Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Politicalchat.org discussion boards > Conspiracy theory corner

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-08-2010, 07:33 AM
Charles Charles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal View Post
I was in a strange town, on a dark rainy night over where the parking lot meets the railroad tracks. The pay phone rang, I answered it, it was for me.

no, im not joking around
Thought you could hide from me, didn't you?

Chas
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-08-2010, 07:41 AM
piece-itpete's Avatar
piece-itpete piece-itpete is offline
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
I saw an interview with the architect after 9-11, he was damn near crying on the camera.

He kept saying we didn't know, we never thought, how could we know...

He wasn't making excuses, he was blaming himself! It was very moving in a way.

Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-08-2010, 08:06 AM
Sandy G Sandy G is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,354
The only thing he could POSSIBLY be faulted for was not accounting for heavier planes impacting a building...But where does THAT stop ? A laden 747 NOWADAYS, I think, is about half again as heavy as the first ones that they were dreaming of in '66...And God only knows what weights an Airbus 380 will be totin' around in 30, 40 years, assuming they make ever-bigger versions of it as well...And what will Boeing do ? They CAN'T let the 380 go unanswered...Will we see 2 million pound behemoths plying the skies? Or will they try again w/supersonic planes, which won't be as heavy, but would still pack a helluva wallop ? And the trend is for ever-taller skyscrapers... How DO you engineer a 2500' high building to withstand a hit from a 2 million pound jet at 600MPH ? Or even the dream of some, a MILE HIGH skyscraper ? That's kinda pushing it, but is it pushing it any more than the Empire State pushed the envelope back in 1930 ?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-08-2010, 08:33 AM
noonereal noonereal is offline
Abby Normal
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
There was even fire in the lobby from fuel. 80 floors below.


It's just ridiculous to even talk about.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-09-2010, 04:11 AM
rhomanski rhomanski is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6
Actually this has happened before when a b-25 flew into the empire state building during ww2. The fuel in it was a lot more flammable than jet-a.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-09-2010, 06:12 AM
Sandy G Sandy G is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,354
Yeah, I remember that...Luckily, it happened on a Saturday, hardly anyone was around, there were very few killed....The ESB suffered relatively little damage.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-09-2010, 07:19 AM
Grumpy's Avatar
Grumpy Grumpy is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhomanski View Post
Actually this has happened before when a b-25 flew into the empire state building during ww2. The fuel in it was a lot more flammable than jet-a.

The fuel capacity of of a B25 was 650 gal. I am not sure of which type of 747 it was that hit the towers but the smallest tank I found in a quick search was 12,000 gal.

According to this site ( not fact checked ) http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...ry/q0311.shtml the B25 was near its empty. I also found this

"The twin towers of the World Trade Center, by comparison, were struck by Boeing 767 airliners traveling over twice as fast and weighing nearly 15 times as much as a B-25. The energy of impact for the two planes ranged from 2 billion ft-lb (2.6 billion Joules) to 3 billion ft-lb (4.1 billion Joules), some 60 to 100 times greater than that absorbed by the Empire State Building. This estimate is also conservative since it does not account for the energy released by the exploding jet fuel, which greatly exceeded the energy released by the much smaller B-25 fuel supply as well. The greater kinetic energy allowed the 767 aircraft to penetrate much further into the twin towers than the B-25 was able to do at the Empire State Building. Most of the B-25 impact was absorbed by the building's exterior wall leaving very little to damage the interior structure. The 767 impacts, however, not only produced gaping holes in the WTC exterior but also destroyed much of the structural core at the center of each tower.

Even so, the impact alone does not fully explain what doomed the World Trade Center towers. A fatal contributing factor was the fires ignited by the exploding fuel tanks. A 767 has a maximum fuel capacity 35 times greater than that of a B-25D. The aircraft that struck the Empire State Building was nearly out of fuel when it crashed while each 767 still carried approximately half of its maximum fuel load at impact. The Empire State Building fire exhausted its supply of fuel rapidly while that at the World Trade Center ignited the office contents across several floors and burned much longer. The type of fuel carried may also be a significant factor. The B-25 burned avgas, a high-octane version of gasoline still used aboard piston engine aircraft today. The 767 instead uses Jet-A, a derivative of kerosene that fuels all commercial jetliners. Jet fuel tends to reach higher temperatures than gasoline causing the fires in the WTC to burn more intensely than that in the Empire State Building."

So it does apear that the jetliners did have much more volatile fuel.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-09-2010, 11:19 AM
rhomanski rhomanski is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6
Jet-a burns slower than avgas of course. It also will spread before it burns. I once poured some on the tarmac in suadia arabia and put my lighter to it and nothing happened. The tarmac was about 150f and the jet-a was about 120f. It has to be atomized and heated a lot to burn. That's why it takes a good bit to start a jet engine. The flame front has to spread around the circumference of the engine. When one won't start the first thing you look at is the igniter and then check for a clogged fuel nozzle.

The jet-a obviously soaked the whole building and burned very slowly, that's why the building lasted as long as it did. Avgas would have burned itself out a lot quicker.

That's one reason I've always been skeptical of the explanation for flight 800. The fuel was hot, yes, but the fuel quantity system just doesn't have that much current to start an explosion. Now, if the 747 runs the fuel boost pump wiring through the tank like some mcdonnel douglas planes then that could easily have set it off.

The statement that the building was made to take a 707 and not a 767 kind of surprised me. I havn't checked on the weight and wing span of a 707 but I know the 767 is a medium sized plane. The 777, md-11 and l-1011 dwarf a 767. The 757 is smaller still for it's a narrow body. Well enough rambling

Regards. Ron.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-09-2010, 12:19 PM
BlueStreak's Avatar
BlueStreak BlueStreak is offline
Area Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-itpete View Post
I saw an interview with the architect after 9-11, he was damn near crying on the camera.

He kept saying we didn't know, we never thought, how could we know...

He wasn't making excuses, he was blaming himself! It was very moving in a way.

Pete

I saw that too. I damn near cried myself.

Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-09-2010, 11:42 PM
Charles Charles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy View Post
The fuel capacity of of a B25 was 650 gal. I am not sure of which type of 747 it was that hit the towers but the smallest tank I found in a quick search was 12,000 gal.

According to this site ( not fact checked ) http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...ry/q0311.shtml the B25 was near its empty. I also found this

"The twin towers of the World Trade Center, by comparison, were struck by Boeing 767 airliners traveling over twice as fast and weighing nearly 15 times as much as a B-25. The energy of impact for the two planes ranged from 2 billion ft-lb (2.6 billion Joules) to 3 billion ft-lb (4.1 billion Joules), some 60 to 100 times greater than that absorbed by the Empire State Building. This estimate is also conservative since it does not account for the energy released by the exploding jet fuel, which greatly exceeded the energy released by the much smaller B-25 fuel supply as well. The greater kinetic energy allowed the 767 aircraft to penetrate much further into the twin towers than the B-25 was able to do at the Empire State Building. Most of the B-25 impact was absorbed by the building's exterior wall leaving very little to damage the interior structure. The 767 impacts, however, not only produced gaping holes in the WTC exterior but also destroyed much of the structural core at the center of each tower.

Even so, the impact alone does not fully explain what doomed the World Trade Center towers. A fatal contributing factor was the fires ignited by the exploding fuel tanks. A 767 has a maximum fuel capacity 35 times greater than that of a B-25D. The aircraft that struck the Empire State Building was nearly out of fuel when it crashed while each 767 still carried approximately half of its maximum fuel load at impact. The Empire State Building fire exhausted its supply of fuel rapidly while that at the World Trade Center ignited the office contents across several floors and burned much longer. The type of fuel carried may also be a significant factor. The B-25 burned avgas, a high-octane version of gasoline still used aboard piston engine aircraft today. The 767 instead uses Jet-A, a derivative of kerosene that fuels all commercial jetliners. Jet fuel tends to reach higher temperatures than gasoline causing the fires in the WTC to burn more intensely than that in the Empire State Building."

So it does apear that the jetliners did have much more volatile fuel.
Grumpy, you've done your homework, and I salute you.

Myself, I'm just a cretin viewing what I saw. I saw a couple of big assed airliners crashing into the WTC. And I saw 'em with my own lying eyes.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that the towers collapsed. And it doesn't surprise me in the least that Shrub and Chainey (thanks Sandy) went out and started kicking ass and taking names.

I would have done the same thing. Now you can bitch about what they did, but they did something. And I don't give a rat's ass about people playing Monday morning quarterback...it's not as simple as one might imagine.

Shrub an Chainey did the best they could. I don't see this as a political issue, but I'm not a Donk.

Feed ME cold steel,

Chas
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:06 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.