LIVE loud explosion heard by firefighters at WTC site - AMAZING!!

Originally posted by BeZerk

I still fail to see how jet fuel caught on fire can retain enough energy to blow out the basement and rip marble panels within the Lobby, especially when the designers of the building actually designed the building to not only withstand the plane crash but also the ensuing fires that may have occurred due to jet fuel.

John Skilling - Structural Engineer - WTC -

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.

BeZerK

1/2 correct. The building was designed to handle the impact of a 707 (largest plane at the time) that was LOST IN FOG...etc... It was not designed for a terrorist attack!! In other words flying into it intentionally. There is quite a difference.

As far as the fire balls, I can not explain exactly how they worked. I go by the witnesses statements, NIST, and FDNY statements. The fireballs i dont think had to travel 70 + floors. The liquid jet fuel could have been cascading for several floors until it found an ignition source. (that is pure speculation on my part)

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
It was reported from firefighters that they witnessed tires exploding on cars that were near WTC7

What would cause this in a gravity driven collapse? Just curious.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
First of all NIST reports that:

Of the evacuees interviewed by NIST, 72% reported the smell of fuel fumes in the stairwells of the north tower, and 63% in the south tower.

(NIST NCSTAR 1-7A p. 17)

This has always interested me. Kerosene is a nasty smell. How can only 72% and 63% smell it?

Could it be that about 72% and 63% of the people can be lead with the power of suggestion? Just a thought.

www.elearn-university.org...

These showed that on average hypnotherapy achieved at least 64% success compared to 37% improvement among untreated control groups.

When all 133 studies deemed suitable in light of this consideration were re-analyzed, providing data for over 6,000 patients, the findings suggest an average improvement in 27% of untreated patients over the term of the studies compared with a 74% success rate among those receiving hypnotherapy.

en.wikipedia.org...

Don't know if that relates but is interesting. Hope I'm reading that right. Psychobable is not for me.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

1/2 correct. The building was designed to handle the impact of a 707 (largest plane at the time) that was LOST IN FOG...etc... It was not designed for a terrorist attack!! In other words flying into it intentionally. There is quite a difference.

As far as the fire balls, I can not explain exactly how they worked. I go by the witnesses statements, NIST, and FDNY statements. The fireballs i dont think had to travel 70 + floors. The liquid jet fuel could have been cascading for several floors until it found an ignition source. (that is pure speculation on my part)

Once again this is what John Skilling had to say with highlighted words:

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.

Now lets compare the 707 to a 767:





As you can see the 767 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two planes are very similar in size, weight and fuel capacity.

Here is what a white paper that was released on February 3, 1964 had to say:

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

Now lets take a look at what NIST had to say in relation to the steel:

NIST: "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degree C for as long as 15 minutes."
Nist Page 180.

NIST: Within the investigation of the recovered steel, Frank Gayle's group performed a paint defermation test which showed how paint would curl or change in a certain temperature range. So they took the samples and analized them to see what kind of temperature they were exposed to by looking at the paint. Less than 2 percent of the samples which have been pulled specifically from the fire zones, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire less than 2 percent seen temperatures of 480 degrees F* which is very low relative to the temperatures to "soften or melt" steel. "Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C* during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method devoloped by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." NIST page 181

So what caused the collapse of the building if steel samples were not even hot enough to weaken it let alone melt it?

BeZerK

Originally posted by Griff

Could it be that about 72% and 63% of the people can be lead with the power of suggestion? Just a thought.

Well, I guess we can look at how were the questions were presented to the survivors.

"Did you smell Jet fuel?"
or

"There were lots of people saying that they smelled Jet fuel, did you?"

or

Did NIST simply ask them to just tell their stories. I would like to know this.

There were however several victims and EMS workers that stated the strong smell of Kerosene that were not part of the NIST report.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Well, I guess we can look at how were the questions were presented to the survivors.

"Did you smell Jet fuel?"
or

"There were lots of people saying that they smelled Jet fuel, did you?"

or

Did NIST simply ask them to just tell their stories. I would like to know this.

There were however several victims and EMS workers that stated the strong smell of Kerosene that were not part of the NIST report.

Your answer to my question below:

BeZerK: Could you please show me the transcripts of the 72% NIST interviewed of people reporting the smell of fuel?

CaptainObvious:You are kidding right? I got the stat from NIST. You can search deeper for that. (if it indeed exists)

If they indeed did conduct interviews and 72% of people did state they smelled Jet Fuel then NIST should have no problem disclosing that 72% of information.

BeZerK

[edit on 9-7-2007 by BeZerk]

Bezerk,

why are you posting facts that we already went over....YET you failed to include the most important part...?? The plane was flown INTENTIONALLY into the building.

I will look into how NIST got the information in regards to the witnesses.

My guess is....(if)...after I find it, you will find a way to move the goal posts again.

Intention doesn't change physics...

Regardless the buildings didn't act like a gravity driven collapse no matter what hit them, or when and how.

Why not focus on stuff that does matter, like the South Tower tilt?

CaptainObvious,

Not moving any goal posts, i think i answered your post in relation to the Boeing 707 and so on, with FACTS of what the engineers had to say.

I look forward to seeing what you find in relation to the 72% of the people that were interviewed. I really doubt you will find it.

Just like how NIST fails to disclose its computer models to show collapse initiation

Your right the plane was flown intentionally, but as you can see from my above post even a Boeing 707 flying smack bang into the building at 600mph "analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse."

They also thought about the fuel dumping inside the building, even if that was the case the building would still stand. I would rather believe these people involved in the WTC project rather than your assumptions.

There is a big "IF" there in trying to find the 72% of NIST interviews


BeZerK

CO,

As Anok said, what does intention have to do with it?

Are you arguing that, by logical extension, the south tower fell because the intention was that the plane hit on-center, not the diagonal blow that missed most of the core?

Mind over matter?

There is a difference between a plane making its final approach lost in fog and a plane intentionally flown into the building.

They study that is posted above my Bezerk...did that take into consideration of the speeds when the building was built?


I am now reading the NIST section that deals with the survivors. I will list the questions thet were asked and how data was collected.


Anok...not sure how many times I have to ask. PLEASE tell me what is wrong with the mathimatical paper that I posted for you and why this can't explain the answer your looking for. You call me a dancer yet you have not been able to tell what is wrong with it.

If you can in fact tell me why it is wrong, I will be more than happy to contact this person and ask them to re-evaluate their figures.

CaptainObvious,

Are you even reading what i wrote above.

The building should have withstood a Boeing 707 flying 600mph. They even thought about the ensuing fires from the jet fuel.

Obviously they would of taken into account the speeds as the study mentions:

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

I am now reading the NIST section that deals with the survivors. I will list the questions thet were asked and how data was collected.

Your obviously not understanding what im asking for. What i want is the full transcript of the 72% of people NIST interviewed, not what they were asked and how the data was collected. I want to see what each and one of those peoples response's were. I don't want 1% i want all 72%

BeZerK

Bezerk,

First of all, what you need to do is RESEARCH. Find out how the information was gathered. Was it through interviews? Was in one on one?

Well.. I have.

They way the data was collected was from first hand accounts of survivors that evacuated the WTC towers.

NIST gathered over 700 first had accounts that included personal websites, media interviews, etc etc.

NIST did not ask the questions to the people instead gathered the information from each persons first hand account. The information was entered into a spread sheet where it was analyzied. There are several tables of questions that were considered during their data collection.

As Griff asked...could there have been power of suggestion? Well not the way this data was collected.

wtc.nist.gov...
If you're interested, please start around page 40 and read down. It explains how data was collected, etc.

Do i have the first hand accounts in front of me? Hell no. There were over 700.

Can you get them? Well it is public knowledge and can be gathered.

Facts are ...many people smelled kerosene. and MANY heard explosions.

You have the right to take the evidence and twist it to fit any story you want.

As far as the 707 data... I will look into your data and come back with a response.

CaptainObvious,

NIST does not even include the interviews that your claim of 72% smelled jet fuel.

Its exactly the same as NIST will not disclose its computer models.

NIST gathered over 700 first had accounts that included personal websites, media interviews, etc etc.

Yet NIST does not include this in its report

You also stated previously NIST interviewed 72% of people that claimed they smelt jet fuel?

Do i have the first hand accounts in front of me? Hell no. There were over 700.

Can you get them? Well it is public knowledge and can be gathered.

Facts are ...many people smelled kerosene. and MANY heard explosions.

You have the right to take the evidence and twist it to fit any story you want.

No the fact is you stated NIST conducted interviews and 72% of people interviewed by NIST stated they smelt jet fuel. I asked you to prove to me that 72% did smell Jet Fuel. Yet you gave me a link showing NONE of what i asked for

Your source claimed:

"Of the evacuees interviewed by NIST, 72% reported the smell of fuel fumes in the stairwells of the north tower, and 63% in the south tower."

Show me the 72% that were INTERVIEWED BY NIST.

Maybe you are right with what you said previously:

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

You are kidding right? I got the stat from NIST. You can search deeper for that. (if it indeed exists)

If it indeed exists

As far as the 707 data... I will look into your data and come back with a response.

I look forward to it.

BeZerK

Bezerk,


I used the term "interviewed" prior to reading the entire report on evacuees.

I apologize for my assumption. That being said, the information gathered was pure first hand experiences that were not persueded by investigators.

These were first hand accounts. If there is some type of archive that they have were data was used, i will post it.


Give me some time with the 707 stuff. the site you sent me offers a link to the engineers report has been disabled.
911research.wtc7.net...

I will see if they have the report posted somewhere else where I can verify the data.

thanks for your patience.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

I used the term "interviewed" prior to reading the entire report on evacuees.

I apologize for my assumption. That being said, the information gathered was pure first hand experiences that were not persueded by investigators.

These were first hand accounts. If there is some type of archive that they have were data was used, i will post it.

Not a problem, either way the 700 people that they apparently sourced that explains them stating the smell of jet fuel present should have been included in the report, failing to do so is direct negligence on there part. I require proof rather than what they state in there report. Proof that 700 or so people claimed they smelt Jet Fuel and so on.

Give me some time with the 707 stuff. the site you sent me offers a link to the engineers report has been disabled.
911research.wtc7.net...

I will see if they have the report posted somewhere else where I can verify the data.

thanks for your patience.

Here is the link CO, don't know what happened there.

911research.wtc7.net...

I look forward to your reply.

BeZerK

Bezerk...

700 people didnt smell jet fuel. That was the amount of reports that were gathered. Try reading the NIST report if you can stand it (boring) at least the pages i pointed out. You will get a better understanding of the data collection process.

the link to the website wasnt the problem. The link to the Engineers site that claimed the 600mph. data was disabled. No worries I found it on a few other sites and I am looking it over now. There is some interesting facts that I ofund that i will share as soon as I finish reading.

Thanks

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Bezerk...

700 people didnt smell jet fuel. That was the amount of reports that were gathered. Try reading the NIST report if you can stand it (boring) at least the pages i pointed out. You will get a better understanding of the data collection process.

Reading through the report is agonizing but it has to be done again...its been a while since I've actually read it.

It states that the majority of both towers reported smoke and the smell of fuel in the stairs this was 72% (79 people) in WTC1 and 63% (29 people) in WTC2.

Thats a combination of smoke and fuel. What percentage was smoke and what was fuel is not known. It could be only 1% that smelt fuel.

Ill read more in detail later i have just printed it out.

BeZerK

[edit on 9-7-2007 by BeZerk]

Bezerk,
Very interesting point made in regards to the 600 mph data. I was unaware of this. I found that this is quite involved....
Allow me please to make a few points that I gathered looking through a few websites. As always, you will draw your own conclusions.
This is very detailed, but you seem like you want as much info as possible, so I will try to provide it.
FEMA:

The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact.

911research.wtc7.net...

Keep reading Bezerk...it gets more confusing. The 9-11 research site you listed responed to the FEMA statement with this:

What evidence do we have that the designers only considered impacts by planes that were flying close to stall speed (the stall speed, is the speed below which the aircraft falls out of the sky). Apparently, we only have this articles word for it. And we already know that they are quite willing to lie and exaggerate the facts.

911research.wtc7.net...

Not sure where the lies are...but..lets go on....
Leslie Robertson, the lead structural engineer of the WTC gave an initial answer. According to his account he assumed that the collision would be with a somewhat slow-moving 707, lost in fog (as i posted in previous threads):

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark.

www.nae.edu...

What is interesting is that NIST actually contradicts this.... this is where you may want to AGREE with NIST.

Earlier statements by Port Authority officials and outside engineers involved in designing the buildings suggested that the designers considered an accidental crash only by slower aircraft, moving at less than 200 miles per hour. The newly disclosed documents, from the 1960's, show that the Port Authority considered aircraft moving at 600 m.p.h., slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers, Dr. Sunder said.

www.nytimes.com...

Interesting! Sorry though, there is more... It appears the Port Authority and Mr. Robertson have a little disagreement going on.

Please go to this link and read it. Due to space restrictions, I can't post it all but in part:

Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered.

It goes on:

There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.

scott-juris.blogspot.com...

So Bezerk, according to all this information, the towers were not specifically designed to survive the impact from a plane. Robertson carried out some calculations on the existing design to figure what the results of impact could be.

There is no point debating the speed of the plane, as it's not the issue. There is nothing to show that consideration was taken into affect with the fires. Point blank, Leslie Robertson says the towers were not designed to handle it:

To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

www.nae.edu...

NIST has actually kept this open as well:

Potentially challenging other statements by Port Authority engineers, Dr. Sunder said it was now uncertain whether the authority fully considered the fuel and its effects when it studied the towers' safety during the design phase.
"Whether the fuel was taken into account or not is an open question," Dr. Sunder said

www.nytimes.com...

So what we do know is that the towers did in fact survive the initial impact of the planes, and Mr. Robertson has stated this clearly:

"robustness of the towers was exemplary", and that "the fact that the structures stood long enough for tens of thousands to escape is a tribute to the many talented men and women who spent endless hours toiling over the design and construction of the project".

Seems like he's pretty happy with the performance of the buildings.

Anyway, I hope you found this as interesting as I have.

Thanks agian for your patience.

Originally posted by BeZerk
It states that only 6% smelled fumes or felt heat from WTC1 and only 12% smelled fumes or felt heat from WTC2. Know where on the report states what percentage of people smelt Jet Fuel.

Ok, you gathered your information from Table 5-2. that table deals with the first cues. In other words "At time of Impact."

If you go down to Table 5-4 "Adverse Conditions Reported in the Stairs During Evacuation" (page 45) You will see the numbers there.

In parts it states that 79 out of 109(72%) people in WTC1 reported smoke,smell of fuel. And 29 our of 46 (63%) in WTC2.

I hope this helps.