Title: 9/11 UAL 175 Plane on Radar AFTER It Has 'Crashed' Into The WTC; (MSNBC) Source:
, URL Source:http://, Published:Mar 16, 2009 Author:msnbc Post Date:2009-03-16 13:04:41 by Artisan Ping List:*9-11*Subscribe to *9-11* Keywords:None Views:14554 Comments:607
#197. To: war, FormerLurker, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, tom007, litus, christine, all (#186)
No one said anything about "resisting" the impact.
The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 - which you can try to obfuscate but cannot refute.
The difference is size between a 707 and a 767 is relatively small and the 707 had a larger fuel capacity due to a less efficient, earlier, design.
The aircraft were not fully loaded with fuel, admitted in the FEMA report, as it is standard practice to load only enough fuel to make the scheduled flight plus 10% for a margin of safety. Thus the aircraft had about 10,000 gallons of fuel - less than their capacity.
JP 8 (Kerosene) does not burn hot enough even under ideal conditions in a forced air furnace (for example a Jet Engine) to melt steel. Witness the fact that airliners don't crash because the fuel melted the engines.
Paper and Wood are elements of a Class Alpha Fire and do not, even under ideal laboratory conditions, get hot enough to melt steel and there was insufficient quantities to even soften the steel as the steel girder framework acts like a heat sink dispersing the head throughout the structure and thus keeping the temperature down below the critical points.
A localized fire cannot cause a uniform symmetrical simultaneous collapse. The normal failure pattern in a catastrophic structural failure is for there to be a point of greatest weakness. The failure occurs at the weak point first which results in an ASYMMETRICAL failure with the structure moving toward the point of failure. It does not occur simultaneously in 360 degrees causing a uniform symmetrical failure. The uniform symmetrical failure is itself evidence of controlled demolition.
Further in true shill fashion once it was pointed out that the box column center of the building is the primary load bearing structure of the building design you simply followed the fruit loop pattern of avoiding it, denying it, and the trying to shift the debate away from that which you cannot dispute.
You are a liar, are shown to be a liar, and intentionally so. You are either a Shill or an Idiot and at this point Shill is most likely given your repeated use of disinformation tactics.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 - which you can try to obfuscate but cannot refute.
Let's see...am I to take the word of an internet Moonbat arguing with the words of the structural engineer or the word of the structural engineer, himself...hmmm...ah....uh...hmmm...what a ponderable...? [snicker]
too bad for you that the WTC fires were not localized...but...suspending disblief for the momenbt and stipulating that they were...they were localized to an area already catostrophically damaged and vital to the structure's support...
That's right, if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in New York, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vapourise a sixty-five ton aircraft.
You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vapourised by the fuel tank explosion, maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.
So there we have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you're trying to sell at any particular time.
Magickal Jet Fuel AND Magickal DNA! My goodness, who woulda thunk it?!?!
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA test
DNA extractions were done on every one of the 19,906 remains, and 4,735 of those have been identified. As many as 200 remains have been linked to a single person. Of the 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12 from Flight 175, which hit the south tower....
~snip~
Your penchant for accuracy is surpassed only by that of Wrong Way Corrigan's...
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain
Further in true shill fashion once it was pointed out that the box column center of the building is the primary load bearing structure of the building design you simply followed the fruit loop pattern of avoiding it, denying it, and the trying to shift the debate away from that which you cannot dispute.
Ground was broken on August 5th, 1966. The project began with excavation six stories down to bedrock where the towers footings would stand. Crews dug around the PATH train tubes within the site, removing one million cubic yards of earth that would eventually form Battery Park City.
Site preparations were vast and included an elaborate method of foundation work for which a bathtub had to be built 65 feet below grade. The bathtub was made of a bentonite (absorbent clay) slurry wall meant to keep out groundwater and the Hudson River. Tie-backs were inserted through the wall and anchored at an angle in the earth behind them.
The foundation construction was just a fraction of many innovations masterminded by Yamasaki and team. Among them were the Twin Towers high-speed elevators, sky lobbies, and a hollow tube building model that distributed weight from the inner core across floor trusses to the exteriors closely spaced steel columns. The load-bearing exterior also served as bracing against wind. Floor trusses and exterior-wall panels were prefabricated before being lifted and bolted into place, speeding construction.
The first tenants moved into 1 WTC, the north tower, in 1970, and two years later into 2 WTC. The Port Authoritys construction costs totaled more than $900 million.
To supply power to the 10048 zip codewhich was dedicated solely to the WTC siteCon Edison built an electrical substation across Vesey Street in 1967. Atop the substation developer Silverstein Properties built a 47-story, red masonry tower, known as Seven World Trade Center, in 1987.
The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 - which you can try to obfuscate but cannot refute.
Because the 767s were traveling at high speeds, were somewhat larger than 707s and each carried about 80 tons of jet fuel, Robertson said, the energy that was absorbed by the impact was not less than three-times, and probably as much as six-times greater than the impact we had considered.
once it was pointed out that the box column center of the building is the primary load bearing structure of the building design you simply followed the fruit loop pattern of avoiding it, denying it, and the trying to shift the debate away from that which you cannot dispute.
This revolutionary construction system was a major change from the conventional system that used steel i-beams throughout the structure with non-structural exterior curtain walls. Prior to this time, curtain walls were used primarily to keep the elements out and were non-load bearing. All wind loads were transferred through the floor membrane and supported by the core of the structure. This new hollow tube system design resulted in a light and economical structure using only half the amount of steel required in a conventional building. It also provided for the wind bracing to be placed in the exterior walls the most efficient place. The exterior wall in this system would be load bearing and used to support the structure itself.
once it was pointed out that the box column center of the building is the primary load bearing structure of the building design you simply followed the fruit loop pattern of avoiding it, denying it, and the trying to shift the debate away from that which you cannot dispute.
This revolutionary construction system was a major change from the conventional system that used steel i-beams throughout the structure with non-structural exterior curtain walls. Prior to this time, curtain walls were used primarily to keep the elements out and were non-load bearing. All wind loads were transferred through the floor membrane and supported by the core of the structure. This new hollow tube system design resulted in a light and economical structure using only half the amount of steel required in a conventional building. It also provided for the wind bracing to be placed in the exterior walls the most efficient place. The exterior wall in this system would be load bearing and used to support the structure itself.
NEWSLETTER #69C February 23, 2005 September 11, 2001 Revisited. ACT III, ADDENDUM 1 This first missive was sent in by reader Dennis: ... www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html - 24k - Cached -
Firefighters were murdered on 911. Their stories stuffed away, denounced.
They heard bombs, they know it was a demolition, they know 'heat from fire' did not melt or degrade the steel columns.
These reports prove there was not sufficient fire or heat to make the towers collapse with symmetrical precision.
#209. To: war, Original_Intent, Wudidiz, FormerLurker (#200)
A localized fire
The video above features a compendium of clips from Loose Change and Alex Jones' Martial Law which include voluminous evidence of bombs inside the twin towers - both eyewitness testimony and physical evidence.
According to the Journal of Australian Fire Investigators, kerosene ignites at around 444°F. The temperature that the fire will eventually reach depends on both the combustion rate (based on O2) and the rate at which heat can be disbursed in the given scenario. Again, any firefighter can explain from experience and training that the black, sooty smoke (like that found on 9/11 at the WTC towers) were O2 deprived. Again, please contact professionals to verify this if you wish. In an oxygen deprived environment, higher temperatures cannot be reached. You can test this yourself by comparing a match in the open vs. a match in a bottle with a very small hole.
PHYSICAL CONSTANTS FOR INVESTIGATORS. by Tony Cafe. Reproduced from "Firepiont" magazine - Journal of Australian Fire Investigators. ... www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html - 69k - Cached
Paper and Wood are elements of a Class Alpha Fire and do not, even under ideal laboratory conditions, get hot enough to melt steel and there was insufficient quantities to even soften the steel as the steel girder framework acts like a heat sink dispersing the head throughout the structure and thus keeping the temperature down below the critical points.
A localized fire cannot cause a uniform symmetrical simultaneous collapse. The normal failure pattern in a catastrophic structural failure is for there to be a point of greatest weakness. The failure occurs at the weak point first which results in an ASYMMETRICAL failure with the structure moving toward the point of failure. It does not occur simultaneously in 360 degrees causing a uniform symmetrical failure. The uniform symmetrical failure is itself evidence of controlled demolition.
According to the Journal of Australian Fire Investigators, kerosene ignites at around 444°F. .....In an oxygen deprived environment, higher temperatures cannot be reached.
SPANISH SKYSCRAPER FIRE RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT 9/11 COLLAPSES
By Christopher Bollyn American Free Press
The fact that a Spanish skyscraper is still standing after an intense fire consumed the steel and concrete tower for 24 hours provides real world evidence that fire alone does not cause high-rise towers to collapse.
As an intense fire consumed the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid's business district, the press reports all began with the words "fear of collapse." After 24 hours, however, the tower, which was a similar construction to the twin towers of the World Trade Center, remained standing.
The fact that an extremely severe fire did not cause the Spanish steel and concrete tower to collapse raises serious questions about the events of 9/11 and how they have been explained. Why did the Windsor Building remain standing when similar towers in New York City collapsed completely after being affected by much less intense fires burning for considerably shorter periods of time?
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sponsored engineers to conduct the World Trade Center Building Performance Study (BPS) to examine how the buildings of the WTC responded to the airplane crashes and fires that allegedly caused the collapses of the twin towers and WTC 7, a 47-story office building on the next block.
"Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings," the BPS says in the chapter about the mysterious collapse of WTC 7, the third tower to collapse on 9/11. WTC 7 was not hit by aircraft or large pieces of debris and had only sporadic fires. At about 5:25 p.m., WTC 7, owned by Larry Silverstein, collapsed in what appeared to be a controlled demolition.
It would be more accurate to say that no steel framed high-rise, like WTC 7, has ever collapsed due to fire. The fact that the Windsor Building is still standing is proof that fire alone does not cause properly constructed steel and concrete towers to collapse.
Dr. W. Gene Corley, Senior Vice President of Construction Technology Laboratories (CTL) of Skokie, Ill., was team leader of the engineers who wrote the BPS.
CTL is a subsidiary of the Portland Cement Association and "provides structural and architectural engineering, testing, and materials technology services throughout the U.S. and internationally." According to its website, "CTLs expertise extends beyond cement and concrete, encompassing virtually all structural systems and construction materials."
WACO, OKLAHOMA CITY, AND WTC
Corley served as expert adviser during the government's investigation of the 1993 fatal fire at the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texas. In 1995, Corley led a Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) investigation of the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. In September 2001, once again, Corley was selected to head the team to study building performance after the attack on New Yorks World Trade Center.
In the executive summary of the WTC study, Corley wrote that secondary fires caused the twin towers to collapse:
"The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings," Corley wrote. "Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and the resulting damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures."
In the section that deals with the collapse of the twin towers, the BPS says: "Because the aircraft impacts into the two buildings are not believed to have been sufficient to cause collapse without the ensuing fires, the obvious question is whether the fires alone, without the damage from the aircraft impact, would have been sufficient to cause such a collapse it is impossible, without extensive modeling and other analysis, to make a credible prediction of how the buildings would have responded to an extremely severe fire in a situation where there was no prior structural damage."
The Windsor Building fire in Madrid provides an excellent real-world model to show how the twin towers should have responded to "an extremely severe fire" alone. The Windsor Building has central support columns in its core section, which is similar to the construction of the twin towers. This central core is what supported the gravity load of the towers.
In the Windsor Building fire, the fire is thought to have started on the 21st floor late on Saturday night, Feb. 12. The upper floors were consumed by intense fire for at least 18 hours. The fire moved down the building and burned the entire structure. The fire is reported to have burned temperatures of at 800 degrees Celsius, or nearly 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit.
There was a partial collapse of parts of the top 10 floors as the trusses, which went from the core columns to the outside walls, appear to have failed. It is important to note, however, that the lower floors did not collapse and the core section is still standing with a construction crane on the roof.
The complete failure of the 47-central support columns in the twin towers of the WTC is one of the key outstanding questions about what caused their collapses. It would be expected that they should have remained standing even if some of the floor trusses failed. There is no explanation for what caused the huge box columns to fail.
Two of the contractors who removed the rubble told AFP that they had found molten steel in the 7th basement level when they reached the bedrock where the columns were based. There is no explanation for what caused such intense residual heat to be found at the base of the twin towers, although some experts have pointed to powerful explosives.
By press time, Dr. Corley had not responded to questions about the BPS findings and the questions raised by the Windsor Building fire. Corley's assistant told AFP that he had just gone to the airport and would not be returning to the office until Feb. 28.
The Windsor Building was built from 1973-1979 in an area of Madrid where commercial property was developed on land owned by Rio Tinto, the international mining giant. This is thought to be the reason why the Windsor Building carries the name of the British royal family. The WTC towers were completed in the early 1970's.
The Windsor Building housed the offices of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a multinational financial services company, which occupied 20 floors of the tower.
The area where the Windsor Building stands is a mixed residential and commercial area known as the AZCA zone. Dubbed 'Madrid's Manhattan', AZCA contains a cluster of modern skyscrapers. The tallest one is the Torre Picasso, a 516-foot tower built in 1989. The Picasso Tower was designed by Minoru Yamasaki, who also designed the twin towers of the WTC. Unión de Explosivos Río Tinto, S.A., owns the land where the tower stands.
Finis
The Windsor Building (Edificio Windsor) in Madrid, Spain burned "like a torch" for more than 18 hours from Saturday night, Feb. 12. After burning in an uncontrolled inferno the tower's core columns remain standing with a huge construction crane on top of the roof. This evidence supports the fact that prior to 9/11 NO steel-framed high- rise had ever collapsed due to fire. On 9/11 the 47-story WTC 7, owned by Larry Silverstein, collapsed at 5:25 p.m. There is no explanation for why the WTC 7 collapsed except for the fact that Silverstein told PBS that the decision was made to "pull it" and "we watched it come down."
See also:
The Collapse of WTC 1: Madrid Exposes a Fundamental Flaw The 9/11 WTC Collapses: An Audio-Video Analysis
THE JET fuel fires in the World Trade Center towers did not bring down those two buildings. Indeed, the fuel burned up in minutes. Why, then, did the towers and their 44-story neighbor, WTC-7, which was not struck by a plane, collapse? It's a question that bears generally on fire safety, the safety of building occupants and firefighters and the vulnerability of our buildings to terror by fire.
I expected the National Response Team of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms would participate in an investigation that I surely thought would follow the Sept. 11 attacks. The ATF has the authority to investigate arson involving interstate commerce. Certainly, these horrendous attacks should be construed as arson. I later learned that the ATF was told it would not be needed.
I expected the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to head the investigations. It's noted for its thoroughness, objectivity and know-how with respect to large-scale disasters. But it was relegated to flight issues dealing with the two hijacked aircraft and the aircraft debris. The buildings were not to be within the scope of their investigation.
There is an ad hoc investigative group, which is sponsored by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers. But it does not have the full resources that might be made available, nor does it control the site.
I became increasingly concerned the more I learned about the investigative process, or lack of one. The site teams at the towers were focused on rescue, retrieval and cleanup, not investigation. The structural steel pieces, coded with chalk and stamped numbers to indicate their building location, were being sold as scrap metal.
The evidence needed to identify the cause of the collapse and intensity of the fire was being lost. Had the NTSB or ATF been involved, the site would have been secured, evidence documented and protected. Remember how the pieces of TWA Flight 800 were brought up from the ocean bottom off Long Island and restored to preserve structural evidence essential to identifying the cause of the 1996 crash?
WTC family survivors headed by Sally Regenhard last month urged New York City and federal authorities to launch a formal investigation into the collapse of the towers. As Ms. Regenhard said, her son did not die in a fire because of a collapsed building.
High-rise buildings are required to survive the impact of a modern commercial aircraft. Why shouldn't that include survival from the fire that would erupt? Building codes require that the structural elements of high-rise building withstand a three-hour test in a furnace. Why did the buildings collapse in less time? Was this terrorist attack an isolated event that had no bearing on high-rise vulnerability or on the consequences of fire in general?
The scrapping of steel debris should stop immediately, and all of it that has been sold should be impounded. The site should be controlled to conform to standard investigation practices. All records, video recordings and information about those killed and injured should be secured for analysis.
We can learn a great deal from this catastrophe. Many died because they did not expect buildings to collapse. Firefighters should not be the guinea pigs for determining the structural dynamics of buildings caught in flames. The potential for a building's collapse should be known before it happens. Fire safety needs to be incorporated into the normal design process of buildings.
The federal government has a role in developing the needed technology for fire safety. If there ever was a role for government that transcends political ideologies, this is one.
At least let's start with a formal investigation of the WTC collapse.
By James Quintiere Originally published January 3, 2002
James Quintiere is the John L. Bryan Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, College Park. . E-Mail Address: dgann@jhsph.edu
James G. Quintiere ...earned a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering in 1970. He has more than 25 years experience in fire research and its applications, is a professor in the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland. Professor Quintiere has conducted research in the study of fire growth in structures and on materials, has developed test methods for ignition and flames spread, studied smoke movement in full-scale and scale model systems, and has developed theoretical solutions and simulation models for fire behavior and material response to fire. He has more than 100 publications in the field, and is currently Chairman of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (the world organization for fire research and its applications). In addition to his research, he has helped to analyze a number of fire disasters including the Dupont Plaza fire and the more recent Branch Davidian Fire near Waco, Texas.
... www.911truth.org, so long as the full source URL (">http://www.911truth. org/article.php?story=20050523112738404 in this case) is posted with the article. ... www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404 - 47k - Jan 23, 2007 - Cached -
Where have I promoted thwe idea that jet fule caused the collapse? IN point of fact, no authorative source, private or public, has said that jet fuel caused the collapse.
The NIST report was far more comprehensive than the FEMA report. It would not be unusual for initial findings to eventually be contradicted by further research.
- Most of the fuel burned up in the initial impact in the cases of both towers, and also the Pentagon. This was made evident from the large balls of fire visible in the various videos taken that morning. In order to understand this, one must imagine when a gas can explodes. If anyone has ever exploded a gas can, one knows that while there is some residual fire after the initial explosion, the vast majority of the fuel is ignited instantly and cannot burn for more than a few seconds. Likewise, when the planes hit the towers and the Pentagon, most of the fuel burned up withing a few seconds. The impacts would have instantly punctured the fuel containers in the wings, causing much of the fuel to splatter and ignite in a loose form. What little fuel was left did cause fires inside the buildings, as was evident by the smoke, but one must also take into account the amount of smoke....
- Over the course of the hour or so that each building burned, it was clear by video evidence that the smoke coming from each building was not increasing, but was in fact decreasing quickly. Any firefighter can attest to this being a clear indicator that the fire is dying down, and that it's usually on it's way out. Please feel free to contact your local fire department to verify this. To be clear, the fires going out means that the high temperature would not have been reinforced by a continuing blaze; the temperature would have begun dropping quickly.
On the other hand, you want me to ignore what you have ignored which are the facts of a) the impact of the planes....b) the explosion of the planes in a confined area and c) the subsequent fires caused by the explosion...