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.

 

Simulation shows why World Trade Center towers fell: it's the heat

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Exactly. You can't put it out of use. But then is every tanker followed and tracked? What actions did they actually take to keep that much gasoline out of or near buildings.

In other words, why is you can't bring little bottles of shampoo on a plane but nothign is done about the amounts of gasoline hanging around.

What is to stop someone from sticking a little C4 under each car in the basement?

They may have, but I have just not heard them.




posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


The costs would be astronomical to track and monitor every tanker truck all the time. So they simply introduced procedural measures to give the illusion of security. Which is really all security is, an illusion.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
www.guardian.co.uk...


National Geographic has a fascinating simulation of why the US World Trade Center towers collapsed after the planes hit them on September 11 2001.

It's part of a program investigating "science and conspiracy".

channel.nationalgeographic.com...-Videos/07095_00

Basically, it's because the fuel in the (nearly-full) tanks caught fire, which weakened the columns, which bent slightly, which meant that the roof - and other floors- fell in.

We know that from the real-life example, of course. But it's interesting to see it demonstrated here. Not, of course, that this will satisfy the wingnuts who think it was a conspiracy. Their loss.

But sometimes this is what engineering is about: figuring out why things happen after the event. (Other videos on the National Geographic site ask whether controlled demolition could have done the same job, and whether the hijacked planes were replaced by planes carrying explosives. Enjoy.)



John,
You forgot to mention that National Geographic is 67% owned by Bilderberger and Illuminatiist Rupert Murdoch. Would you seriously expect NG to offer any other explanations other than the Governments OS?

National Geographic should stick to making documentaries about African Zebras


Have you ever watched Sundar or Gross uncomfortably and unconvincingly trying to explain the NIST free fall gravity theory?

you can see their mumblings here:

www.youtube.com...

go sreaight to 1:41 for the 1st performance


P.S NIST have never made public the data from which they compiled their 3D model/simulation, does that not strike you as a little odd?

PEACE,
RK



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 


Ah, more unproven conspiracy theory to back up an unproven conspiracy theory. The irony.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by jprophet420
 


And the OP was talking about the NIST? Or even basing his argument on the NIST? Where is that?

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



But sometimes this is what engineering is about: figuring out why things happen after the event. (Other videos on the National Geographic site ask whether controlled demolition could have done the same job, and whether the hijacked planes were replaced by planes carrying explosives. Enjoy.)


Im just citing what the OP was talking about, engineers coming to a conclusion after the event. As I stated earlier I feel these 2 seperate reports tell a lot when put together:

The towers fell because of extreme heat, heat which was not present in wtc7. The actual imact of the jets was not a force at play in wtc7 nor was debris, so the force to bring it down had to come from somewhere.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
In my view, regardless of the plane impacts and fires at levels 76 and 96 in those two 110 story buildings, the way and the manner in which the twin towers were destroyed is as blatantly obvious as Building 7, the only difference being the plane impacts, which on the face of it, suggests that they are the sole cause ie: planes hit, the towers fell, but in all truth, those buildings ought not to have even begun to "collapse" and once initiated, should not have self destructed the way they did, all the way to the ground, to within mere seconds of free fall. And there's the explosive nature of their destruction, the squibs, the TIME and SPEED of descent, and then we have all the reports of explosions leading up to and during their destruction.

The only problem the truth movement has, is in regards the fake causal mechanism, the plane impacts which sold the whole deal as the ruse.

I realize I may get bashed for this, but the evidence for CD of the twin towers, the PROOF, brings into question the nature of the planes and in particular, all the observations about the south tower plane, which was photographed and recorded from many cameras and angles. This additional evidence imo, proves that the planes which impacted those buildings were not piloted by poorly trained Islamist Extremist Terrorists, and that in fact, the planes which impacted the twin towers were remotely piloted drone aircraft, and in the case of the south tower plane, a re-configured Boeing 767 not unlike the KC-767 Tanker Transport, and the flame-flash it emits on it's right side and back from the nose at the moment the nose touched the building, shows a missile launch, most likely a thermobaric warhead to aid in the full and complete intantaneous detonation of the fuel, which would have vastly exceeded the amount of fuel which would be contained for a cross continential flight from Boston to LA - producting as a result, first, the assurance of impact to target, and second, the maximal possible fireball for the shock and awe viewing horror of the now observing world.

A pilot, Russ Wittenburg, who in the past piloted the UA 767 which is purported to have impacted the south tower on 9/11 is on record indicating that at that speed and altitute, he himself could not have controlled the plane the way it was observed being controlled on final approach to impact.

And when we look closely at ALL the available images and videos (when slowed) of the south tower plane on final approach to impact, there are indeed some very strange anomalous structures observed, and the flame-flash, which no one has been able to satisfactorily explain.
i.cnn.net...

The wrong plane (odd bumps)
www.amics21.com...

The wrong plane (wrong proportions)
www.amics21.com...

Boeing analyzes south tower plane pics re: anomalies - responds with "We are not able to tell you what it is. Security reasons."
www.amics21.com...



9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI
Did the Bush Administration Lie to Congress and the 9/11 Commission?
Counterpunch
Dave Lindorff
December 19th, 2005

One of the more puzzling mysteries of 9-11 is what ever happened to the flight recorders of the two planes that hit the World Trade Center towers. Now it appears that they may not be missing at all.

Counterpunch has learned that the FBI has them.

Flight recorders (commonly known as black boxes, though these days they are generally bright orange) are required on all passenger planes. There are always two-a flight data recorder that keeps track of a plane's speed, altitude, course and maneuvers, and a cockpit voice recorder which keeps a continuous record of the last 30 minutes of conversation inside a plane's cockpit. These devices are constructed to be extremely durable, and are installed in a plane's tail section, where they are least likely suffer damaged on impact. They are designed to withstand up to 30 minutes of 1800-degree heat (more than they would have faced in the twin towers crashes), and to survive a crash at full speed into the ground.

All four of the devices were recovered from the two planes that hit the Pentagon and that crashed in rural Pennsylvania. In the case of American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, the FBI reports that the flight data recorder survived and had recoverable information, but the voice recorder was allegedly too damaged to provide any record. In the case of United Airlines Flight 93, which hit the ground at 500 mph in Pennsylvania, the situation was reversed: the voice recorder survived but the flight data box was allegedly damaged beyond recovery.

But the FBI states, and also reported to the 9-11 Commission, that none of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered.

There has always been some skepticism about this assertion, particularly as two N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them. (The FBI denies the whole story.) Moreover, these devices are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition (and the cleanup of the World Trade Center was meticulous, with even tiny bone fragments and bits of human tissue being discovered so that almost all the victims were ultimately identified). As Ted Lopatkiewicz, director of public affairs at the National Transportation Safety Agency which has the job of analyzing the boxes' data, says, "It's very unusual not to find a recorder after a crash, although it's also very unusual to have jets flying into buildings."

Now there is stronger evidence that something is amiss than simply the alleged non-recovery of all four of those boxes. A source at the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency that has the task of deciphering the date from the black boxes retrieved from crash sites-including those that are being handled as crimes and fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI-says the boxes were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB.

"Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."

The official word from the NTSB is that the WTC crash site black boxes never turned up. "No recorders were recovered from the World Trade Center," says the NTSB's Lopatkiewicz. "At least none were delivered to us by the FBI." He adds that the agency has "always had a good relationship' with the FBI and that in all prior crime-related crashes or flight incidents, they have brought the boxes to the NTSB for analysis.

For its part, the FBI is still denying everything, though with curious bit of linguistic wiggle room. "To the best of my knowledge, the flight recording devices from the World Trade Center crashes were never recovered. At least we never had them," says FBI spokesman Stephen Kodak.

What the apparent existence of the black boxes in government hands means is unclear.

If the information in those boxes is recoverable, or if, as is likely, it has been recovered already, it could give crucial evidence regarding the skill of the hijacker/pilots, perhaps of their strategy, of whether they were getting outside help in guiding them to their targets, of how fast they were flying and a host of other things.

Why would the main intelligence and law enforcement arm of the U.S. government want to hide from the public not just the available information about the two hijacked flights that provided the motivation and justification for the nation's "War on Terror" and for its two wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, but even the fact that it has the devices which could contain that information? Conspiracy theories abound, with some claiming the planes were actually pilotless military aircraft, or that they had little or nothing to do with the building collapses. The easiest way to quash such rumors and such fevered thinking would be openness.

Instead we have the opposite: a dark secrecy that invites many questions regarding the potentially embarrassing or perhaps even sinister information that might be on those tapes.

www.counterpunch.org...


Watch 9/11 Ripple Effect for more
video.google.com...#

[edit on 20-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


You infer that the causal agent must be the same for the collapses. That is not the case.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


You mentioned Russ Wittenberg, and that video snippet of him that you are likely referring to is fraught with errors.


I realize I may get bashed for this...


No, I'll be gentle.



This additional evidence imo, proves that the planes which impacted those buildings were not piloted by poorly trained Islamist Extremist Terrorists...


Are you pilot? Let's examine your assumptions -- what makes you say they were "poorly trained"? See, no need to answer that, really...because it's not actually relevent. I could teach YOU in about an hour of instruction to do what they did, and THEY had hundreds of hours of experience.




...and that in fact, the planes which impacted the twin towers were remotely piloted drone aircraft...


NO! I can say with some confidence that flying an airplane by remote is FAR, FAR more difficult than flying from inside. I would suggest research into it. Look into an experiment conducted in the early 1980s to test a fuel additive designed to reduce the atomization and flammability of JET-A in airplane accidents. It was a stunning failure (the additive) because the remote pilot, with only ONE change to get it right, messed up the impact, because it is HARD to fly an airplane just by sight, remotely, without the benefit of 'feel' from subtle cues like the inner ear, and g forces and sound.


....and in the case of the south tower plane, a re-configured Boeing 767 not unlike the KC-767 Tanker Transport...


Actually, COMPLETELY unlike the KC-767 Tanker, because you have a problem with THIS 'theory':


Boeing KC-767

The Boeing KC-767 is a military aerial refueling and strategic transport aircraft developed from the Boeing 767-200. The tanker received the designation KC-767A in 2002 after being selected by the US Air Force initially to replace older KC-135Es. In December 2003, the contract was frozen and later canceled due to corruption allegations.

The tanker is currently being developed for use by the Italian and Japanese air forces, who have ordered four tankers each.


en.wikipedia.org...

SO....the tanker version of the B767 was still a gleam in the eye of potential USAF contract hunters at Boeing in September, 2001.

Anyway, the idea of re-fitting even the B767 to "remote control" capability is laughable. Those who suggest it have no idea what they're talking about.


....and the flame-flash it emits on it's right side and back from the nose at the moment the nose touched the building, shows a missile launch...


Sorry, pure rubbish! Firstly, as pointed out, the "Remote Control" notion is not viable, and even LESS likely is a "missile" in the nose launched from the airplane!!!!

The 'flash' has been most convincingly theorized to be the Flight Deck O2 tank exploding upon impact.

Look at this Flammable Material Locations diagram produced by Boeing for Airport F&R personnel. (I really should just bring this to the ATS image gallery, so I can display it in a post....)

You go on, in that paragraph, with more outlandish suppositions. Sorry, I said I'd be gentle....but your hyperbole is notable.

Now, to:


A pilot, Russ Wittenburg...


Yes, as mentioned, I've seen the video clip.


... is on record indicating that at that speed and altitute, he himself could not have controlled the plane the way it was observed being controlled on final approach to impact.


Well....several things wrong. I think it was actually John Lear who said that.

Wittenberg mentions, in a video clip, several OTHER things that are in conflict with the facts of the UA175 and just what was entailed to impact the Tower. Wittenberg talks about the "5 to 6 Gs" and other nonsense...which, IF the B767 had experienced that sort of g-force, would have been an issue -- not least of which is the consciousness of the pilot -- but seeing the videos of the airplane approach and impact, there is NO SIGN of such g-forces. ALSO, the claim of "impossible" airspeeds. Sure, in level flight at about 1,000 feet MSL, the induced and parasitic drag becomes such that the thrust ALONE from the engines cannot achieve the 450 knot airspeed....BUT, when you add the effects of gravity, and see that the airplane was descending to build up speed, then that argument becomes moot.

Of course, since I didn't work at United, I didn't fly THAT 767, but I have a thousands of hours in others...and they all fly just about the same.


And when we look closely at ALL the available images and videos... there are indeed some very strange anomalous structures observed...


No, there aren't. Anything that has been brought up has been satisfactorily explained.
___________________________________________________________
(tags)



[edit on 20 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Wittenberg talks about the "5 to 6 Gs" and other nonsense...which, IF the B767 had experienced that sort of g-force, would have been an issue -- not least of which is the consciousness of the pilot -- but seeing the videos of the airplane approach and impact, there is NO SIGN of such g-forces.


This is not true - take a look at these images

www.september11news.com...
letsroll911.org...
img357.imageshack.us...

And note the bending of the right wing, and the upward bending in fact of both wings.

Also, the plane was clocked at 550-575 MPH at what about a 1000 feet altitude.

Somewhere out there, are two longer approach videos, one by CNN on the left side, and the other a more distant shot from the right side.

These show the plane just ZIPPING along while performing rapid maneuvers and adjustments, and at the very final approach, a second before impact, the plane peformed a sudden turning through impact, as can be noted by the wing bending.

You seem fairly knowledgable and you sure jumped on this fast. Good work!


P.S. What are your thoughts on the proportion comparative analysis?

One other thing - the Tanker Transport

www.airforce-technology.com...
www.globalsecurity.org...

(which also comes in the 767-300, instead of the 200 variant) - see proportion analysis www.amics21.com...

Is a re-engineered, re-configuration of the Boeing 767.

ANd I saw adds for the Tanker Transport on Boeing website in the fall of 2002. So obviously the technology was in place for the fall of 2001, and presumably a prototype could have existed.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 



And note the bending of the right wing.


He is in a turn, last minute and was also pulling level from the dive. The wings flex quite a lot, next time you fly take a look. You can see the movement especially in turbulence. At that angle of bank (about 30-35 degrees) in normal, level flight the g-load is just barely above 1 g. At 45 degrees, in unaccelerated flight, it is 1.3 gs. At 60 degrees, it is 2 gs.

Adding his level-off, in the turn? He is not pulling much in the way of gs.

If you have never flown an airplane yourself, or don't have a friend with a small airplane who gave you a ride, then you may only have flown on passenger jets. We try NOT to give people roller-coaster rides!!! SO, the most gs you will feel are likely in turbulence. And then, usually very transient.


Also, the plane was clocked at 550-575 MPH at what about a 1000 feet altitude.


Yes, I used knots, because that's what we use in real life. 450KT is the same as 518 MPH, converting from knots to U.S. MPH is a factor of 15%. (A nautical mile is 6,067 feet, versus a statute mile of 5,280 feet.)
SO, add 30KT for another 45 MPH...but those finbal speeds as observed are only best estimates. 30 KT either way won't make much of a difference.



These show the plane just ZIPPING along while performing rapid maneuvers and adjustments, and at the very final approach, a second before impact, the plane peformed a sudden turning through impact, as can be noted by the wing bending.


I've seen a LOT of the videos, and nothing like that at all, except for what I described up above. It is obvious to every pilot I know, who can see the dive, the level-off and turn to the left, but there is nothing "sudden" or "rapid" or unusual.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


He is in a turn, last minute and was also pulling level from the dive. The wings flex quite a lot, next time you fly take a look. You can see the movement especially in turbulence.


That is the worst part of flying for me. Watching the wings do that.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
And the proportion analysis, what do you think of that?



www.amics21.com...

www.amics21.com...

And for that matter, what about the anomalous structures, which Boeing analyzed but refused to comment on.

www.amics21.com...
www.amics21.com...

Boeing has not clarified the enigma of the second plane
www.amics21.com...



One last thing - regarding that flame flash, what you say is the Flight Deck O2 tank exploding upon impact.

this is the best slomo of it

webfairy.911review.org...

[edit on 20-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 



P.S. What are your thoughts on the proportion comparative analysis?


'analysis'?

There is nothing wrong with any of the images. Every one can be explained by the angle of view. IF the intent is to imply that the fuselage length is somehow "wrong".

SOME people have seen what they thought were 'pods' on the center of the fuselage belly. They are badly mistaken. It is the paint scheme design. www.airliners.net... have many, many photos that will show what I am referring to. The lower portion dark blue of that United paint scheme does not cover the complete belly. Sections are left unpainted, and that's what looks like 'pods'.


One other thing - the Tanker Transport


Yes....you linked more sources, and again they point to years WELL AFTER 2001....


Is a re-engineered, re-configuration of the Boeing 767.


Yes....as I said, Boeing pushed VERY hard to sell that lucrative contract to the US Military. Much easier, in view of the age of the B707 (KC-135) and the fact that the B767 passengger jet sales were drying up (competition from their own B777 and Airbus, and also work on the new repacement for the B767 -- the 'Dreamliner'...)


ANd I saw adds for the Tanker Transport on Boeing website in the fall of 2002.... and presumably a prototype could have existed.


No. The engineering and design for the conversion may have been done or underway, but they ARE NOT going to build one, without getting firm orders first. Doesn't work any other way, in the business.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 



And the proportion analysis, what do you think of that?


Thanks, hadn't heard of those guys before.

What do I think of them? I think they're nuts.

You showed two pages from their blog....one where they used the 'A-B-C' grid to "prove" their 'analysis'...(a very fuzzy analog screen capture...blurred, certainly not usable for the tyope of conclusions they were trying to draw).

THEN, they 'updated' with a better, digital image...lo and behold, the proportions look much more accurate, and match perfectly. (Of course, in their minds they still think the nose "looks too long"...not to me).

Next, I expect they'll try to count the windows....maybe that'll shut them up.

Oh, and I see they come up with this nonsense in 2003??? Problem with the Internet is, once something gets posted, it tends to stay around, whether it's true, or not......



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
SOME people have seen what they thought were 'pods' on the center of the fuselage belly. They are badly mistaken. It is the paint scheme design. www.airliners.net... have many, many photos that will show what I am referring to. The lower portion dark blue of that United paint scheme does not cover the complete belly. Sections are left unpainted, and that's what looks like 'pods'.

I don't think that's an adequate explanation for all the photos of it, the paint scheme, or the wing root fairing.

www.september11news.com...
www.questionsquestions.net...


[edit on 20-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


I think you drink too much kool-aid. the truth is the buildings did not fall they just went away. they were turned to dust by a weapon that has yet to be revealed. sounds crazy, but can anyone tell me where all that steel went. I didn't see 12 stories of steel, did you? because that's how much should of been left for that size building. where did it go? just a lot of dust.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by watcher2
 


Um regardless if it was dynomite causing the structural failure or otherwise I assure you they did fall down. They took a couple of the surrounding builldings with them because of their falling debris.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 



...or the wing root fairing.


Look again, closely. The two images you just posted show the paint scheme pretty well. (Maybe because I've seen the airplanes close up, so many times?? I mean, years of sitting on the ramp, or waiting in line on the taxiway...had a nice view).

The wing root bump? Normal, look at photos. Bump is part of the wheel well for the Main gear.
__________________________________________________________

NO, I struck out the mention of the 'bump' for the Main gear, that was me thinking of the B757. The B767 fuselage, being larger diameter, has more room for the gear, less 'bump'. BUT, as you can see, the wingroot fairing is, of course, there...

www.airliners.net...

Obviously, a B767-300. BUT, same fairing designs. Obviously, fairings are to smooth airflow, and try to reduce parasitic drag.

Here's a -200 for comparison. This is good to show how the landing and runway turnoff lights are mounted, in the fairing at the root. Notice the slight amount of bulging to accomodate the gear. Those fairings, BTW, are made of composite materials (including the gear doors...if I looked harder, I could find a picture of them open), both because of the complex shape, and for lighter weight. That's why, on American Airlines, they are painted gray...because their natural color is very dark gray, not attractive with American's preferred natural aluminum overall scheme.

www.airliners.net...

One more tidbit of trivia, for those interested. You may notice the -200 has several versions, I.E. -222, -223 etc. The last two digits refer to the customer that ordered the airplane. It is internal for Boeing, and for those in the know also tells a lot about the exact configuration as ordered by the customer initially.




[edit on 20 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 20 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


obviously some fell down, but where is all that steel. have researched this for 8 yrs and explosives were not the only thing used. I do think that thermite was used because there were traces of it found on site, but it still doesn't explain where the steel went.
you should look at drjudywood.com who can explain it far better than I.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by watcher2
 


All that steel was scattered around the site, lodged in neighboring buildings and buried in the basement. You can see some of that from pictures posted here recently of the subway tunnels.




top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join