Military C-130 Hercules plane crashed into tower block in Iran NO COLLAPSE !

digme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZKf0s4aqkU

Mike...

Iran now have or had a Military C-130 Hercules...thats news to me

digme

Sorry Mike I'm not quite following you.

RoboClam

How do you even know a plane hit it?

digme

The plan was on the ground in the video?It was on national news over there? Are you two lads taking the piss ?

squod

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article749268.ece

No mention of the adjacent office block falling over at free fall speeds either.

gizmo

A couple of simple facts before people get carried away...

The C-130 has an empty weight of 75,800lbs.
The Boeing 767 has an empty weight of between 176,650 and 229,000lbs depending on the specific class.

The C-130 has a cruise speed of 292kn and a max speed of 320kn.
The Boeing 767 has a cruise speed of 470kn and a max speed of 493kn.

The C-130 in this tragic accident was attempting to land and would therefore have been traveling at a far slower rate than the 767s which crashed into the WTC.

Simple physics shows that the two events cannot be compared directly.

squod

Someone needs to remind gizmo of the internal structure of both WTC buildings.

RoboClam

Was there any videos of the plane hitting the building? Perhaps the parts of the plane in the video were planted there.

Seriously though, what is your point? It's a totally different kind of building structurally to the WTC. It's an apartment building and not a massive office block.

gizmo

The building is, of course, the unknown at this point. But the above stats were just to stop the comparisons in the context of the planes themselves.

Yitzhak Rabin

Awful tragedy. I feel so sorry for the victims, horrible way to go.

But as for why the building didn't collapse, I'd say there are dozens of reasons.

One or two off the top of my head;

-C-130 is a prop engine plane. Much slower than a jet engine.

-Pilot would have been trying to avoid a crash, and reducing speed, not smashing into the building at the highest speed possible.

-Looks to be a much different structure. Rather than tall and thin, with huge weight bearing down, it looks to be short and robust?

Perhaps paddyirishman would be able to lend his expertise in assessing it later.

RoboClam

gizmo wrote: »

The building is, of course, the unknown at this point. But the above stats were just to stop the comparisons in the context of the planes themselves.

It's probably still fair to say that this building isn't 110 floors and isn't constructed in the same way as the WTC.

Captain Chaos

Still the plane was full of fuel, it just took off. And yet the burning aviation fuel did not cause the building to fail, amazing.:rolleyes:

espinolman

I have an idea , build a tower the same as the twin towers world trade centre , build it the same way , then fly a plane by remote control into it , and see what happens , if it collapses .

Mike...

digme wrote: »

Sorry Mike I'm not quite following you.

Looked on wikipedia there and they do have one, sorry man was sure it was a misprint

Divorce Referendum

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Still the plane was full of fuel, it just took off. And yet the burning aviation fuel did not cause the building to fail, amazing.:rolleyes:

My powers of detection from that limited footage is that it was a pre-cast concrete structure. Are you suggesting a comparison to the WTC......steel?

Divorce Referendum

This quote is also interesting from the times article:

It went into the ground very fast, very close to the building," said 30-year-old Mohammad Rasooli, a local resident. "

Seems it might actually hit the ground first.

meglome

So let's see...

A reinforced concrete building not steel.
Way smaller than the twin towers
Plane moving way slower
Smaller plane
Less fuel
Not intentionally hit
may not have hit the building directly

So if you're telling me apples and oranges are different then yes they are.

Captain Chaos

meglome wrote: »

So let's see...

A reinforced concrete building not steel.
Way smaller than the twin towers
Plane moving way slower
Smaller plane
Less Fuel
Not intentionally hit
may not have hit the building directly

So if you're telling me apples and oranges are different then yes they are.

Actually almost identical fuel levels of the first 767-200 crash and a fully fueled C-130 at takeoff. Both around 9,500 US gallons.

The 767-200 that hit first had around the same fuel load at the time as the fully fueled up '130 at takeoff.

The 767-200ER, the second to hit, had more on board, yes.

Divorce Referendum

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Actually almost identical fuel levels of the first 767-200 crash and a fully fueled C-130 at takeoff. Both around 9,500 US gallons.

The 767-200 that hit first had around the same fuel load at the time as the fully fueled up '130 at takeoff.

The 767-200ER, the second to hit, had more on board, yes.

And the fuel did what exactly?

Captain Chaos

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

And the fuel did what exactly?

Melted the steel in the WTC causing the twin towers to collapse but in Iran the burning fuel did not manage to melt the steel rods and beams encased in the concrete (like the WTC had) of that building to cause it to collapse. But WTC7 did collapse due to fire damaged cause by the twins falling around them, managing to burn the same temperature to melt the support columns of steel encased concrete without the aviation fuel getting near it. These things happens it seems.

Granted the C-130 did not actually penetrate the building like the 767s did to the WTC but it still managed to set fire to it by hitting it and spilling it wings and two external tanks of fuel all over it and the surrounding area.

Divorce Referendum

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Melted the steel in the WTC causing the twin towers to collapse but in Iran the burning fuel did not manage to melt the steel rods and beams encased in the concrete like the WTC of that building to cause it to collapse.

Granted the C-130 did not actually penetrate the building like the 767s did to the WTC but it still managed to set fire to it by hitting it and spilling it wings and two external tanks of fuel all over it and the surrounding area.

The building in Iran was a precast concrete building which means it will have steel reinforcement contained in the concrete thats all. No steel beams at all juding by the span and building size. The world trade centre had steel columns along the perimeter and core with trusses offering rigidity and holding up the concrete floors. This steel had 2 hour fire protection coated on.

Steel encased in concrete offers the best fire protection and does not fall off like some fireproof coating. This wasnt used in the WTC as its to expensive/time consuming.

Captain Chaos

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

This wasnt used in the WTC as its to expensive/time consuming.

This I did not know. I can understand the cost and time reason for not doing it but, wow, the fact that they didn't for a building that size, that supposedly by it's designers was ment to be able withstand a hit from a fully loaded B707 (at what speed I don't know).

That's a lot of faith, and hope I think to cover themselves put into the fireproofing material.

Divorce Referendum

Captain Chaos wrote: »

This I did not know. I can understand the cost and time reason for not doing it but, wow, the fact that they didn't for a building that size, that supposedly by it's designers was ment to be able withstand a hit from a fully loaded B707 (at what speed I don't know).

That's a lot of faith, and hope I think to cover themselves put into the fireproofing material.

Thts fair enough mate I thought you did . See thats the thing it was designed to withstand the impact of the smaller 707 and to be fair it did just that with it larger cousin, it survived the impact. After the impact then its down to how the building performs with the fire. The yield strength of steel at 550C is about half. I believe that the fire weakened the steel trusses to cause failure of floors which put additional weight of the structure below. This coupled with the damage of the perimiter and core columns from the plane brought it down. Here is a pic of the perimiter structure during construction.





These buildings were extremly strong but fire is a weak point that cant be completely eliminated in steel structures.

Dave!

No sign of the OP, hit and run maybe? Or maybe he'll come back in and concede all of the points that have been made.

I won't hold my breath!

digme

Dave! wrote: »

No sign of the OP, hit and run maybe? Or maybe he'll come back in and concede all of the points that have been made.

I won't hold my breath!

im here davey boy

Dave!

Great!

Given the points that have been made in this thread regarding the vastly different size/weight/speed/etc of the aircrafts, don't you think that this thread is just a bit silly and serves no purpose other than to make the usual 'troofers' salivate? You're not comparing like with like?

bonkey

[QUOTE=Captain Chaos;68379371that supposedly by it's designers was ment to be able withstand a hit from a fully loaded B707 (at what speed I don't know).[/QUOTE]

There seems to be an amount of uncertainty about the exact details in that regard.

What seems to be agreed is that the designers verified (by calculation) that their design would be capable of withstanding an impact from a 707, based on assumptions similar to what happened when a plane crashed into the ESB....i.e. low on fuel, lost in low-visibility, looking for landing.

Either which way, its somewhat of a strawman. Both of the WTCs withstood the impacts from planes.....whether by design, over-engineering, or luck. What they did not withstand according to the NIST report was the combination of the structural damage incurred by the impacts, and the resulting fires. Alternately, if you're a believer in the controlled-demolition conspiracy, they withstood the impact of planes, but did not withstand the following use of explosives / thermal cutting charges / directed energy beam weapons.

We should be able to accept - pretty-much with certainty -- that the designers of WTC 1 and 2 did not include the resulting fires in their calculations, for the very simple reason that the computer-modelling of fire was insufficiently advanced at the time to enable meaningful design-verification, nor did the computing power exist to process such a model even were one made.

Of course, one could argue that "maybe" they did some actual tests....y'know...built a couple of floors somewhere, and then burned it down. Unfortunately, there's no record of them doing this anywhere, and AFAIR one of the people involved in the design has gone on record as saying that they only considered the impact....their aim was to show that the building would stay standing long enough to evacuate...and that the building performance on September 11, 2001 far exceeded any design expectations.

squod

bonkey wrote: »

We should be able to accept - pretty-much with certainty -- that the designers of WTC 1 and 2 did not include the resulting fires in their calculations, f

We should be able to accept - pretty-much with certainty -- that the designers of WTC 1 and 2 did not factor the use of thermite (or something similar) to cause a controlled demolition.

seamus

Looking at the first ten seconds of the video, it's very clear that the ground took the bulk of the impact. There is some minor structural damage to the building on the ground floor - no doubt cause by the secondary impact from the aircarft - but no damage above that except for the fire.

"Plane crashes into tower block" is a much more fun headline than "Plane crashes near tower block" though. I would have thought that CT of all places would learn to be wary of media headlines.

Penn

Sorry, phone is acting mental today. I'll try post this again

You cannot compare steel frame to reinforced concrete in this regard

bonkey

squod wrote: »

We should be able to accept - pretty-much with certainty -- that the designers of WTC 1 and 2 did not factor the use of thermite (or something similar) to cause a controlled demolition.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to the claim that they designed the building to withstand plane impact.

The point is that the buildings withstood the impact of planes to the limits of any design capability of the day.

Whatever you believe brought down the building - and you'll notice I included explosives and thermal cutting charges (whichever youd' like to classify thermite as) in my post - there is no-one claiming that it was solely due to a plane-impact.

The design was calculated to withstand a plane impact...which it did in both cases.

squod

squod wrote: »

We should be able to accept - pretty-much with certainty -- that the designers of WTC 1 and 2 did not factor the use of thermite (or something similar) to cause a controlled demolition.

I imagine that's because thermite (or something similar) has never once been used in a controlled demolition of a steel framed building or otherwise.

In fact if the nonsense is to be believed, it would have been the first time in history that a building has ever been brought down by thermite.
And unlike the similar CT claim about fire and steel frames, this would actually be true.

squod

King Mob wrote: »

I imagine that's because thermite (or something similar) has never once been used in a controlled demolition of a steel framed building or otherwise.

In fact if the nonsense is to be believed, it would have been the first time in history that a building has ever been brought down by thermite.
And unlike the similar CT claim about fire and steel frames, this would actually be true.

Apart from the times it has been used you mean.

squod

squod wrote: »

Apart from the times it has been used you mean.

Can you actually show examples of any other buildings being demolished this way?

Because there hasn't ever been examples of it, because thermite is a stupid material to use in a demolition.

But I'd love to see some evidence to the contrary.

bonkey

squod wrote: »

Apart from the times it has been used you mean.

Times such as...when, exactly?

uprising2

While thermite is not the best material for demolishing a building, linear charges do exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/ThermiteDevicesMoore1.pdf

Similar charges would explain the horizontal cutting of the steel beams.

uprising2

uprising2 wrote: »

While thermite is not the best material for demolishing a building, linear charges do exist.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/ThermiteDevicesMoore1.pdf

Similar charges would explain the horizontal cutting of the steel beams.
<pic snip>

Except that linear charges aren't actually thermite and make loud bangs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqswVL0ZpPs

Bangs that are absent immediately preceding the collapse of the building.

And do you know what else causes horizontal cuts? Cutting beams horizontally during cleanup and rescue efforts.
You know what can't make horizontal cuts (without ridiculous contraptions)? Thermite.

uprising2

And maybe the plan was for the buildings to come down right away after the planes crashed into them, but they ran into some hitch and it didn't go down as expected, some bombs did go off in the lobby at the time of the impact. "maybe" the plane knocked the charges off the beams where the planes hit, the molten material that spilled from the building would be these knocked off thermite chaqrges.
Things can and do go wrong, but they righted the problem when they got the explosives and thermite to detonate in sequence.

uprising2

uprising2 wrote: »

And maybe the plan was for the buildings to come down right away after the planes crashed into them, but they ran into some hitch and it didn't go down as expected, some bombs did go off in the lobby at the time of the impact. "maybe" the plane knocked the charges off the beams where the planes hit, the molten material that spilled from the building would be these knocked off thermite chaqrges.
Things can and do go wrong, but they righted the problem when they got the explosives and thermite to detonate in sequence.

Or maybe there was no charges, thermite or otherwise?

Also do you notice the lack of examples of buildings being brought down by thermite?
Why is that exactly?

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

Except that linear charges aren't actually thermite and make loud bangs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqswVL0ZpPs

Bangs that are absent immediately preceding the collapse of the building.

And do you know what else causes horizontal cuts? Cutting beams horizontally during cleanup and rescue efforts.
You know what can't make horizontal cuts (without ridiculous contraptions)? Thermite.

Did you watch the video I posted?, there was no "BANG" in that thermite linear charge, your video is of some other kind of explosive, thermite doesnt make a bang!!!

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

Or maybe there was no charges, thermite or otherwise?

Also do you notice the lack of examples of buildings being brought down by thermite?
Why is that exactly?

See post 37.

OR

Maybe there was..............

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68383498&postcount=15

uprising2

uprising2 wrote: »

Did you watch the video I posted?, there was no "BANG" in that thermite linear charge, your video is of some other kind of explosive, thermite doesnt make a bang!!!

There was quite a loud pop and a fizz. And that was just a teeny tiny bit.

And the video I posted was on the type of linear charge actually used by demolition people. And that was the sound of a bang of the amount needed just to take out a thin tree.
I can't imagine the sound of what you'd need to cut a steel beam.

uprising2 wrote: »

See post 37.

There's nothing there about a building that was taken down by thermite.
Having a little trouble finding examples?

uprising2 wrote: »

Maybe there was..............

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68383498&postcount=15

And nope, nothing here either.
Odd, you think there'd be a whole quote wall for you to copy pasta listing all the other buildings that where demolished with thermite....

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

There was quite a loud pop and a fizz. And that was just a teeny tiny bit.

And the video I posted was on the type of linear charge actually used by demolition people. And that was the sound of a bang of the amount needed just to take out a thin tree.
I can't imagine the sound of what you'd need to cut a steel beam.


There's nothing there about a building that was taken down by thermite.
Having a little trouble finding examples?


And nope, nothing here either.
Odd, you think there'd be a whole quote wall for you to copy pasta listing all the other buildings that where demolished with thermite....

The teeny tiny bit I posted made butter of steel without a bang, your big bang bit demolished a thin "tree" that I'd snap with a kick.
I thought thermite wasn't used in demolition??, changing your story now?
Look at the video I posted and you won't have to imagine anything, its there to see.

I never said thermite alone was used, explosives and thermite would be a better description.

Heres more thermite without the BANG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a2OeWS3G-A

uprising2

uprising2 wrote: »

The teeny tiny bit I posted made butter of steel without a bang, your big bang bit demolished a thin "tree" that I'd snap with a kick.

And I'm pretty sure I could break that thin piece of steel with a kick. And do you not actually hear the pop it makes?

uprising2 wrote: »

I thought thermite wasn't used in demolition??, changing your story now?

No that's det cord, not thermite. I believe it's a string of semtex encased in a plastic tube.
It's what demolition people actually use.

uprising2 wrote: »

Look at the video I posted and you won't have to imagine anything, its there to see.

I did. and there's nothing to see. It's not a building demolished by thermite.

uprising2 wrote: »

I never said thermite alone was used, explosives and thermite would be a better description.

So then no, you can't actually find an example of a building being taken down with thermite.
Fair enough, then can you please show an example of a building that was taken down by a combination of explosives and thermite?

(Also note, if I was to really turn all the CTer tactics against you, I'd be insisting that you where solely relying on thermite despite you saying distinctly otherwise.)

uprising2 wrote: »

Heres more thermite without the BANG
Vid snip

Funny how you argue here for no bangs and in another thread for loud ones...

Also that's not exactly controlled, nor whisper quiet...

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

And I'm pretty sure I could break that thin piece of steel with a kick. And do you not actually hear the pop it makes?

No that's det cord, not thermite. I believe it's a string of semtex encased in a plastic tube.
It's what demolition people actually use.

I did. and there's nothing to see. It's not a building demolished by thermite.


So then no, you can't actually find an example of a building being taken down with thermite.
Fair enough, then can you please show an example of a building that was taken down by a combination of explosives and thermite?

(Also note, if I was to really turn all the CTer tactics against you, I'd be insisting that you where solely relying on thermite despite you saying distinctly otherwise.)


Funny how you argue here for no bangs and in another thread for loud ones...

Also that's not exactly controlled, nor whisper quiet...

That just shows your knowledge, you couldn't break that steel with a kick, haha.

I said thermite and explosives.

No read my posts in either thread, take time and study them, if you want quote my posts and show where I have contradicted anything I said, I havent.

bonkey

uprising2 wrote: »

I said thermite and explosives.

If explosives were used, then where was the explosive signature? There was no evidence of an airborne shockwave, no ground-carried seismic signature, and no audio signature.

Sure..thermite doesn't have those signatures, but if you believe explosives were also used then some/all of those features must have been present....despite no-one being able to find them.

uprising2

uprising2 wrote: »

That just shows your knowledge, you couldn't break that steel with a kick, haha.

And that doesn't actually address the point that it was a very very small piece of steel, that wasn't actually baring any weight like it would in the WTC and it needed a chunk of thermite greater than it's thickness and then it didn't even cut all the way through.
Also note how it's not the example I've asked for and you've failed to provide.

uprising2 wrote: »

I said thermite and explosives.

Yes I know. Then can you show an example of a building that was taken out by such a combination.
Why exactly would they need to use both when you obvisiously think they had no problem having explosives heard?

uprising2 wrote: »

No read my posts in either thread, take time and study them, if you want quote my posts and show where I have contradicted anything I said, I havent.

Er... the fact you explain away the holes in the explosives idea with thermite and the holes in the thermite idea with explosives.
Which leads you into this weird circular contradictory loop.

uprising2

bonkey wrote: »

If explosives were used, then where was the explosive signature? There was no evidence of an airborne shockwave, no ground-carried seismic signature, and no audio signature.

Sure..thermite doesn't have those signatures, but if you believe explosives were also used then some/all of those features must have been present....despite no-one being able to find them.

Ask the FDNY about the explosives, and its a bit too much to expect that the commission cover up would implicate themselves or others by showing explosives or evidence of such.

Look at the other thread and dont be wasting time asking silly questions, plenty of witness accounts of explosives going off, just dont expect to see it in "official" accounts.

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

And that doesn't actually address the point that it was a very very small piece of steel, that wasn't actually baring any weight like it would in the WTC and it needed a chunk of thermite greater than it's thickness and then it didn't even cut all the way through.
Also note how it's not the example I've asked for and you've failed to provide.


Yes I know. Then can you show an example of a building that was taken out by such a combination.
Why exactly would they need to use both when you obvisiously think they had no problem having explosives heard?

Er... the fact you explain away the holes in the explosives idea with thermite and the holes in the thermite idea with explosives.
Which leads you into this weird circular contradictory loop.

Look at the fukking video again, IT DID CUT ALL THE WAY THROUGH!EDIT: sorry it left a mm, but still made butter of it, a milisecond more exposure and nothing would have been left, but your dragging away from the fact that thermite doesnt bang like you claimed


No I cant show another case of both been used, can you show another example of a small fire bringing a building like WTC7 down in such spectacular fashion by a little fire.

If GW bush showed a camel on tv and said it was a donkey, I guess you'd be here telling us all it was in fact a donkey.

uprising2

uprising2 wrote: »

Look at the fukking video again, IT DID CUT ALL THE WAY THROUGH!

I did and it didn't. there was a bit left with is why the top part of the bar folded on to itself and not fell to the ground.
And even then there's still the other points you are ignoring.

uprising2 wrote: »

No I cant show another case of both been used,

Why not?

uprising2 wrote: »

can you show another example of a small fire bringing a building like WTC7 down in such spectacular fashion by a little fire.

No because that's not what I actually believe.
Much like if I insisted that you were arguing that it was just a little thermite that brought them down.

uprising2 wrote: »

If GW bush showed a camel on tv and said it was a donkey, I guess you'd be here telling us all it was in fact a donkey.

And I can make a similar and equally stupid strawman of you by replacing GW with Alex Jones or the prick who made Loose Change.
But that would exactly help my argument.