Explosions underneath the WTC Towers b4 they collapsed

Links people, post links. Wild theories with no reliable links that can't be examined = Wild theories and nothing more.

This horse has been beaten, hanged, drowned, burned, and laid to rest sometime ago in other threads. Bringing this topic back with nothing but wild theories and rumors from Rense.com or Atzlan.com, very uneliable websites, does nothing but make some new people believe these wild theories must be true, and give ATS a bad name.

Now bringing up conspiracy theories with "reliable" info that can be corroborated, that's something worth to discuss.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Links people, post links. Wild theories with no reliable links that can't be examined = Wild theories and nothing more.

If you're referring to my post you will have to buy the paper. Can't help you out there.

I would like to take a moment to go over one common misconception. I have seen it bandied about in many of these threads that �the jet fuel burned off in the first few minutes.� Frankly that is B.S. If you stop and think about it, you will realize this.

Yes, a some of the fuel most certainly did spill out of the building and burn in the seconds after the crash, but not all of it. These planes were fully loaded with fuel. There are survivor accounts of a strong fuel odor in the basement and flash fires in the elevator shafts.

Furthermore, liquid jet fuel does not burn. The vapor does. Even at eleavated temperatures it takes time for the vapors to boil off and burn, especially when they are soaked into carpeting, furniture padding, cloth, cracked concrete slabs, fireproofing, ceiling tiles etc.

Even more compelling is if you calculate the energy release from the burning jet fuel:

United Flight 175 was a Boeing 767-222. According to Janes:

�Fuel in one integral tank in each wing, and in centre tank, with total capacity of 63,216 litres (16,700 US gallons; 13,905 Imp gallons) in 200/300; 767-200ER and -300ER have additional 28,163 litres (7,440 US gallons; 6,195 Imp gallons) in second centre-section tank, raising total capacity to 91,379 litres (24,140 US gallons; 20,100 Imp gallons).�

So let�s just say for the sake of argument that we had 10,000 gallons of kerosene.

Density of kerosene: 6.77 lbs/ gallon

Equals 67700 lbs

Energy density of kerosene (Approx): 18,700 BTU/lb

= 1,265,990,000 BTUs of fuel.

That�s 1.26 billion BTUs!!!!

Originally posted by Muaddib

This horse has been beaten, hanged, drowned, burned, and laid to rest sometime ago in other threads.

I certainly don't think this topic has been laid to rest. How can it when so many people are still questioning the events of 911? (and rightly so)

This will never go away. Look at the JFK story - people are just as passionate about that now as they were back in the 60's.

JEt fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt the steel. But how about bending the steel? Or making it weaker?

How about the jet fuel being burnt up so quickly?
Like in the explosion...?

Or how about people who have modelled the WT towers, and did a replica of it (smaller of course), wasn't able to make it collapse?

When i took a look at those seismographs or whatever they are called..they clearly show an explosion before it all came rumbling down to the ground.

Also remember...the explosion doesn't have to be big. It could have been ont he actual steel itself... (the explosives), and just blast the metal enough for it to go Boom and come crashing down.

Remmebr the steel goes intot he ground. The seismographs would have been able to pick up the rattle from the explosion onto the steel, which the shockwaves travel down the steel, intot he ground, onto the seismographs.

And yea i dont think my original link is working now anyways.

Originally posted by DaRAGE
JEt fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt the steel. But how about bending the steel? Or making it weaker?

What part of 1.2 BILION BTUs don�t you understand?

I will grant you that it is an estimate based on assumptions and ideal conditions, but still, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel produces enough heat to push an airplane across the continental U.S.

And If I see one more person post �Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel,� I will reach though my monitor, out theirs, and beat some sense into them with a high school chemistry/ physics textbook.

How about the jet fuel being burnt up so quickly?
Like in the explosion...?

Do you honestly believe that the fireball from the impact was 10,000 gallons of jet fuel burning up all at once?

My guess is that the fire ball was caused by a couple hundred, gallons of vaporized fuel, no more than 1,000 gallons max, any more any you would be looking at a massive fuel air explosion. The fireball was big, but it wasn�t that big.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Too bad his facts were wrong. Look into Jet Fuel for yourself if you do not believe me. There is plenty of credible information on the web about that. His temp figures are wrong.

You can't just say they're wrong, unless you point us all to a more reputable source. So??? Beside the point, jet fuel has little or nothing to do with building 7.

Originally posted by Muaddib
The physics involved in such a huge fire and a huge skyscraper is a lot different than "using a bic lighter to heat a metal rod and trying to bend it with your hands"..................

Obviously, you don't understand the physics. The physics are exactly the same. It's the material that's different. I was just trying to make a point.

[Edited on 5-28-2004 by Satyr]

Originally posted by Satyr

You can't just say they're wrong, unless you point us all to a more reputable source. So???

Beside the point, jet fuel has little or nothing to do with building 7.
[Edited on 5-28-2004 by Satyr]

What about damage from the collapsing towers? ie. massive falling debris, stress on the foundations etc. It was located quite close to the two main towers after all.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by DaRAGE
JEt fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt the steel. But how about bending the steel? Or making it weaker?

What part of 1.2 BILION BTUs don�t you understand?

I will grant you that it is an estimate based on assumptions and ideal conditions, but still, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel produces enough heat to push an airplane across the continental U.S.

And If I see one more person post �Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel,� I will reach though my monitor, out theirs, and beat some sense into them with a high school chemistry/ physics textbook.

WEll then teach me buddy.

Show me some figures.

And i dont give a damn about 1.2 billion BTU's. Is that meant to be energy?
Coz energy can dissipate into many many things, and so can heat.

So ur 1.2 billion BTU'S!!!!!!! dont mean jack # to me.

Anyways. Perhaps you'd like to explain what the 1.2 billion BTU's actually means, how it works, and what it has to do with this conversation....for those people who didn't learn high degreees of physics.

I know i'm interested.

Th eonly thing i know about BTU's is from the matrix... "The human body can generate *insert some figure here* BTU's in body heat"


And hey i'm not trying to sound rude or a know it all, or beign ignorant...i'm just relaly tired as it's 2:41am and i cant be bothered and wana got o bed, and i think i'm getting cranky coz of no sleep. good night

[Edited on 28-5-2004 by DaRAGE]

Originally posted by Satyr
Beside the point, jet fuel has little or nothing to do with building 7.

No, but diesel fuel does.

The fact is there was a diesel fuel system in that building.

The fact is, there were some design issues with the emergency electrical system.

The fact is, the building was damaged by the collapse of the towers.

The fact is, the water mains were damaged.

Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse:Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that�s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn�t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

link





[Edited on 28-5-2004 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by Facefirst
What about damage from the collapsing towers? ie. massive falling debris, stress on the foundations etc. It was located quite close to the two main towers after all.

Actually, it's a block away, and it really didn't appear to have much damage, aside for the fire. Standing where the towers used to be, it appears much further away than you'd think.
911research.wtc7.net...

The building looked almost perfect right up until the point it collapsed. Besides, even if a burning part fell through the roof, or something, that's not even remotely similar to 10,000 gallons of jet fuel dumping into the building from the top floors.

[Edited on 5-28-2004 by Satyr]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
No, but diesel fuel does.

The fact is there was a diesel fuel system in that building.

The fact is, there were some design issues with the emergency electrical system.

The fact is, the building was damaged by the collapse of the towers.

The fact is, the water mains were damaged.

Diesel fuel was under the building. It's not as if it was dumped throughout all floors. That's hardly the same thing. It also doesn't burn very hot in an oxygen starved environment. I'm sure building 7 was also a climate controlled environment, right? No open windows there, except the very few that shattered on the floors that had fire, which didn't appear to be many at all. If a fire was hot enough to cause a huge steel building to collapse as building 7 did, don't you think you'd see more fire? The building literally looked fine, until it went down, as perfect and fast as a planned demolition. The building wasn't damaged by the collapse of the towers, not to any significant degree. Look at the videos again and show me where there was any damage.

Building 7 was 5 times as tall as deep.

To bring this building down into its footprint required that all 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns be destroyed simultaneously.

Any asymmetry in damage would cause asymmetric collapse: the building would topple.

No combination of rubble impact damage, fires, or fuel tank explosions could have destroyed all columns simultaneously, as required to cause a vertical collapse.

Only controlled demolitions have achieved vertical collapses of upright steel structures.


[Edited on 5-28-2004 by Satyr]

Originally posted by Satyr

Originally posted by Facefirst
What about damage from the collapsing towers? ie. massive falling debris, stress on the foundations etc. It was located quite close to the two main towers after all.

Actually, it's a block away, and it really didn't appear to have much damage, aside for the fire. Standing where the towers used to be, it appears much further away than you'd think. The building looked almost perfect right up until the point it collapsed. Besides, even if a burning part fell through the roof, or something, that's not even remotely similar to 10,000 gallons of jet fuel dumping into the building from the top floors.

My question would be for anyone familiar with the area in NYC. Did building 7 have a large basement structure or even a subway station? Imagine the force generated when the 2 towers fell, this force went out from the buildings, but it also had to be shot out through the subway stations underneath. Logically it would seem that a force such as that could in fact have had an impact on building 7 if they were connected by tunnels.

I just can't buy all these theories that we did it, we hit the WTC, we took down building 7.

Remember before 9/11 everyone was "convinced" our governement had killed John Kennedy. A vast consipracy to remove him from office was formed, he was assisinated and a scapegoat was created (who had russian ties). The same people today use the same basic theory to say our government planned 9/11 and tied it to the new "red threat" those with Oil.

Funny stuff.

Originally posted by nativeokie
I just can't buy all these theories that we did it, we hit the WTC, we took down building 7.

I never said we did it. But I am saying that it's very strange that these buildings apparently just fell so easily, and quickly...and WTC7 so neatly. I'm merely implying that it's very possible that there were bombs helping in it's destruction.

Originally posted by Satyr I'm merely implying that it's very possible that there were bombs helping in it's destruction.

Highly unlikely. This was among the most photographed and filmed catastrophes in history, if not the most. Additional evidence of a bomb, especially one big enough to touch off seismographs, would have been seen in the footage of the French film crew and many others. I know many who were nearby and ran for their lives. All of them say that the fall started quietly, then built to a deafening roar. That's not the signature of an explosive event, but of a structural failure. Aren't we also forgetting the massive kinetic energy of the impact of commercial passenger jets? There was undoubtedly some structural weakening that started with the impact, and was made worse by the heat.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Aren't we also forgetting the massive kinetic energy of the impact of commercial passenger jets? There was undoubtedly some structural weakening that started with the impact, and was made worse by the heat.

I agree with you.

In addition, based on the interview in the post above, (Which BTW, I only read for the first time when I found it this morning), I am starting to think that WTC 7 was damaged by a combination of debris impact and ground shaking from the tower collapse.

Note that it took three hours after they first noticed signs of impending collapse till the building did eventually come down.

Also note that this account confirms that the infamous Silverman �Pull� comment had nothing to do with a controlled demolition.

I also had friends who were there. As SO said, it started quietly with the failure of a single floor and built as it went on. The seismic activity recorded was the jarring of the footings in the bedrock as the first floors began to collapse and slam onto the ones below.

I have been to a number of controlled demolitions. The noise of the charges going off is louder than the sound of the collapse.

Originally posted by Satyr
Actually, it's a block away, and it really didn't appear to have much damage, aside for the fire. Standing where the towers used to be, it appears much further away than you'd think.
911research.wtc7.net...
[Edited on 5-28-2004 by Satyr]

Actually, I live in NY and had been going to the WTC since the 70's. I know where T7 was. I am by no means an expert on structures or architecture, but that short distance really does not seem to make much of a difference to me when 110 stories of flaming debris is falling down not once, but twice. As well as being compounded by multiple floor fires. I suggest that you go downtown to have a look for yourself in person.

I also suggest this story. (Scroll down to the end) Suspected Causes of collapse



[Edited on 28-5-2004 by Facefirst]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Aren't we also forgetting the massive kinetic energy of the impact of commercial passenger jets? There was undoubtedly some structural weakening that started with the impact, and was made worse by the heat.

Yep. I'm mostly referring to #7, though. There was no impact damage there. I don't doubt that the twin towers may have fallen on their own. It's actually quite clear to me that they started collapsing at the places where the damage was most severe, so that's not as much of a mystery to me.

Originally posted by Facefirst
Actually, I live in NY and had been going to the WTC since the 70's. I know where T7 was. I am by no means an expert on structures or architecture, but that short distance really does not seem to make much of a difference to me when 110 stories of flaming debris is falling down not once, but twice. As well as being compounded by multiple floor fires. I suggest that you go downtown to have a look for yourself in person.

I've heard of absolutely no visible damage to #7, though. In all pictures, the worst thing noticeable is fire on 2 floors, and that's it. It was never engulfed in flames, or anything. Nor did any part of it's structure appear damaged at all. Have you seen any pics that appear to show a gaping hole in the side, or anything?

[Edited on 5-28-2004 by Satyr]