survive a collision with huge gas filled jets. Does this mean those crafty nuke nutty Iranians know something we don't?

Military Plane Into Apartment Building

ABC news

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

TEHRAN, Iran Dec 6, 2005 — An Iranian military transport plane crashed into a 10-story apartment building as it was trying to make an emergency landing Tuesday, ripping open the top of the structure and igniting a huge fire. At least 128 people were killed 34 on the ground.

The plane was carrying Iranian journalists to cover military maneuvers in the south, and all 94 people on the aircraft were killed. In addition to the 34 residents of the apartment building who were killed, 90 were injured, Tehran state radio said.

Flames leaped out of windows as panicked residents fled the Towhid residential complex, a series of high-rise apartment buildings for army personnel in the Azadi suburb of Tehran.


Wreckage rained down, hitting a nearby gas station, police said. Cars parked below were smashed by falling debris. At the foot of the blackened building, a pile of wreckage was in flames.

Firefighters managed to put out the fire in the building, which was damaged and charred but still standing...."




posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


How horrible! My sympathies go out to the victims of this crash. If there's any Iranians reading this please know that not all americans are whackos and want to go around starting wars.
Obviously Iranian engineering is superior to ours. We should open trade and relations with them to get their secrets so our buildings don't fall down too! peace.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I doubt it was a C-130 as that's an American plane.

Chalk up another steel framed structure standing up to not only fire but a plane. 9/11 is still the first and last time in history 3 steel framed skyscrapers collapsed straight down due to fire.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by muggl3z
 



I doubt it was a C-130 as that's an American plane.


See? This is more unsupported speculation, and this is how nonsense gets spread.

Of COURSE Iran has airplanes built by American companies!!! AND, other nations. Instead of simply spouting off, you could have easily checked, just as I did.

Just a few of the NON-fighters that were sold to Iran by the USA:


Kaman HH-43 Huskie United States rescue helicopter HH-43F 8
Lockheed C-130 Hercules United States tactical airlift/transport C-130E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-130H 5 (photo in link)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 At least 15 C-130s still in use.

Lockheed JetStar United States VIP transport JetStar II 1
Lockheed P-3 Orion United States maritime patrol P-3F 3 Active.
Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star United States trainer T-33A 5

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


As to this "example"??

Not a valid comparison. There is no similarity at all with the Twin Towers, the design and construction techniques in those buildings, compared to the apartment building in Tehran.

NOR to the speed, and weights of the airplanes.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Our buildings, if your refereeing the the WTC towers, were some of the best engineered structures in the modern world. They withstood amazing forces when the planes hit the towers. The actual impacts had NOTHING to do with their collapse (other than what I will describe in a moment). But to say that Iranian engineering is more advanced then American engineering based off of 9/11 is the most pathetic statement I have ever heard!

What happened was just this.

The planes hit the building, and because the structural core and components of the building were designed so well all load was transfered to other structural elements within the building. I.E. instead of crashing down from the huge holes left by the airliners, it was redistributed.

However when the planes hit the towers, some of the fire proofing material was knocked off of the steel support beams. It was then, AND ONLY THEN, that the members began to fail because of the intense heat from the fires caused by the crash. This intense heat is the primary reason the towers came down.

Again, these were two of the most structurally sound buildings in the world. Lets not jump to conclusions without the facts first, shall we?

[edit on 7-9-2009 by tmayhew01]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


As to this "example"??

Not a valid comparison. There is no similarity at all with the Twin Towers, the design and construction techniques in those buildings, compared to the apartment building in Tehran.

NOR to the speed, and weights of the airplanes.


I disagree with the aircraft part of this statement...
I was in the Army as a helicopter Crew Chief and we loaded our helicopters on quite a few C130, C141 and C5's...I also rebuilt Airliners for companies after leaving the Army so I know both types inside and out. Civilian aircraft are designed for 3 times the forces they would normally expect during flight where as military aircraft are designded to withstand 7 times the normal fight forces. Plus your talking about CARGO planes which are designed much more sturdier since they will be carrying many tons of cargo.

[edit on 9/7/2009 by KAKUSA]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by KAKUSA
 


Actually Govtflu is right, the design of the WTC is far different that most buildings. Especially when you consider the engineering that goes into such high rise buildings. Now I know exactly what I am talking about, and I can say without hesitation that these buildings most likely have very little in common with the WTC design. One cannot be sure without looking at the specs of this building, but I can definitely make an EDUCATED guess

[edit on 7-9-2009 by tmayhew01]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by tmayhew01
 


Not going to tarnish the OP`s post, but knocking off fire retardant from the steels?, you do know there was the best part of 90,000 tons of steel in those towers, the longest fires lasted 103 minutes, and they were designed for both a Jet crash and fire, a fireman managed to climb to the 88th storey in the South Tower iirc, and clearly stated `There are two isolated pockets of fire , we can knock it down with two lines`.

90,000 tones of steel weakened and 110 acres of concrete reduced to dust caused by 34-36 cubic metres of Jet Fuel, an inflammable liquid and not a high explosive, and of which a high percent exploded on impact, and in WTC2 the South Towers case most was expelled out the building as seen by x3 fireballs.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Huh, turns out it was really a C-130 variant. I didn't think Iran would have any of our military anything. Anywho'. Yes WTC 1 and 2 were built quite a bit differently than most skyscrapers but how do you account for WTC7? Not hit by any airplane, yet it falls straight down.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
reply to post by tmayhew01
 


Not going to tarnish the OP`s post, but knocking off fire retardant from the steels?, you do know there was the best part of 90,000 tons of steel in those towers, the longest fires lasted 103 minutes, and they were designed for both a Jet crash and fire, a fireman managed to climb to the 88th storey in the South Tower iirc, and clearly stated `There are two isolated pockets of fire , we can knock it down with two lines`.

90,000 tones of steel weakened and 110 acres of concrete reduced to dust caused by 34-36 cubic metres of Jet Fuel, an inflammable liquid and not a high explosive, and of which a high percent exploded on impact, and in WTC2 the South Towers case most was expelled out the building as seen by x3 fireballs.


Again we can debate whether the towers coming down was a huge government conspiracy... but the facts that line up are so:

It all started because SOME of the structural integrity of the steel was compromised. Yes the BUILDING was designed to withstand such an impact and intense fires, but the individual steel columns were not. If you understand how venerable steel is to fire and intense heat, you would then understand why the fireproofing material was applied and what its purpose was.

I am not saying all of the fire proofing was knocked off because of the impacts, but this is definitely what initiated the collapse. Because some of the beams were compromised, this was the so called epicenter which lead to further damage of the structural steel beams. Eventually with enough time and heat more members failed, ultimately bringing the towers down.

and to add to your statement about the jet fuel... most of it did burn up and explode upon impact. But not all of it. What was left over, combined with elements of the building, which in turn spread the fire throughout the building.


The light construction and hollow nature of the structures allowed the jet fuel to penetrate far inside the towers, igniting many large fires simultaneously over a wide area of the impacted floors. The fuel from the planes burned at most for a few minutes, but the contents of the buildings burned over the next hour or hour and a half. It has been suggested that the fires might not have been as centrally positioned, nor as intense, had traditionally heavy high-rise construction been standing in the way of the aircraft. Debris and fuel would likely have remained mostly outside the buildings or concentrated in more peripheral areas away from the building cores, which would then not have become unique failure points. In this scenario, the towers might have stood far longer, perhaps indefinitely. The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above.

In the North Tower, jet fuel ran down at least two elevator shafts to the basement, and two or more elevators plummeted to the lower levels. Fire continued to burn in the shafts, which may have helped weaken the core.


I really don't feel like debating this right now, but if you want I can definitely bring out my guns on this issue, but PM me or something. I don't want to derail the ops thread anymore than I already have.




[edit on 7-9-2009 by tmayhew01]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
The Apartment Building remains standing but Bldg-7 which wasn't even hit by a plane falls close to straight down at 6.5 seconds! Unbelievable! How can anyone seriously defend this? Its obvious that the Official Story is a fairytale.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


Operative phrase is



Firefighters managed to put out the fire in the building, which was damaged and charred but still standing...."


The fire was fought and from the report sucessfully.

Building was 10 stories which means was in range of aerial ladders to
gain access and pour water into building

At WTC there was NO firefighting in the building. The fires had free hand

The aircraft impact severed the plumbing for sprinklers and standpipes
depriving building of water had fire fighters been able to reach affected
floors. Without sprinklers was no way to control spread and extent of
fires until fire fighters could reach area.

At WTC because of damaged elevators and crowded stairways could not
reach impact area where the fires were. Fires were over 900 feet above street level with no way to reach without long exhausting climb up stairs

Only small group from LADDER 15 managed to reach 78th floor in South
tower just a few minutes before building collapsed

Another pathetic attempt to twist an event to fit their conspiracy fantasies..



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Have you ever listened to the radio dispatch tapes from that day?

It's clear the fire fighters were at the impact zone and the fires were basically gone. I mean, I've seen pictures of people standing in the gaping hole. The fire was out soon after the jet fuel burned up.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
It would be nice if people would stay ON TOPIC. It is truley amazing how quick this turned into a 9/11 post. One or two posts is one thing, but to fill the rest ofthe post with same crap that is in hundreds of other threads. Is that all there is to life?



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by muggl3z
 


You mean these transmissions?



Unknown: "Anybody see the highway one car? Highway one car we need it for an escort to the hospital for a fireman"

Battalion Seven: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15"

Ladder 15 Irons: "15 Irons."

Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 Roof and Irons"

Battalion Six: "Battalion Six to command post"

Battalion Seven: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha"

Unknown: "Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us"

Battalion Seven: "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones"

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in Orio?"

Battalion Seven Alpha (Aide): "Seven Alpha to lobby command post"

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven"

Battalion Seven: "Go ahead Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven: "South stairway Adam, South Tower"

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven: "Ten-four, we've got numerous civilians, we're gonna need two engines up here"

Ladder 15: "Alright 10-4, we're on our way"

Battalion Six: "Battalion Six to command post"

Unknown: "Battalion Six reports there's a sky lobby available on the 44th floor that will serve the floors above, do you copy that, kay"

Battalion Seven Alpha (Aide): "Seven Alpha to Lobby Command Post"

[Command Post reply not heard.]

Battalion Seven Alpha (Aide): "Chief Palmer reports on the 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones, we've got isolated pockets of fire, we're gonna need at least two hand lines up there"

Battalion Seven Alpha (Aide): "Seven alpha from the Battalion Seven"

Battalion Seven: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15"

Ladder 15 Officer: "Fifteen"

Battalion Seven: "I'm going to need three of your firefighters out of stairweay to knock down two fires. We've got a house line stretched, if we can get some water on it and knock it down

Ladder 15: "Alright, 10-4, we're coming up ..."


Chief Palmer had reached 78th floor of South Tower.

78th floor was sky lobby where people changed elevators

This was the lowest point of impact - one wingtip of United 175 raked
through the floor. The area of greatest damage and fires were 3 floors
above on 81 st floor

Because it was an elevator lobby there was little to burn - no offices
stuffed with paper and furniture to feed fire. Floor was composed of
elevator machinery with tile floors and marble panel walls

AKA NOTHING TO BURN !

As for people hanging out windows - that was 94 th floor . Again was lowest point of impact.

One more thing - many of the people seen at windows JUMPED in next few
minutes as conditions became too bad to endure

Something to think about....



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
IT WAS DEMOLITION!

That’s right folks it was demolition that brought down all of the WTC.
It is the ONLY thing that can explain the sudden freefall and WTC 7 anyone, watching all the videos of the WTC coming down, can see that this was one of the worlds best demolitions ever done, it was perfect.
The only people who cannot see that 911 and the WTC was an inside job are the disinformationists who are protecting the real culprits who are behind 911.

Your eyes are not lying to you! It is the disinformationist who are lying to you.


[edit on 7-9-2009 by impressme]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


So I just guess all of my college professors are lying to me? I am a construction management and engineering major and we cover the structural stability and why the towers come down in about every class I have. We mainly study to towers and not WTC 7, but I love how everybody jumps to the conclusion that it must have been demolition, Because our big bad government is so deceitful. HA!

I do agree about some of the conspiracy THEORIES at times, but only to the sense that our government knew about the impending doom. Yes they knew it was going to happen... Why didn't they do anything? So they could pull the collective agenda of the public back together and rally against terror. Yes, now we have a purpose to go to war with Afghanistan... Now we have a purpose for Iraq. That is it, that is all...

I dunno, maybe there is something I am missing here or overlooking... I will be the first to eat my words, if the other theory can be properly PROVED with EVIDENCE and not speculation. Just seems like Occam's Razor is the most reasonable explanation here people.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Again we can debate whether the towers coming down was a huge government conspiracy... but the facts that line up are so:


Yes we can debate it all we want but theres no sense in it. The conspiracy will be solved when we find out WHAT brough the towers down.


I dunno, maybe there is something I am missing here or overlooking... I will be the first to eat my words, if the other theory can be properly PROVED with EVIDENCE and not speculation. Just seems like Occam's Razor is the most reasonable explanation here people.


NO theory has been proven yet.


So I just guess all of my college professors are lying to me? I am a construction management and engineering major and we cover the structural stability and why the towers come down in about every class I have


So even tho NIST hasn't figured it out yet they have? Brilliant. Or did you mean the THEORY they tech you?



[edit on 8-9-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by sirdumpsalot
 



It is truley amazing how quick this turned into a 9/11 post.


That's because it is IN the 9/11-specific Forum.

It (the OP) directly infers that another building, after suffering an airplane hit and subsequent fire, did not collapse. This is a direct analogy to the events of 9/11 in NYC and the debate of "demolition vs. global structural collapse".

That's it. Simple. Discussion is on topic.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join