Graybeard Outdoors banner
1 - 20 of 85 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,772 Posts
kls said:
if the planes that hit the world trade centers had so much jet fuel in them should some of it have ran down the outside of the buildings burning?
.
NIST says it burned off in ten minutes. In the south tower most fuel burned off out side the tower in showy fireball, yet that tower imploded first. The amount of fuel in the airplanes was miniscule compared to the mass/area of the towers. That leaves flame retardant office furnishing causing the freefalls.... ;)
.
See link in post #1 here: http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/truth-...zene-fires-dropped-the-wtc-complex-and-bldg7/
.
.
..TM7
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
I believe most of the fuel would have been churned into droplets from the impact and hence the giant fireballs at impact. The remaining fuel would have continued forward from inertia and churned into droplets as it hit obstacles on the interior of the building such as walls and office furniture further igniting leaving a fraction of the original on board fuel to run ANYWHERE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,293 Posts
I've seen the water dropped from bombers during wildfires. It has a mass of its own, smashing down trees, and potentially injuring or killing anyone unfortunate enough to be in its path. Other than the engines, the fuel is the densest component of the aircraft. I'm not so certain that it didn't punch through the first interior walls like a solid mass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,772 Posts
Bear said:
I've seen the water dropped from bombers during wildfires. It has a mass of its own, smashing down trees, and potentially injuring or killing anyone unfortunate enough to be in its path. Other than the engines, the fuel is the densest component of the aircraft. I'm not so certain that it didn't punch through the first interior walls like a solid mass.
.
You mean like big waves smashing the coast of Maine and breaking up that granite coast line....Good one!
Really weren't permanent interior walls in the towers anyway---they were open floor plans....the inner walls would be the central cores. Incidentally, you could design dangerous came bullets with KS_ _liquid filled aluminum hollow points!
.
Besides the total amount of fuel on those planes was minute in comparison to the area and mass of the buildings. Like empting a swimming pool on 200 acres. Further the South tower was hit glancing with most fuel burning off outside that tower.....we all saw that on teeevee.!
.
NIST said the fuels burned off in a few minutes ( and no more than 10,000lbs on each plane, iirc). That leaves the horrible forge like steel melting, concrete disintegrating instantaneous synchronized collapses to fire retarded office furnishings in 50 minutes or so.
.
Thank gawd they didn't crash into the Brooklyn Bridge; otherwise I wouldn't be able to sell it to you..!!
.
.
..TM7
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,177 Posts
The fuel was ignited instantly and that fireball didn't consume the entire fuel load. when it went through the building the fire was sucking in air from behind the plane which turned into a giant supercharger.
jet fuel is harder to ignite than gas, but when ignited, it burns much hotter than gasoline.
those aircraft had heavy fuel loads for the long flights, so we're talking about an inferno that would burn for a long time as the center tanks melted and added their fuel to the fire. the initial fireball would have been the wing tanks

bear in mind that I have spent 30 years with Delta airlines, while TM7 may have bought a few tickets on an airline that makes him an expert. ::)

the fire didn't "melt" the steel in the buildings, it only "softened" it and with 100s of 1000s of tons above the impact floors, down it came.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,772 Posts
Good grief Buggie,,,,just because you cleaned airplanes, or carried baggage doesn't mean you can just make stuff up and counter your own NIST allies.....besides you were out on disability when the 911 crimes occurred,,,,riiight?

.
And sure jet fuel did this----right!!!!!?:
.

.
And the burns hotter than gasoline kero was supercharged like in a blast furnace just enough to cause total synchronized symmetyrical failure of thousands of fittings all at once (but no melting of course which everybody saw)...3 skyscrapers in one day... ::) You better call up NIST and tell them they got it wrong ;
.
[img]http://www.myhostedpics.com/images/hyway61/rment.jpg
.
.
...TM7
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,177 Posts
TM7 said:
Good grief Buggie,,,,just because you cleaned airplanes, or carried baggage doesn't mean you can just make stuff up and counter your own NIST allies.....besides you were out on disability when the 911 crimes occurred,,,,riiight?

.
And sure jet fuel did this----right!!!!!?:
.

.
And the burns hotter than gasoline kero was supercharged like in a blast furnace just enough to cause total synchronized symmetyrical failure of thousands of fittings all at once (but no melting of course which everybody saw)...3 skyscrapers in one day... ::) You better call up NIST and tell them they got it wrong ;
.
[img]http://www.myhostedpics.com/images/hyway61/rment.jpg
.
.
...TM7
I retired in 1998. became disabled in 2004 after my second heart attack when a defibrillator was installed in my upper left chest.
what does a supercharger do?? it forces air/oxygen into the cylinder. the explosion created a giant supercharger, and since jet fuel/kerosene burns much hotter than gasoline, there you have it.
BTW, I didn't clean aircraft and the only baggage I "carried" followed along behind me on two wheels.

So I wish you wouldn't try to turn innocent questions by a member into some kind of cloak and dagger scenario.

Cleaning aircraft and carrying baggage are necessary jobs and you really should apologize to those that do those jobs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,201 Posts
TM7,

You must have some kind of comprehension issues. As I said in an earlier post on another thread.....if a projectile has a structure strong enough to penetrate a given object......then it just becomes a question of how much of the potential energy that projectile has can be transferred to the object. If you have a problem with e=mc2 have a conversation with a physics teacher.

I know why you like to make fun of the thought process with your comments about making hollow aluminum big game bullets and such because if you do that then you don't have to seriously consider the billions of foot pounds of energy that those buildings absorbed on 9/11. By ignoring that it makes it easier to spout the same drivel over and over again about no steel structure buildings have ever collapsed from fire while completely ignoring that fact that it was a combination of plane impact and fire that caused the towers to fall.

CR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,177 Posts
kinslayer1965 said:
TM7,

You must have some kind of comprehension issues. As I said in an earlier post on another thread.....if a projectile has a structure strong enough to penetrate a given object......then it just becomes a question of how much of the potential energy that projectile has can be transferred to the object. If you have a problem with e=mc2 have a conversation with a physics teacher.

I know why you like to make fun of the thought process with your comments about making hollow aluminum big game bullets and such because if you do that then you don't have to seriously consider the billions of foot pounds of energy that those buildings absorbed on 9/11. By ignoring that it makes it easier to spout the same drivel over and over again about no steel structure buildings have ever collapsed from fire while completely ignoring that fact that it was a combination of plane impact and fire that caused the towers to fall.

CR
Well said, but he won't listen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,772 Posts
Buggie,,,,,ehhh-- :eek:,... the plane crash lasted 1/3 of a second,,,there was no venturi or giant air pump or 100% oxygen supplied to the fires,,,NIST said fuel was gone in minutes.....As for your Goldie Locks fire, just right to soften but not melt steel is pure daydreaming> worse than KS's inversion of physics. No video of the day showed drooping or sagging of the buildings from soften steels....What videos showed was a violent implosion-explosion which totally disintegrated the buildings in mere seconds blowing them to smithereens if you're paying attention.. Please notify NIST about you theory_ _I look forward to them amending their flawed report again.
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
KS: You must live on another planet with different laws of physics governing transfer of kinetic energy, or the storarge of kinetic energy....
.
I'm not making fun of aluminum bullets for you just because its ridiculous and so hairbrained--like the one you came up about pulverizing concrete block to micron size with a hammer... ::). I bring it up b/c of your inversion of physics theories. Dr. Hawking I suggest given your ideas of physics and transfer of kinetic energy you make some hollow point aluminum bullets and see how the market responds. You also need to inform NIST of their failure to analyze kinetic energy transfer from the UFOs and how the buildings stored it up to release it in 50 or so minutes in total collapses from disintegration in 8 sec,,,,,,and inform them their fire theory explaining everything is basically wrong....Or perhaps speeding the aluminum cylinders created a Dark Hole in the towers, so huge that transfer of kinetic energy caused #7 to collapse several hours later_ _BBC ever prescient claiming it collapsed 26 minutes before it actually did.

You see professor,,,when an object hits another object 100% energy is not transferred to the entire structure...as if the towers would topple over,,,,but only to be released 50 minutes later in a 8 second disintegration...Ridiculous. You see that energy from aircraft (flying 150knots above their airframe speeds) was transformed into, light, noise, flash heat, destruction of the projectile, air concussion, etc. That's why if I fire my 375H&H with an aluminum HP at 1/2inch plate steel the projectile would disappear and barely damage the plate steel , but if I fire same with lead core FMJ I going to punch thru or severely damage that plate steel immediately--NOT 50 MINUTES LATER...But we've been this weird stuff of yours before.
.
Circle jerking, you keep coming up with this delay or conservation of kinetic energy at impact theory, but that dog don't hunt. BTW, NIST claims fires primarily dropped the Towers not the crashes which they were designed to absorb energy ,,,and remember #7 was not hit by an airliner. But the Empire State Buildings was and a far weak building than the towers and with a fire and its still there, but given your theory it might collapse tonight--if its stored kinetic energy disintegrates it.. 2ndly far less robust steel frame buildings have been totally engulfed in flames for hours and hours and they never disintegrated in 8 seconds....

.
You 911 Faith Believers need to get with Buggie and inform NIST of your earthshaking revelations about the physical world.
.
.
...TM7
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,201 Posts
TM7

You braying ass I never said that energy from the impacts was stored and released at a later time. What kind of moron are you anyway. What I have said is that the impacts damaged some of the structural steel and stripped away fire retardant material from yet more which was then subjected to the fires and heated to the point of failure.

There is plenty of video showing the exterior structural steel sagging and buckling prior to the eventual collapse. So why don't you go sit and have a circle jerk with your tin foil hat friends and watch those videos!

CR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,293 Posts
TM7 said:
Bear said:
I've seen the water dropped from bombers during wildfires. It has a mass of its own, smashing down trees, and potentially injuring or killing anyone unfortunate enough to be in its path. Other than the engines, the fuel is the densest component of the aircraft. I'm not so certain that it didn't punch through the first interior walls like a solid mass.
.
You mean like big waves smashing the coast of Maine and breaking up that granite coast line....Good one!
Really weren't permanent interior walls in the towers anyway---they were open floor plans....the inner walls would be the central cores. Incidentally, you could design dangerous came bullets with KS_ _liquid filled aluminum hollow points!
.
Besides the total amount of fuel on those planes was minute in comparison to the area and mass of the buildings. Like empting a swimming pool on 200 acres. Further the South tower was hit glancing with most fuel burning off outside that tower.....we all saw that on teeevee.!
.
NIST said the fuels burned off in a few minutes ( and no more than 10,000lbs on each plane, iirc). That leaves the horrible forge like steel melting, concrete disintegrating instantaneous synchronized collapses to fire retarded office furnishings in 50 minutes or so.
.
Thank gawd they didn't crash into the Brooklyn Bridge; otherwise I wouldn't be able to sell it to you..!!
.
.
..TM7

Most of the high tech buildings that I worked in for the last thirty years have been "open architecture". They all had partitions erected to suit the needs of the tenants -- partitions that are meant to be easily removed, and as such could easily be knocked down by a dense mass moving at speed. Other than the partitions that form perimeter of a tenant's space, these partitions are only anchored at the floor, not the ceiling, with the "ceiling" supported by a lightweight grid that provides little if any structural strength.

Sorry, but you naive are the ones that end up buying the Brooklyn Bridge.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,201 Posts
TM7

Another point that has obviously flown over your pin head is that if the steel frame building that burned for eight hours had been struck by an airplane stripping off large areas of fire proofing that they very likely would have collapsed as well. That is why the comparison you continually throw out is ridiculous at best and completely dishonest at worst. But then again honesty has never been your strong suit. At least not considering your penchant for reposting proven falsehoods over and over.

CR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
BUGEYE said:
The fuel was ignited instantly and that fireball didn't consume the entire fuel load. when it went through the building the fire was sucking in air from behind the plane which turned into a giant supercharger.
jet fuel is harder to ignite than gas, but when ignited, it burns much hotter than gasoline.
those aircraft had heavy fuel loads for the long flights, so we're talking about an inferno that would burn for a long time as the center tanks melted and added their fuel to the fire. the initial fireball would have been the wing tanks

bear in mind that I have spent 30 years with Delta airlines, while TM7 may have bought a few tickets on an airline that makes him an expert. ::)

the fire didn't "melt" the steel in the buildings, it only "softened" it and with 100s of 1000s of tons above the impact floors, down it came.


That fuel left after initial impact and explosion was certainly NOT super charged with oxygen. That was an oxygen starved fire as seen from the abundance of black smoke. Same as building 7.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
Bear said:
I've seen the water dropped from bombers during wildfires. It has a mass of its own, smashing down trees, and potentially injuring or killing anyone unfortunate enough to be in its path. Other than the engines, the fuel is the densest component of the aircraft. I'm not so certain that it didn't punch through the first interior walls like a solid mass.

Yep it hits with a force and rapidly disperses for maximum coverage to cool the fire i.e. droplets. Sat with the captain directing air drops on a major forest fire (his staging area and command post was on my property) He could see it all from where we sat. **** of a nice guy and very informative. Great name for a fire fighter too- Captain Cook.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,772 Posts
PC,,,,,yes the fuel burned off in minutes, what little fuel there was....that part NIST got right. As the graphics show the amount of fuel was miniscule compared to the size, mass, and surface area of the buildings. As we saw with the second hit of the South tower, a glancing blow thru the corner missing the inner cores, the bulk of fuel burned off out side the tower. When NY FD fire chief arrived at those floors he said the fires were not serious and manageable_ _YET THAT TOWER IMPLODED-EXPLODED FIRST.>> least damage--least fires--exploded/imploded first.! Calculations have been done that show the joules energy from the fuel and furnishing fires were simply inadequate to even soften steel, especially that tonnage of steel; some outside source(s) of energy(s) were systematically applied to the towers to create the implosion/explosions we all saw on teevee and the end results seen with the debris field at 'ground zero'.

Prof KS is amending (i.e. making stuff up as we go along) NIST's report now saying it was the primarily crashes from hollow aluminum cylinders that 50 minutes or so later were the cause of the synchronized symmetrical freefall collapses: in his world of physics random crashes and random fires, where heat moves downward instead of up, caused synchronized symmetrical freefalls and steel and fitting components. 3 in one day!!__except #7 was not hit by an airplane, but failed due to a magic beam flaw.. ;). And other fires in steel frame building which never collapsed cannot be compared to the WTC crimes--that's declared incorrect; and in a sense he is right, because the report of explosions, dust and liquid metals, complete disintegration (look at the debris fields) proves he is correct by way of ignorance (or is it gate keeping).
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BR..that's what I said,,,the tower offices were open floor plan.
.
.
.TM7
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,201 Posts
TM,

I am not amending anything you idiot. My opinion about the events is the same now as it was when I first started posting on TLCT. Yours however changes like the wind. You have espoused so many different theories it boggles the mind. Everything from shape charged mini nukes to thermite to no planes hit to now referring to them as UFOs. You even posted on link that suggested that the demolition materials were built into the towers during the original construction. What kind of blithering moronic idiot refers to a 767 slamming into a building as a random crash. What kind of idiots watches videos of people leaping to their death to escape the raging infernos in that building and then refers to them as random fires. You will grasp onto any hairbrained theory you can find on one of your conspiracy sights and you accuse me of making stuff up as I go along. The only thing worse than an idiot is an arrogant idiot.

CR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,772 Posts
kinslayer1965 said:
TM,

I am not amending anything you idiot. My opinion about the events is the same now as it was when I first started posting on TLCT. Yours however changes like the wind. You have espoused so many different theories it boggles the mind.Yes, you simple minded Neanderthal. Its a forum we post different ideas and discuss as a gentlemen, or some of us do..[/color]
Everything from shape charged mini nukes to thermite to no planes hit to now referring to them as UFOs.Any kind of explosion blast wave can be shaped,,,such as in the chamber of my 375H&H, or in the inner core of the WTC, or by bedrock,,,a 5 th grader would know that. UFO= unidentified flying object, your slob buddies have never IDENTIFIED the craft hitting the WTC,,,5th grader gets that, too[/color]
You even posted on link that suggested that the demolition materials were built into the towers during the original construction. Never,,,that would be from one of your 911 Faith Believer guys.[/color]
What kind of blithering moronic idiot refers to a 767 slamming into a building as a random crash.actually random damage and random fires is what I said[/color]
What kind of idiots watches videos of people leaping to their death to escape the raging infernos in that building and then refers to them as random fires.People who want to get to the truth of what happened so it does happen again[/color]
You will grasp onto any hairbrained theory you can find on one of your conspiracy sights and you accuse me of making stuff up as I go along.groping, hitting bottom_ _its all adding up, you fascist slobs are murders; and only one thing worse>those that cover up and gate keep for them. The drilling down will continue,,,,go get some looser shorts and a step ladder.[/color]
The only thing worse than an idiot is an arrogant idiot.That you would know for sure[/color]

CR
.
Oh, reduced to name calling again...fascist gate keeper slob has shorts in a bunch. Anger in direct proportion to truth coming; most flak while flying over the target zone.. Typical one dimension.
.
FYI, This is a forum,,,,that means we consider and discuss all matter of topics. I understand such a concept is antithetical to your tyrannical method of doing business and intimidation_ _but that's just too bad. If you don't like it why don't you get a hammer and pound cement blocks into micronized dust, or cast some aluminum hollow point bullets to relieve some tension.
.
Sad fact for your criminal syndicate---> is American citizens are realizing they were had,,,,your official 911 conspiracy theory is a deceifult awful fraud on all layers and a coup d'état by psychopaths for reasons of endless wars and profit...
.
.
..TM7
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,293 Posts
TM7 said:
.
Oh, reduced to name calling again...fascist gate keeper slob has shorts in a bunch. Anger in direct proportion to truth coming; most flak while flying over the target zone.. Typical one dimension.
.
Yes, as usual, you are reduced to name calling.

Can you say "hypocrite"?
 
1 - 20 of 85 Posts
Top