See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Field McConnell - Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot Used On 9/11 Planes, Impossible To Hijack!
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5NnBQJ5at4
Published: Jan 24, 2015
Author: staff
Post Date: 2015-01-24 14:13:06 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 17934
Comments: 402
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-104) not displayed.
.
.
.
#105. To: titorite (#95)
Good thing that I'm not guessing then but merely stating fact which is ALWAYS good. if you are.trying to argue fire as the cause. see when the second tower allegedly got hit the big fire ball we all saw was supposed to be all the fuel burning outside Uh...no...about 15% of the fuel burned outside... can you tell me what floor the impact was on in both buildings? North Tower...90-100...center impact ~95 South...75-85...center impact ~78... --Are you a *Jew*?
If they weren't hijacked why did they not reach their destination? --Are you a *Jew*?
17 floor difference in center of impact = millions of tons... --Are you a *Jew*?
That kind of answers that doesn't it? Also, IIRC, the Taliban didn't control the area where the still yet to be built pipeline will traverse... --Are you a *Jew*?
In point of fact the very FEMA report you link to says no such thing... The discussion of fuel dispersal and the fireball begins on 2-20... Again, your bullshit has been *falsified*... --Are you a *Jew*?
Anyone with working eyes will see on page 2-22 that FEMA states the jet fuel was spent within the first few minutes. So that makes you a liar war, but I'm sure everyone on the net who's ever read your posts already knows that. Anyone with working eyes will see that on THIS page I never disputed how long it took for the fuel, turned accelerant, to burn... Nice try, Strawman... --Are you a *Jew*?
the south tower was not a.direct impact not even according the the governments nist offical story. it was alleged to be an indirwct corner impact. i think you may care more about arguing and less about facts. ______________________________________ Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
The plane hit the tower...that makes it a *direct* hit...for it to be an *indirect* hit it would have had to have hit something *else* first...where it directly hit is inconsequential... You're trying to pick gnat shit out of pepper, outdoors, in the winter... --Are you a *Jew*?
Tell me, what's it like being a poster-boy for the establishment?
I'm anything but... You have no idea how I wish that this bullshit was true... --Are you a *Jew*?
I'm sorry, but anyone that thinks that a plane came in at a vertical angle, entirely disappeared through that hole, then through several other walls at a no angle, i.e. horizontal to the ground, is either a moron or a willing dupe/willful ignoramus. There is no other alternative.
You come across as a defender of establishment lies.
You don't need to apologize but who *thinks* that 77 went in *vertically*? Given that it took out 5 light poles...some hundreds of yards from the Pentagon, that would have been a neat trick... --Are you a *Jew*?
For nearly 14 years no one has demonstrated that they are lies... On the other hand, what has been presented to me over that same time period, and is on display on this very page, has been very easily falsified... I am a big believer in Occam's Razor... --Are you a *Jew*?
Which way do you want it...vertically or horizontally? I ask because your statements are wholly incongruous to each other... Any plane going from inflight to the ground is following a vertical flight path...for any object to hit one object and then continue through that object to impact an object existing on a horizontal plane directly behind that object would have to be, at some point, traveling horizontally...that's basic geometry... --Are you a *Jew*?
Nice try, Strawman... So what exactly was your point in saying "10's of thousands of gallons of a volatile accelerant doesn't cause significant fires when introduced, " in a sarcastic response? 10's of thousands of gallons DID NOT enter either WTC tower, and what DID enter was spent within the first few minutes. The FEMA report states that it can be assumed that approximately 4000 gallons of fuel entered the impact areas and was available for combustion. They also stated that IF the upper bound of 10,000 gallons entered (the amount of fuel each aircraft would have been carrying), the fuel would have been exhausted after 5 minutes. So get off your high horse, since you are doing nothing more than tossing shit against the wall to see what sticks. So how do you explain how a large heavy aircraft such as a 757 could be flown at over 500 mph while at ground level, its engines 3 feet off the ground, and enter the ground floor for the Pentagon while flying level, not touching the lawn on its way? Do you not see a major problem with that? That a whopper of a lie in and of itself.... Apparently war has been assigned to 4um, since we were lacking government stooges and clowns, they felt bad for us and gave us our very own forum shillster.
It was in response to you claiming that I don't accept physical laws. The FEMA report states that it can be assumed that approximately 4000 gallons of fuel entered the impact areas and was available for combustion. They also stated that IF the upper bound of 10,000 gallons entered (the amount of fuel each aircraft would have been carrying), the fuel would have been exhausted after 5 minutes. That same report you are quoting also states that fuel started fires across MAJOR portions of several of the impacted floors... --Are you a *Jew*?
Nothing that you have stated as fact - except for how long the fires in WTC 2 burned and you did that by accident - has withstood scrutiny...nothing... I've heard all of this crap almost from the get go...in fact, the FEMA report that you are promoting here is what started all the CT bullshit... Here's a helpful hint...planes that are deliberately commandeered and do not reach their destination are hijacked. Saying that the planes on 9/11 were NOT hijacked when they fully fit the above definition - regardless of who did it and why - is pretty freakin' *dumb*... --Are you a *Jew*?
It was piloted. That's how. At some point, any plane that is landing is 3 feet off the ground... Occam's Razor... --Are you a *Jew*?
Why does a squirrel prefer oak trees? --Are you a *Jew*?
...on 2-22 that the temps were as high as 1100c at ceiling level and 400c to 800c elsewhere... Those temps are well capable of compromising the strength of steel... --Are you a *Jew*?
Uh huh. Do you know anything about aerodynamics? To descend and land, a plane must SLOW DOWN by reducing power. To lose altitude without reducing power, the ONLY way a plane can descend is by putting the nose down and DIVING. What is especially convincing that NO 757 in the WORLD could fly at over 500 mph several feet off the ground is a phenomenon known as ground effect, where the closer an aircraft is to the ground, the more LIFT it experiences. More LIFT equates to the plane ASCENDING, UNLESS the plane is flying SLOW enough where the total amount of lift is less than the weight of the plane. There is NO possible way for a large aircraft to fly level at a speed anywhere CLOSE to 500 mph that close to the ground. Given that it took out 5 light poles...some hundreds of yards from the Pentagon, that would have been a neat trick... Well, let's see, unless it came in at the exact same angle, which would have meant that the engines would have at least divoted the lawn, the angle of descent (if it was a plane) was different than the much more closer to horizontal angle of the holes in the walls. Simple (simple) geometry attests to that.
By whom? Frankly, I'm sure that all of it has been "falsified," but by whom is the question. The Nist report had more holes than a mountain of swiss cheese.
Any plane going from inflight to the ground is following a vertical flight path...for any object to hit one object and then continue through that object to impact an object existing on a horizontal plane directly behind that object would have to be, at some point, traveling horizontally...that's basic geometry... Congratulations Einstein, you just made my initial point again! So tell me there, and once again, how does a plane come in at an angle, which is indisputable for the story of it being a plane, hit the first ring of the Pentagon, and then not only disintegrate entirely into a hole that's not even big enough for a fuselage, factually, then alter it's path and transform a vertical (as you call it) or angled (as I call it with the difference appearing to be semantical only) into a near if not perfectly horizontal one as it then subsequently drills through other rings and walls of concrete in the Pentagon? You're starting to come across as a real moron here, so answer that. You even agreed that it's impossible, so how come the evidence is just that but you still insist that it was a plane? I can't wait for the answer to this. I think anyway.
The jet fuel fires could only have raised the temperature of the steel by 257C, and here is why. From THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER? Dude, I'm tellin' ya. You know, it's one thing to be ignorant, it's quite another to imply that someone is amiss, and then restate their exact point again while standing behind it, namely what you just refuted. I'm really curious as to what his response will be. Probably consulting with the people in the next cubicle at State. The government hires on the lower half of the IQ pool.
By his sources they are. Therein lies the problem. I'm sure that despite the ever-growing preponderance of a consensus, he still believes that 7 fell from terrorist activity too. Honestly, and we wonder why this stuff flies. Too many people simply want to believe it because it's politically expedient for them to do so.
Well...that's plain BS as well...a plane can be at full power and stall...lift is a function of wind flow and air pressure created above and below the wings...at take off, a 757 pilot would lower the *flaps* so that the wing is curved...thrust, i.e. the forward movement, creates air flow and since air is forced over the wing...air pressure builds UNDER the wing to a point where it *lifts* the plane... AS for landing...a plane descends and lands by creating drag...usually by deploying its flaps...but to maintain a steady decent, a pilot must adjust the power UPWARD when he increases drag...it's why you hear the louder *WHINE* of the engines when a plane if landing... Have someone explain basic aerodynamics to you...I learned them 40 years ago in 11th grade... --Are you a *Jew*?
I can't understand how people such them can live with themselves or sleep at night. Imagine coming home from work and having the wifey ask, "how was your day today honey", and responding, "oh it was great, I met my quota of posts and then some...". Huh? Assuming that even makes sense referring to a source as proof of *fact* is illogical...it's called *circular*... I'm sure that despite the ever-growing preponderance of a consensus, he still believes that 7 fell from terrorist activity too. Wha...huh? Preponderance of a consensus? Do you *listen* to yourself? 7 fell as a result of the damage it sustained form the collapsing North Tower...I know and regularly speak to people who were on scene from 9:30AM and on that morning...I also know people who were on scene not long after the first plane hit...sadly, I haven't been able to talk to them since... Honestly, and we wonder why this stuff flies. Too many people simply want to believe it because it's politically expedient for them to do so. If I let my politics be my guide here then GW Bush would have been one of the pilots... --Are you a *Jew*?
Please point out any post I've made here where I've said the planes were NOT hijacked. Of course they were hijacked, the big question is by WHOM, and HOW. We know they weren't hijacked by those claimed by the US government, since more than a few of them have publically appeared and stated they were obviously not the ones who hijacked those aircraft. We also know that the cell phone calls were faked, since it was impossible for cell phone calls to be made from cruising altitude back in 2001. So WHY were those calls faked, and WHO would have the ability to do such a thing? You have a HUGE problem with that. He hasn't refuted anything. One the other hand, everything that he has stated has been refuted...except for how long the fires in the South Tower burned...but he did that by accident... --Are you a *Jew*?
Ahem.... who is it that has a budget of trillions per year, all the latest technology and the ability to buy or coerce almost anybody to do anything? Cui bono? How much mileage did they get out of the that idiotically theatrical "Let's roll" crap?
You've offered no proof that anyone other than the 19 identified as hijackers,. regardless of what names they used, did not hijack those planes. We also know that the cell phone calls were faked, since it was impossible for cell phone calls to be made from cruising altitude back in 2001. You need to stop claiming *we know*...you've offered no proof of anything... --Are you a *Jew*?
AS for landing...a plane descends and lands by creating drag...usually by deploying its flaps...but to maintain a steady decent, a pilot must adjust the power UPWARD when he increases drag...it's why you hear the louder *WHINE* of the engines when a plane if landing... Total fail.. First off, lift is created by air flowing OVER the upper CURVED area of the wing, and since it needs to travel over more area than the flat lower surface, the air pressure is lower above the wing than below it, cause the wing to LIFT the plane. As far as how a plane descends, in a controlled descent at least, power is REDUCED in order to reduce air speed, decreasing the air flow over the wing causing a reduction in lift. Flaps are used to INCREASE lift, not reduce it. They are used at take-off to allow the plane to take-off at a lower speed than it would be travelling at altitude, and to safely land at a lower speed. Flaps are NOT used to "slow the plane down by creating drag". And the pilot does NOT increase power at landing, he REVERSES the engine thrust AFTER landing in order to help reduce the speed of the aircraft in order to safely taxi to the terminal and not overshoot the runway. Have someone explain basic aerodynamics to you...I learned them 40 years ago in 11th grade... If I were you I'd sue the school you went to for a full refund. You've offered no proof that there were ANY individuals sent by bin Laden to fly those aircraft into the WTC or the Pentagon. Besides, the Pentagon attack as claimed by the media and the government is absolutely physically impossible.
Comments (146 - 402) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestthats not a very good guess
#106. To: GreyLmist (#96)
That planes have been hijacked before doesn't mean they were that day
#107. To: FormerLurker (#94)
LOL!!!
#108. To: FormerLurker (#97)
Sure, if you don't mind mushroom clouds appearing everywhere on the horizon, or directly over your head.
#109. To: FormerLurker (#93)
FEMA states in their report that a significant percentage of fuel was spent in those fireballs...
#110. To: war (#109)
Again, your bullshit has been *falsified*...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#111. To: FormerLurker (#110)
Anyone with working eyes will see on page 2-22 that FEMA states the jet fuel was spent within the first few minutes.
#112. To: war (#105)
#113. To: titorite (#112)
(Edited)
the south tower was not a.direct impact not even according the the governments nist offical story. it was alleged to be an indirwct corner impact.
#114. To: war (#109)
#115. To: Katniss (#114)
Tell me, what's it like being a poster-boy for the establishment?
#116. To: All (#113)
#117. To: war (#115)
#118. To: Katniss (#116)
I'm sorry, but anyone that (sic) thinks that a plane came in at a vertical angle...
#119. To: Katniss (#117)
You come across as a defender of establishment lies.
#120. To: Katniss (#116)
then through several other walls at a no angle, i.e. horizontal to the ground
#121. To: war (#111)
Anyone with working eyes will see that on THIS page I never disputed how long it took for the fuel, turned accelerant, to burn...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#122. To: war (#120)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#123. To: war (#119)
For nearly 14 years no one has demonstrated that they are lies...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#124. To: Katniss, war (#117)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#125. To: FormerLurker (#121)
So what exactly was your point in saying "10's of thousands of gallons of a volatile accelerant doesn't cause significant fires when introduced, " in a sarcastic response?
#126. To: FormerLurker (#123)
That a whopper of a lie in and of itself....
#127. To: FormerLurker (#122)
So how do you explain how a large heavy aircraft such as a 757 could be flown at over 500 mph while at ground level, its engines 3 feet off the ground, and enter the ground floor for the Pentagon while flying level, not touching the lawn on its way?
#128. To: FormerLurker (#124)
Apparently war has been assigned to 4um, since we were lacking government stooges and clowns, they felt bad for us and gave us our very own forum shillster.
#129. To: FormerLurker (#121)
The FEMA report states...
#130. To: war (#127)
It was piloted. That's how. At some point, any plane that is landing is 3 feet off the ground...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#131. To: war (#118)
You don't need to apologize but who *thinks* that 77 went in *vertically*?
#132. To: war (#119)
(Edited)
On the other hand, what has been presented to me over that same time period, and is on display on this very page, has been very easily falsified...
#133. To: war, All (#120)
Which way do you want it...vertically or horizontally? I ask because your statements are wholly incongruous to each other...
#134. To: war (#129)
...on 2-22 that the temps were as high as 1100c at ceiling level and 400c to 800c elsewhere...
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.
"The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)."
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).
Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.
"If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed."
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).
What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.
Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.
Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.
It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.
It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.
It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).
And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).
Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:
(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O
(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O
(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O
Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.
Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.
In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the impact (with the aircraft going from 500 or 600 mph to zero) would have throughly mixed the fuel that entered the building with the limited amount of air available within. In fact, it is likely that all the fuel was turned into a flammable mist. However, for sake of argument we will assume that 3,500 gallons of the jet fuel did in fact form a pool fire. This means that it burnt according to reactions (2) and (3). Also note that the flammable mist would have burnt according to reactions (2) and (3), as the quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited.
Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.
We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).
For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:
(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O
However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.
Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.
So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:
Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:
(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2
From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is: CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles = 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs = 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs = 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs
In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.
Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.
Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs about 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.
So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 3,500 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 3,500 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel
This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.
That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise: 39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C, 97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C, 349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C, 500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C, 1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.
To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade. Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C] Nitrogen 1,038 Water Vapor 1,690 Carbon Dioxide 845 Lightweight Concrete 800 Steel 450
Substituting these values into the above, we obtain: 39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C, 97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C, 349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C, 500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C, 1,400,000 x 800 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.
The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.
So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is
= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 800) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,330 + 82,327,505 + 362,967,840 + 225,000,000 + 1,120,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) Joules.
Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 477,400,000,000 Joules, we have that
1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) = 477,400,000,000
1,857,653,675 x T - 46,441,341,875 = 477,400,000,000
Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F).
So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.
Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.
"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).
Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.
Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."
Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."
Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."
Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.
Summarizing:
We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.
Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).
Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.
It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."
Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).
Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.
Conclusion:
The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.
So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#135. To: FormerLurker (#124)
Apparently war has been assigned to 4um, since we were lacking government stooges and clowns, they felt bad for us and gave us our very own forum shillster.
#136. To: war (#126)
Nothing that you have stated as fact
#137. To: FormerLurker (#130)
To descend and land, a plane must SLOW DOWN by reducing power. To lose altitude without reducing power, the ONLY way a plane can descend is by putting the nose down and DIVING.
#138. To: Katniss (#135)
Probably consulting with the people in the next cubicle at State.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#139. To: Katniss (#136)
By his sources they are.
#140. To: war (#126)
Here's a helpful hint...planes that are deliberately commandeered and do not reach their destination are hijacked. Saying that the planes on 9/11 were NOT hijacked when they fully fit the above definition - regardless of who did it and why - is pretty freakin' *dumb*...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#141. To: Katniss (#135)
You know, it's one thing to be ignorant, it's quite another to imply that someone is amiss, and then restate their exact point again while standing behind it, namely what you just refuted.
#142. To: FormerLurker (#140)
So WHY were those calls faked, and WHO would have the ability to do such a thing?
#143. To: FormerLurker (#140)
We know they weren't hijacked by those claimed by the US government...
#144. To: war (#137)
(Edited)
Well...that's plain BS as well...a plane can be at full power and stall...lift is a function of wind flow and air pressure created above and below the wings...at take off, a 757 pilot would lower the *flaps* so that the wing is curved...thrust, i.e. the forward movement, creates air flow and since air is forced over the wing...air pressure builds UNDER the wing to a point where it *lifts* the plane...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#145. To: war (#143)
You've offered no proof that anyone other than the 19 identified as hijackers,. regardless of what names they used, did not hijack those planes.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
.
.
.