One to Put Past the BS meter.

brokenhallelujah said:
Hm. Funny. Every single report by every single engineer who has spoken out about this has disagreed with that point. So have the ones that I personally know and respect. Jet fuel simply does not burn hot enough.

And a B-29 didn't take down the empire state building!

Just steering the thread a bit, fellers.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Let us consider, however:

Boeing 767-300ER fuel capacity: 23,980 gallons.
Boeing 767 cruise speed: 540 miles per hour.

B-29 bomber (ballpark for all variants) fuel capacity: 5608 gallons. 9501 with external fuel tanks.
B-29 top speed (at altitude): 357 miles per hour. (It's reasonable to assume that it would have been travelling much more slowly than this at low altitude due to increased drag if nothing else.) Cruise speed was a leisurely 220 miles per hour.
B-29 weight, gross: 105,000 lbs. Max overload is about 130,000 pounds.

1 gallon of Jet-A, weight: 6.84 lbs.

Assuming a full load, a Boeing 767 is carrying about 164,000 lbs. of fuel -- more than the entire takeoff weight of a fully fueled B-29 (actually, more than the maximum overload weight of a B-29, for that matter), and would have been travelling a mere 200-300 miles per hour faster upon impact.

I will not go into the differences of construction between the Empire State Building and the WTC towers; it's sufficient to say that they were built with different philosophies in mind. Nor will I go into the differences in burning temperature between Avgas and Jet-A. I will, however, mention that when the Empire State Building crash occurred, most sources mention the fire being extinguished after 40 minutes. The fires at WTC were obviously quite a bit worse than this.

(Some sources mention a B-25 crashing, not a B-29. In that case, the plane would have been lighter, slower, and carried even less fuel. The B-29 is a worst-case scenario.)

Regardless, apples and oranges.
 
Dave Rishar said:
Fair enough. Let us consider, however:

Boeing 767-300ER fuel capacity: 23,980 gallons.
Boeing 767 cruise speed: 540 miles per hour.

B-29 bomber (ballpark for all variants) fuel capacity: 5608 gallons. 9501 with external fuel tanks.
B-29 top speed (at altitude): 357 miles per hour. (It's reasonable to assume that it would have been travelling much more slowly than this at low altitude due to increased drag if nothing else.) Cruise speed was a leisurely 220 miles per hour.
B-29 weight, gross: 105,000 lbs. Max overload is about 130,000 pounds.

1 gallon of Jet-A, weight: 6.84 lbs.

Assuming a full load, a Boeing 767 is carrying about 164,000 lbs. of fuel -- more than the entire takeoff weight of a fully fueled B-29 (actually, more than the maximum overload weight of a B-29, for that matter), and would have been travelling a mere 200-300 miles per hour faster upon impact.

I will not go into the differences of construction between the Empire State Building and the WTC towers; it's sufficient to say that they were built with different philosophies in mind. Nor will I go into the differences in burning temperature between Avgas and Jet-A. I will, however, mention that when the Empire State Building crash occurred, most sources mention the fire being extinguished after 40 minutes. The fires at WTC were obviously quite a bit worse than this.

(Some sources mention a B-25 crashing, not a B-29. In that case, the plane would have been lighter, slower, and carried even less fuel. The B-29 is a worst-case scenario.)

Regardless, apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and it wasn't a B-29 that crashed into the ESB, but a much, much smaller B-25, moving much slower with far less kinetic energy, into a building built the "old fashioned" way with each girder cross-tied to every other girder. More like apples and kumquats. Actually apples and pink lawn flamingos is probably closer.

brokenhallelujah said:
Hm. Funny. Every single report by every single engineer who has spoken out about this has disagreed with that point. So have the ones that I personally know and respect. Jet fuel simply does not burn hot enough.

And a B-29 didn't take down the empire state building!

Just steering the thread a bit, fellers.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry BH, but this just isn't true, or believable. Someone has been feeding you misinformation. Jet-A is basically kerosene and in a rich oxygen envorinment burns at 1900 Centigrade. Not Fahrenheit, Centigrade. I can assure you that 3500 degrees fahrenheit is hot enough to melt steel.

I am frankly amazed at the people with no or scanty engineering creds who say it "couldn't have happened." BS. (These seem to be some of the same folks that say that the moon landing didn't happen because the sky was black behind the astronauts!)

This catastrophe has been reviewed by more engineers than you can shake a stick at, as one of the seminal events of the century, and their conclusions have been posted for all to see: The massive impact of the plane knocked off all the spray-on fire retardant off the girders. The jet fuel, not simple WWII avgas, burned tremendously hot and all that was needed was to weaken a few of the I-beams. Once one floor went then they all pancaked down. The physics are simple and very believable. The building engineers numbered each beam from each floor of the WTC back when it was built, and were able to identify exactly what failed, why and when.

By the way, the takeoff weight of a fully laden 767 is 156 _TONS_. At its cruising speed of 550 MPH the plane is moving at just over 800 feet per _second_! Does anyone remember F=M*A from High School physics? Essentially you have a 312,000 pound missile moving at the speed of a .45 ACP bullet. Except that instead of 230 grains, this one weighs 2 Billion, 184 million grains. That kind of puts it into perspective...!

Norm
 
_! Does anyone remember F=M*A frrom high school physics? Essentially you have a 312,000 pound missle moving at the speed of a .45 ACP bullet. Except that instead of 230 grains, this one weighs 2 Billion, 184 million grains. That kind of puts it into perspective...!

Norm>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


IT doesn't quite, Norm, because you didn't provide the terminal ballistic energy. I could look it up but I'm lazy and I don't know the BC of a Boeing Jet. You'd have to kinda ballpark the figure. How many foot pounds of energy? Anyway, a whole LOT of energy was 'imparted' to the twin towers, and everything you said about the engineers examining the attack event is exactly correct. (munk watches the discovery,learning and history channels all the time)

Anyone who thinks the Twin Towers did not fall due to airplanes crashing into them is nuts. That's it; I'm diagnosing over the net-which is nuts too. Did I remember to say that I think everyone on the planet must ultimately be considered nuts?
munk
 
munk said:
_! Does anyone remember F=M*A frrom high school physics? Essentially you have a 312,000 pound missle moving at the speed of a .45 ACP bullet. Except that instead of 230 grains, this one weighs 2 Billion, 184 million grains. That kind of puts it into perspective...!

Norm>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


IT doesn't quite, Norm, because you didn't provide the terminal ballistic energy. I could look it up but I'm lazy and I don't know the BC of a Boeing Jet. You'd have to kinda ballpark the figure. How many foot pounds of energy? Anyway, a whole LOT of energy was 'imparted' to the twin towers, and everything you said about the engineers examining the attack event is exactly correct. (munk watches the discovery,learning and history channels all the time)

munk
Click to expand...

I guess I don't think it's really relevant Munk. I am simply talking about the amount of kinetic energy transfer to the building "target" based on the planes weight and speed, which are both known. Kinetic energy is 95% of the equation anyway, and for this discussion the BC of the plane is pretty much irrelevant I think. It served its purpose as a fuel transfer vehicle into the center of mass of the building. From that point on the buildings were doomed.

Getting through plate glass and light exterior steel structures with a "bullet" that size and speed was not a problem.

Norm
 
It's only relevant in that eight year olds like me like to go 'whoa' when they see the big number.



But I saw the Towers fall on live TV, and I'll never forget that. (I don't need a number)



munk
 
Okay, right, it was a B-25 Mitchell that hit the Empire state.

However, I have not found any evidence that jet fuel burns anywhere near hot enough in an open-air type flame to approach the conservative 2500 degrees F. required for modern steel to lose its structural integrity.

And then what about building seven? Minor fires, no significant impact. Almost identical collapse pattern?

I am still not convinced one way or the other, but the inquiry has not been forthcoming about even considering/deflecting this possibility. Except to suggest that suggesting it is "un-American."
 
Who said it was open air? You had a closed environment. And some open.

But, really, BH, what Norm said. Scores of engineers have looked at the evidence. The fireproofing came off and the steel failed. Because of this, we are now applying fireproofing in a better way.

Not only can people not agree upon how to define reality, but the world can't witness two huge fully laden jets crashing into a new archtechual design and destroying it before our eyes without conspiracy theories?

I wanna know know stole my icecream. I wanna know who took my Case knife my father gave me. That's conspiracy man. I bet the CIA did it just to frustrate me and keep me away from Chinese studies in College.


munk
 
brokenhallelujah said:
And then what about building seven? Minor fires, no significant impact. Almost identical collapse pattern?
Click to expand...

This might have had something to do with it:

http://www.civil.columbia.edu/~ling/wtc/

There are lots of websites dealing with this issue. Most seem to be in agreement: when two very large skyscrapers fall into the ground, it really raises hell.
 
The part that always amazes me is this; The towers get hit, they fall, and almost instantly you started hearing about Osama Bin Laden and that he was behind it. Now, maybe I'm backward, but I had never heard the name Osama in my life before that time. It is puzzling to me how they knew at once who masterminded the attack, once it was done. No time lag, it happened right now. Then, they know Osama is in Afganistan and proceeed to blow the place apart. If they knew who dun it in minutes after the attack, don't you think they had some kind of idea what was going on before the attack? That is what makes me wonder.
 
The_Shadow said:
The part that always amazes me is this; The towers get hit, they fall, and almost instantly you started hearing about Osama Bin Laden and that he was behind it. Now, maybe I'm backward, but I had never heard the name Osama in my life before that time. It is puzzling to me how they knew at once who masterminded the attack, once it was done. No time lag, it happened right now. Then, they know Osama is in Afganistan and proceeed to blow the place apart. If they knew who dun it in minutes after the attack, don't you think they had some kind of idea what was going on before the attack? That is what makes me wonder.
Click to expand...

I actually thought it was Osama from the get go....yeah, I know, a lot of people say that. However, it didn't take a lot of deductive reasoning to make that leap. A few months back, Osama and his crew manage to rip a hole in the side of the Cole and kill 17. Planes smashing into buildings is a pretty well known to be the desired MO of terrorists. I sat there watching it live on my TV. "I bet it's that bin Laden guy," I said to my future wife. "Who?" she said. "That terrorist guy that heads Abbadabba or whatever they call it. He was the one that used a raft to blow a hole in the side of that Navy ship." "What Navy ship?" "Saw it on the news or somethin'".
A pure guess on the part of 20 year old slacker psych major.
Also, and I have no idea if this is spin or not as I no longer trust ANYONE in politics, it is said that we knew where OBL was for YEARS. Clinton didn't want to pull the trigger. It was no secret that OBL and his gang wanted to kill us. He'd be spouting it for years. However, it was like they played their battle charge on a kazoo. We knew it was coming, but didn't think it could be pulled off. A sleeping giant, indeed....but a sleeping giant that sleeps tight.

Jake
 
The Osama id is easy and the sad part. Ever hear how hindsight is 20/20?

When you have a modern day Pearl Harbor in your front yard, you bloody well find out who hit you and you find out fast.

munk
 
It's funny that you should mention Pearl Harbor, Munk. That's exactly what the PNAC (Project for the New American Century, a neocon thinktank formerly headed by people now advising or standing second in command to W) said we NEEDED to catalyze the American population. That was 1997.

Coincidence? Maybe. Overly convenient? Definately.

Anybody seen the video of OBL claiming, in no uncertain terms, that he had nothing to do with it? I have. I don't know why he would do that... THAT would be out of character for what we know of Al Quaeda, i.e., actively disclaiming responsibility for something they did.

Better question: has this current administration done ANYTHING to make us trust them since 9-11? How many times have we been lied to about how many things. Think about it.
 
Osama took full credit for the event. That is documented. We are now talking about established reality- that is- a reality agreed upon by a majority of science and the world's government's and population, vs a very small minority view of reality.

Not all views are equal. That is what families, communities and countries rise to establish. Hitler thought Jews a scourge. That is a view. There are some who say we did not land on the Moon. That is a view.

We don't have to give equal, or even a modest amount of attention to some views. Many we dismiss out of hand. We live in a age sophisticated for its knowledge that men are weak and governments corrupt. Thus we 'suspect'.

But reason and 'outfielder's choice' guide us. God guides us, the Great Heart, if we let him.

I enjoy this discussion. I'm glad it is here. I want to hear anything any forum member wants to bring to the table. This is our community and Cantina and we talk about all kinds of conspiracy and magic.

But Two planes hit the Twin Towers and brought them down. The Japanese did attack us in Pearl Harbor, and Bin Laden has proudly proclaimed his involvement in the 9-11 attack.

Our government, whatever it's faults, did not do this. Our Nation, whatever it's faults, is currently protecting it's own and the REST of the world's necks in the War on Terror. Does any man or nation do it all right or all wrong? We have much to be proud of.

God Bless the US, STill the Best.


munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top