Millions Watch Live on TV

tunaman · 28-01-2008 5:43am #1

Flight 175 hits the South Tower of the World Trade Center (Tower Two). Seismic records pinpoint the time at six seconds before 9:03 a.m. (rounded to 9:03 a.m.).

Millions watch the crash live on television. The plane, which is traveling at an estimated speed of around 500 mph (see October 2002-October 2005), severs 33 of the building’s 236 perimeter columns and damages another one. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 39 pdf file]

The perimeter columns bear about half of the tower’s weight, so the damage to them reduces the tower’s ability to bear gravity loads by about 7.1 percent. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 6 pdf file]

According to NIST’s base case model, five of the core columns are severed and another five suffer some damage. [National Institute of Standards & Technology, 9/2005, pp. 235 pdf file] This may reduce the tower’s ability to bear loads by a further approximately 8 percent, meaning that the aircraft impact accounted for a loss of about 15 percent of the building’s strength. This damage will be cited as an event contributing to the building’s collapse after 9/11 (see October 23, 2002 and October 19, 2004).

South Tower Coming Down

Better with no sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY

So do you really think what you can see here in this slow motion video was simply the result of a 15% loss of strength in the building?

ronanphilip · 28-01-2008 6:19am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

about 51min 24secs into vid

oscarBravo · 28-01-2008 10:01am

tunaman wrote: »

So do you really think what you can see here in this slow motion video was simply the result of a 15% loss of strength in the building?

Nope. Happily, no-one's claiming that it was.

Gordon · 28-01-2008 10:52am

I'd agree with that. The 15% drop in strength did not cause the collapse. It's strange that someone would argue that point. If it was down to 15% loss of strength then it would have collapsed immediately.

tunaman · 03-02-2008 2:54am

Gordon wrote: »

I'd agree with that. The 15% drop in strength did not cause the collapse. It's strange that someone would argue that point. If it was down to 15% loss of strength then it would have collapsed immediately.

So are you saying that the building lost less 15% of strength gradually in less then an hour?

Is that your view or the so called experts at NIST?

All these claims get made by people like you who defend the official theory, yet it is very rare that any evidence is ever presented...

The initial claim by these experts was that the steel got so hot that it melted, which seems reasonable enough in explaining the sudden and dramatic total "collapse".

However the melting steel theory has since disappeared, just like those 3 massive steel-framed buildings that were totally destroyed in seconds, so what is the latest theory that you are proposing now?

I would appreciate if people like you would try to explain the latest theory in their own words, as it seems that the popular pancake theory has also been removed for some unknown reason.

As for the video, can people not see the wave of high speed "ejections" well below the so called collapse point in the building?

Black Swan · 03-02-2008 3:02am

tunaman wrote: »

So do you really think what you can see here in this slow motion video was simply the result of a 15% loss of strength in the building?

The intense heat created by a plane fully loaded with highly combustible aviation fuel which ignited upon impact? How many thousands of degrees? This theory still holds, although some may not hold it in vogue.

The "wave of high speed ejections" are to suggest that the building was prepped? By whom? The unsophisticated fools that could barely fly planes? If so, why bother with the planes? Just announce to the media and blow the structures.

What if the buildings had not fallen after the dramatic collision of the two planes? Would the symbolic affect still have been realised by the world that the USA was now vulnerable to attack? Yes. Therefore, the collapse of the towers was not necessary to produce this world media event.

Gordon · 03-02-2008 9:55am

tunaman wrote: »

So are you saying that the building lost less 15% of strength gradually in less then an hour?

Is that your view or the so called experts at NIST?

All these claims get made by people like you who defend the official theory, yet it is very rare that any evidence is ever presented...

The initial claim by these experts was that the steel got so hot that it melted, which seems reasonable enough in explaining the sudden and dramatic total "collapse".

However the melting steel theory has since disappeared, just like those 3 massive steel-framed buildings that were totally destroyed in seconds, so what is the latest theory that you are proposing now?

I would appreciate if people like you would try to explain the latest theory in their own words, as it seems that the popular pancake theory has also been removed for some unknown reason.

As for the video, can people not see the wave of high speed "ejections" well below the so called collapse point in the building?

People like me? Is it your wish that we throw insults back and forth and not actually discuss this topic? Do you not want to discuss this? If you are going to speak to me like that then I assume you don't mind me speaking to you like that.

tunaman, sheesh,people like you don't read what they have quoted. Sheesh! People like you read that 15% of the buildings strength was taken away by the plane hitting the building and then say that the building fell solely from 15% damage! SHEESH! People like you don't read what they quote!

tunaman wrote:

This [15%] damage will be cited as an event contributing to the building’s collapse

The key word there is "contributing". Contributing. If the 15% damage was the only factor then the tower would have fallen immediately.

Wait, do you actually believe a plane hit the tower, because from what I hear, sheesh, "people like you" believe there was no plane that hit the tower. Sheesh! People like you believe that it was a hologram. SHEESH!

Captain Chaos · 05-02-2008 1:36am

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

The intense heat created by a plane fully loaded with highly combustible aviation fuel which ignited upon impact? How many thousands of degrees? This theory still holds, although some may not hold it in vogue.

Jet A1 aviation fuel as used in the US airline industry has a flash point of 38o C. It has an autoignition temperature of 210o C. In normal open air conditions it will burn at 260-320o C and the max temperature it can possibly reach without added explosive combustable material with a higher burning exothermic temperature is 980o C, not in the thousands at all. Most of this would have burned off in the impact and the wings which hold 90% of the fuel in a 767 hardly entered the buiding before they were destroyed.

Plain carbon steel lowest melting point is 1130o C. Pure iron which is steel with 0% carbon will begin to melt at 1495o C.

bonkey · 05-02-2008 6:14am

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Jet A1 aviation fuel as used in the US airline industry has a flash point of 38o C. It has an autoignition temperature of 210o C. In normal open air conditions it will burn at 260-320o C and the max temperature it can possibly reach without added explosive combustable material with a higher burning exothermic temperature is 980o C, not in the thousands at all. Most of this would have burned off in the impact and the wings which hold 90% of the fuel in a 767 hardly entered the buiding before they were destroyed.

Plain carbon steel lowest melting point is 1130o C. Pure iron which is steel with 0% carbon will begin to melt at 1495o C.

Just as well then that NIST don't claim that melting steel caused the collapse, nor that aviation fuel was anything other than the initiator of the continuing fire.

oscarBravo · 05-02-2008 10:31am

tunaman wrote: »

Is that your view or the so called experts at NIST?

First, have you read the NIST report? Second, why "so called" experts? If you have reason to doubt the expertise of the NIST report's authors, you should explain it - ideally with reference to actual experts who can point out any mistakes they made.

tunaman wrote: »

All these claims get made by people like you who defend the official theory, yet it is very rare that any evidence is ever presented...

Have you read the NIST report?

tunaman wrote: »

The initial claim by these experts was that the steel got so hot that it melted, which seems reasonable enough in explaining the sudden and dramatic total "collapse".

I'm not aware that NIST ever claimed the steel melted. I'm open to correction, though.

tunaman wrote: »

I would appreciate if people like you would try to explain the latest theory in their own words, as it seems that the popular pancake theory has also been removed for some unknown reason.

Have you read the NIST report?

The "pancake theory" was a working hypothesis that was discarded at a fairly early stage of the investigation. That's how hypotheses work: if they fail to adequately explain all the facts, they are discarded and replaced with new - testable and falsifiable - hypotheses that do.

tunaman wrote: »

As for the video, can people not see the wave of high speed "ejections" well below the so called collapse point in the building?

Compressed air from an internally-collapsing building blows out windows and debris. Not hard to understand.

What do you think those ejections are?

bonkey · 05-02-2008 10:49am

tunaman wrote: »

The initial claim by these experts was that the steel got so hot that it melted, which seems reasonable enough in explaining the sudden and dramatic total "collapse".

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm : In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires.

it seems that the popular pancake theory has also been removed for some unknown reason.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm : NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse

As for the video, can people not see the wave of high speed "ejections" well below the so called collapse point in the building?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm : 4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

tunaman · 10-02-2008 6:36am

Gordon wrote: »

People like me? Is it your wish that we throw insults back and forth and not actually discuss this topic? Do you not want to discuss this? If you are going to speak to me like that then I assume you don't mind me speaking to you like that.

Yeah people like you who defend the official conspiracy theory as though your life depended on it. It was a simple observation, which you seem to have taken to be an insult, so if you want to use it as an excuse not to defend your position then so be it.

The key word there is "contributing". Contributing. If the 15% damage was the only factor then the tower would have fallen immediately.

Is that a fact?

Or is it mere speculation?

By the way there is a huge difference between the towers simply falling compared to the total destruction of the buildings which actually happened...

Wait, do you actually believe a plane hit the tower, because from what I hear, sheesh, "people like you" believe there was no plane that hit the tower. Sheesh! People like you believe that it was a hologram. SHEESH!

Have you finished throwing your toys out of your pram?

So everybody that questions the official theory must believe that there was no planes?

This is just another prime example from "people like you" that create these false dichotomies where people either believe the official theory or they must believe all other speculative theories ever presented anywhere on the web.

tunaman · 10-02-2008 6:46am

bonkey wrote: »

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm : In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires.

I said "experts".

http://www.suntimes.co.za/2001/09/12/architect.asp

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager, speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning." aid structural engineer Chris Wise.

"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1604348.stm

[Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton] told BBC News Online: "The world trade centre was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, but that was unusual... we are trying to discover why they [ the towers ] collapsed and what needs doing to rebuild them."

"The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem."

"The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel... all that can be done is to place fire resistant material around the steel and delay the collapse by keeping the steel cool for longer."

These experts are the structural engineers which you put so much faith in, however when they are proved to be wrong what do you do?

You claim that the only "experts" that you trust are those which are funded directly by the US government.

How convenient...

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm : 4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

So what they are claiming right here is that the falling mass of the building, i.e. the floors above where the plane impacted was directly responsible for the high speed ejections which can be seen well below the point of the building which is "collapsing".

Once again in reality this photograph tells a completely different story...

http://911review.com/attack/wtc/imgs/site1102.jpg

So where exactly is this falling mass that they describe?

Mahatma coat · 10-02-2008 6:48am

What caused building 7 to fall??

somone remind me again.

Gordon · 10-02-2008 9:49am

tunaman wrote: »

Yeah people like you who defend the official conspiracy theory as though your life depended on it. It was a simple observation, which you seem to have taken to be an insult, so if you want to use it as an excuse not to defend your position then so be it.

Is that a fact?

Or is it mere speculation?

By the way there is a huge difference between the towers simply falling compared to the total destruction of the buildings which actually happened...

Have you finished throwing your toys out of your pram?

So everybody that questions the official theory must believe that there was no planes?

This is just another prime example from "people like you" that create these false dichotomies where people either believe the official theory or they must believe all other speculative theories ever presented anywhere on the web.

Ah tunaman you're a gem. I'm defending this 'as though my life depended on it'. lol

If you can't reply to my initial point, which you haven't done, then you don't have much of an argument do you? People like you don't tend to answer the answers that I give though, so that's not surprising

I'm just disappointed that you referred to me as "people like you" because that just means that you haven't read what I wrote, you simply generalised, categorised and pigeonholed me into the enemy straight away without taking on board my comments. It's sad that someone would do that imo.

Have you finished throwing your toys out of your pram?

Wasn't me, it was the NWO using their magneto gun from space that pushed them out

http://911review.com/attack/wtc/imgs/site1102.jpg

So where exactly is this falling mass that they describe?

Why are you linking to another website as opposed to the image?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

What caused building 7 to fall??

somone remind me again.

That's not really the topic of the thread though is it? The thread seems to be about a 15% loss of strength in tower 2 as far as I am aware.

oscarBravo · 11-02-2008 11:09am

tunaman wrote: »

I said "experts".

You actually said "so called experts at NIST".

tunaman wrote: »

http://www.suntimes.co.za/2001/09/12/architect.asp

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager, speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning." aid structural engineer Chris Wise.

"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1604348.stm

[Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton] told BBC News Online: "The world trade centre was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, but that was unusual... we are trying to discover why they [ the towers ] collapsed and what needs doing to rebuild them."

"The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem."

"The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel... all that can be done is to place fire resistant material around the steel and delay the collapse by keeping the steel cool for longer."

These experts are the structural engineers which you put so much faith in, however when they are proved to be wrong what do you do?

You claim that the only "experts" that you trust are those which are funded directly by the US government.

Flip, flop. How many of those "experts" work at NIST? Remember, you're the one who specified NIST experts.

tunaman wrote: »

So what they are claiming right here is that the falling mass of the building, i.e. the floors above where the plane impacted was directly responsible for the high speed ejections which can be seen well below the point of the building which is "collapsing".

Makes sense to me. What's your alternative hypothesis?

tunaman wrote: »

Once again in reality this photograph tells a completely different story...

http://911review.com/attack/wtc/imgs/site1102.jpg

So where exactly is this falling mass that they describe?

Link broken.

I notice you didn't touch bonkey's post.

tunaman · 12-02-2008 2:06am

Gordon wrote: »

If you can't reply to my initial point, which you haven't done, then you don't have much of an argument do you? People like you don't tend to answer the answers that I give though, so that's not surprising

No wonder people like you can't see what is staring you in the face.

I replied directly to your initial statement in this thread, which you have since ignored...

So are you saying that the building lost less 15% of strength gradually in less then an hour?

I asked that question because you claimed that the building would have "collapsed" immediately if in fact the building did lose 15% of it's strength.

However the opinion of those so called experts at NIST is in direct conflict to yours, as they claim that the impact of the plane accounted for that 15% loss alone...

So if that figure was true then why didn't the building just "collapse" immediately, like you claim?

I'm just disappointed that you referred to me as "people like you" because that just means that you haven't read what I wrote, you simply generalised, categorised and pigeonholed me into the enemy straight away without taking on board my comments. It's sad that someone would do that imo.

I'm not the one with the selective eyesight problem.

Why are you linking to another website as opposed to the image?

What are you crying about now?

I provided a direct link to a photo, which happens to be found on a 9/11 website. :eek:

That's not really the topic of the thread though is it? The thread seems to be about a 15% loss of strength in tower 2 as far as I am aware.

The thread is about what was shown live on TV that day, so seeing as footage of building 7 wasn't shown on 9/11, then I suppose you're right.

tricky D · 12-02-2008 2:39am

Steel fails due to plastic deformation which occurs way before any melting. Melting is a red herring. Load resistance has safety factors built in 40% for dead loads, 60% for live loads. 15% overall structural loss can be absorbed but not necessarily when localised. However, as much of the fire protection has been removed in the impact, the heat weakens the steel pretty quickly, floors burn and fail causing tonnes of additional debris to become localised on already weakening floors below overloading them and leading to progressive failure of the total structural matrix. Whether this happens by pancaking or just plain single catastrophic failure is moot - one is just a slower progressive failure.

\2c

tunaman · 12-02-2008 2:43am

oscarBravo wrote: »

You actually said "so called experts at NIST"Flip, flop. How many of those "experts" work at NIST? Remember, you're the one who specified NIST experts..

Then I went on to say the following...

The initial claim by these experts was that the steel got so hot that it melted, which seems reasonable enough in explaining the sudden and dramatic total "collapse".

Now you know as well as I do that those so called experts at NIST never made any initial claims, as they had so much hard work ahead of them trying to work out just how those buildings came down, so obviously I wasn't talking about them.

That doesn't stop you trying to be clever though...

You have often argued that all these experts are in agreement, especially structural engineers, which they all were in their initial claims. However the truth is that it was impossible for the office fires to have gotten anywhere near hot enough to melt the steel, so how could they all be in agreement and yet be so wrong?

According to all of them the steel must have melted for the buildings to come down the way they did, so what melted the steel if it wasn't fire?

Makes sense to me. What's your alternative hypothesis?

So you claim to be a man of science, yet common sense is basically the opposite of science. Good sense usually relies on prejudices, which is no different here. Common sense told us all that the earth was flat.

All through that NIST report they make the following claim over and over again...

The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.

That's the extent of their scientific explanation right there. I suppose it makes sense, but it has absolutely no scientific basis. When asked to verify their claims they refused to release any of their computer models on the so called collapse of the WTC.

http://www.911review.com/coverup/imgs/resistcall.jpg

No need right, as they explained it all so well using science already?

Link broken.

Worked fine for me, but here it is again just in case.

http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/imgs/site1102.jpg

So where is the mass again, which is supposed to be impacting down on the lower floors?

I notice you didn't touch bonkey's post.

You just quoted my complete reply to his post.

I guess you have probably been called blind by people like me before, so maybe now you can understand just why.

oscarBravo · 12-02-2008 12:38pm

You're right, that was a reply to bonkey's post. Maybe I am blind. Or perhaps you didn't actually address any of the points he made.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. You produce "experts" who say something completely at odds with what actually happened, then ask others to defend their explanation of something that didn't take place.

You also continue to disparage NIST by putting the word "experts" in quotes, while not actually refuting anything they have said. You misrepresent them by claiming that a single sentence is "the extent of their scientific explanation" - have you actually read their report?

What was this thread about again?

Oh, and do yourself a favour and click on the link you've posted twice now.

Diogenes · 12-02-2008 1:45pm

tunaman wrote: »

You have often argued that all these experts are in agreement, especially structural engineers, which they all were in their initial claims. However the truth is that it was impossible for the office fires to have gotten anywhere near hot enough to melt the steel, so how could they all be in agreement and yet be so wrong?

According to all of them the steel must have melted for the buildings to come down the way they did, so what melted the steel if it wasn't fire?

Oh bloody hell are we still here? Honestly it's enough to make a man lose his will to live.

For the last time tunaman, there is no evidence of melted steel at the WTC, furthermore the steel doesn't need to melt, it looses most of its structural strength if heated to 600 degrees.

The fact that you are still banging on on this strawman after all these years simply beggars believe.

meglome · 12-02-2008 2:36pm

tricky D wrote: »

Steel fails due to plastic deformation which occurs way before any melting. Melting is a red herring. Load resistance has safety factors built in 40% for dead loads, 60% for live loads. 15% overall structural loss can be absorbed but not necessarily when localised. However, as much of the fire protection has been removed in the impact, the heat weakens the steel pretty quickly, floors burn and fail causing tonnes of additional debris to become localised on already weakening floors below overloading them and leading to progressive failure of the total structural matrix. Whether this happens by pancaking or just plain single catastrophic failure is moot - one is just a slower progressive failure.

\2c

+1

Offalycool · 12-02-2008 2:52pm

Story from 2005 here...

Scores die in Iranian air crash

Rescuers in burning building
The building was engulfed in flames after the crash

Crash aftermath
A military transport plane has crashed on the outskirts of the Iranian capital Tehran, killing at least 128 people.

The plane was attempting an emergency landing at Mehrabad airport and came down in a residential district, hitting a 10-storey apartment building.

The impact set off a big explosion, setting fire to the building.

Iranian state-run radio said all 94 passengers and crew on board the C-130 plane, and 34 people on the ground, were killed.

The aircraft had just taken off when the pilot reported an emergency and turned back, before losing control of the aircraft.

See a diagramme of a C-130 aircraft

The fuel tanks were almost full so there was a large blast on impact with the base of an apartment block in a compound housing airport staff in the Yaftabad district.

"I saw the aeroplane. There was smoke coming out of one engine. It went into the ground very fast, very close to the building," said 30-year-old Mohammad Rasooli, a local resident.

"There was a huge explosion which engulfed the housing block."

Child victims

Most of the passengers on board the plane were journalists and photographers from Iranian news agencies on their way to cover military manoeuvres on the southern coast. Nearly 40 employees of state-run television died.

The building remained standing but is a scorched shell.

Officials said several children, at home because schools were closed because of a smog alert in the capital, were among those who died in the apartment block.

Crash in pictures

"Most of the victims on the ground are women and children who were at home," Lieutenant Nasser Sedigh-Nia, who witnessed the crash, told AFP news agency.

An interior ministry spokesman said some of those killed on the ground had been in their cars, whose burnt-out shells littered the crash site.

Scores of people were taken to hospitals suffering from burns and the effects of smoke.

Scuffles broke out as police cordoned off the crash site, trying to keep hundreds of anxious residents from pushing past them.

And journalists at the site were beaten and had their tapes confiscated by the security forces.

The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says the Iranian army has denied rumours that the flight crew was aware there were technical problems with the plane.

BBC
I know the building didn't take the full force of the impact, but ill bet its built with reinforced steel and an aviation fuel fire did not cause this building to collapse! It's something to consider before we just accept what were told.

Diogenes · 12-02-2008 5:11pm

Offalycool wrote: »

Story from 2005 here...

BBC
I know the building didn't take the full force of the impact, but ill bet its built with reinforced steel

You'd bet would you? You do know that steel reinforced buildings aren't common outside of skyscrapers don't you?

Furthermore it was ten stories tall, it wasn't the same as the twin towers, with weakened steel supports attempting to hold up 70-80 floors above the impact zone.

and an aviation fuel fire did not cause this building to collapse!

It was hit by a C130 trying to miss it, not a fully ladden 757 accelerating and aiming for the building.

It's something to consider before we just accept what were told.

Before you "accept" what you are "told" why don't you try and read the NIST executive summary, before you start comparing apples with oranges.

You don't have the first facts about this nonsense, you don't know the speed of the plane or where it hit the building. or how about the fuel capacity on a C-130 is 5,150 liters compared to the 43,950 liters on a 757?

How about you educate yourself before weighing in on this stuff.

Offalycool · 12-02-2008 5:36pm

Since when does anybody build modern buildings 10 stories high without reinforced steel?

Also, there are a verity of c-130 models, many with upgraded fuel tanks. I have found a wikipedia reference to 5,150 litres, It would appear that is the storage capacity of an add on tank.

"The extended range C-130E model entered service in 1962. The increased range was achieved by under wing 5,150 liter (1,360 US gallon) fuel tanks, (center-section) wing-mounted auxiliary fuel tanks and more powerful Allison T-56-A-7A turboprops. The E model also featured structural improvements, avionics upgrades and a higher gross weight." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130_Hercules

It should be noted the C-130 served in the coalition forces in Iraq and is not going to get very far on 5,150 litres.

"During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the C-130 Hercules was used operationally by Australia, the UK and the United States. After the initial invasion, C-130 operators as part of the Multinational force in Iraq used their C-130s to support their forces in Iraq."

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130_Hercules

Diogenes · 12-02-2008 6:19pm

Offalycool wrote: »

Since when does anybody build modern buildings 10 stories high without reinforced steel?

How do you know the building was modern? Was it built in the 50s? the 60s the 70s? What do you know about building safety and design codes in Iran.

You're working off an assumption, a presumption, you've no evidence to support your claims.

Also, there are a verity of c-130 models, many with upgraded fuel tanks. I have found a wikipedia reference to 5,150 litres, It would appear that is the storage capacity of an add on tank.

"The extended range C-130E model entered service in 1962. The increased range was achieved by under wing 5,150 liter (1,360 US gallon) fuel tanks, (center-section) wing-mounted auxiliary fuel tanks and more powerful Allison T-56-A-7A turboprops. The E model also featured structural improvements, avionics upgrades and a higher gross weight." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130_Hercules

It should be noted the C-130 served in the coalition forces in Iraq and is not going to get very far on 5,150 litres.

"During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the C-130 Hercules was used operationally by Australia, the UK and the United States. After the initial invasion, C-130 operators as part of the Multinational force in Iraq used their C-130s to support their forces in Iraq."

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130_Hercules

All utterly irrelevant and pointless. Nothing in your link shows that a C-130 had more than 5,000 liters of fuel*

A fully loaded C-130 carried significantly less fuel than a 757, it's significantly smaller, and the manner in which it crashed was radically different to the events of 911.

Seriously Offaly you think this any of this has any merit?

*Obviously aside from mid air refueling tankers which this clearly wasn't seeing it was full of passengers

meglome · 12-02-2008 10:47pm

Offalycool, you're doing the same thing over and over here. You're putting forward stuff to support what you want to believe without actually looking properly at the facts of these events. In my travels in Asia I saw a lot of concrete/concrete structured buildings, my experience is this is the norm. I have no empirical evidence other than my own observations.

tunaman · 19-02-2008 2:08am

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're right, that was a reply to bonkey's post. Maybe I am blind. Or perhaps you didn't actually address any of the points he made.

Any excuse to avoid a discussion...

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. You produce "experts" who say something completely at odds with what actually happened, then ask others to defend their explanation of something that didn't take place.

So you admit what all the experts initially claimed was wrong?

Any credible reason for why they all did that?

You also continue to disparage NIST by putting the word "experts" in quotes, while not actually refuting anything they have said. You misrepresent them by claiming that a single sentence is "the extent of their scientific explanation" - have you actually read their report?

How can anybody read their report?

I'm sure you must have as you keep going on about it, so why haven't you or any of your mates presented any highly relevant and specific parts?

You all claim it's based on science, so where are all these indisputable scientific facts?

Do they even mentioned what happened to the 47 central core columns?

Despite wasting hundreds of hours berating people for daring to disbelieve official conspiracy theories, your lack of evidence is always replaced with empty rhetoric, based on all kinds of logical fallacies.

What exactly are you doing now, other than appealing to authority?

Oh, and do yourself a favour and click on the link you've posted twice now.

Here is a different link.

http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/piledriver.html

Yet again the experts were very definite in their claims (just like they were on melting steel) that the floors above the impact were acting like a pile driver, yet in reality the top of the building was exploding.

I find it hard to understand how people are so afraid to look at even a few photos and video footage of what happened to the WTC and form their own opinion, yet they are so desperate to find "experts" who tell them what really happened, despite the fact that it's been proven just how wrong those "experts" have been.

So what makes them right now?

Common sense?

tunaman · 19-02-2008 2:26am

Diogenes wrote: »

Oh bloody hell are we still here? Honestly it's enough to make a man lose his will to live.

So how many hours a week do you spend in this forum?

What could you possibly get out of it?

For the last time tunaman, there is no evidence of melted steel at the WTC, furthermore the steel doesn't need to melt, it looses most of its structural strength if heated to 600 degrees.

So where is the evidence that any of the steel in the WTC reached 600C?

http://911review.com/attack/wtc/fires.html

Includes results of experiments for the highest temperature of unprotected steel in a fire, which is a long way from 600C.

The fact that you are still banging on on this strawman after all these years simply beggars believe.

I present links of structural engineers, who all said that the cause of the buildings coming down, was because the steel got so hot that it melted.

So you respond with don't be stupid nobody ever said that.

I suppose that just proves you have serious trouble accepting reality...

oscarBravo · 19-02-2008 6:15pm

tunaman wrote: »

So you admit what all the experts initially claimed was wrong?

I think that what some experts may have said off the cuff may have been wrong, yes.

tunaman wrote: »

Any credible reason for why they all did that?

Who's "all"?

tunaman wrote: »

How can anybody read their report?

I'm sure you must have as you keep going on about it, so why haven't you or any of your mates presented any highly relevant and specific parts?

It's all relevant. If there's any part of it you have a problem with, highlight it and we'll discuss it.

tunaman wrote: »

You all claim it's based on science, so where are all these indisputable scientific facts?

What's an "indisputable scientific fact"?

tunaman wrote: »

Do they even mentioned what happened to the 47 central core columns?

They collapsed. What do you think happened to them? Do you think the entire building could collapse, and leave 47 110-storey high columns free-standing?

tunaman wrote: »

Despite wasting hundreds of hours berating people for daring to disbelieve official conspiracy theories, your lack of evidence is always replaced with empty rhetoric, based on all kinds of logical fallacies.

I've pointed you to the NIST report. If you don't understand it, don't blame me.

tunaman wrote: »

What exactly are you doing now, other than appealing to authority?

I'm asking you to point out where the NIST report is wrong.

tunaman wrote: »

Here is a different link.

http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/piledriver.html

OK, I'll play along:

Even if the pile driver is hidden within the dust cloud, it would only have a fraction of the mass of the former top of the building, since most of it was clearly falling outside of the building's profile."

Measured how? What's the basis for this assertion?

Moreover it is noteworthy that the rubble falling outside of the tower's profile is falling at about the same rate at which the Tower is disappearing. Even the largest and heaviest pieces of rubble at the bottom edges of the rubble cloud are falling less than twice as fast as rubble falling inside the Tower's profile.

It's not even internally consistent.

But the rubble falling inside the Tower's profile is, according to the official explanation, crushing the building.

Doesn't rubble have mass?

tunaman wrote: »

Yet again the experts were very definite in their claims (just like they were on melting steel) that the floors above the impact were acting like a pile driver, yet in reality the top of the building was exploding.

The top of the building fell, it didn't explode.

tunaman wrote: »

I find it hard to understand how people are so afraid to look at even a few photos and video footage of what happened to the WTC and form their own opinion, yet they are so desperate to find "experts" who tell them what really happened, despite the fact that it's been proven just how wrong those "experts" have been.

So what makes them right now?

Read the NIST report, and tell me where it's wrong.

Millions Watch Live on TV

Comments