Proof we are all lying to ourselves

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But you are sticking to the 4,000 gallon estimate. The plane struck the South tower from the 77th floor to the 85th floor.

So if most of the fuel is in the wings and the lower wing hit on the 77th-79th floor, why did the firemen see no fuel fires from the 78th floor down?

But they did. Refer to wtc.nist.gov...

Page 44: FDNY command personnel knew that jet fuel had flowed into the elevator shafts and into other parts of the buildings and presented a danger to building occupants and emergency responders.

Page 90: The impact of the aircraft into WTC 2 produced jet fuel fires in the building on the 51st floor. 9:10am PAPD police desk receives a report that there is burning jet fuel on floor 51 of one of the towers.

Page 95-96 describes the fireball of jet fuel coming down the elevator shafts and sweeing thru the concourse level.

Shall I keep going? I can keep at this all day...the evidence is there.

[edit on 5-11-2007 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed
But they did. Refer to wtc.nist.gov...

So where did all the fuel come from? It would take more then 4,000 gallons to cover all those areas.

Why did the firemen on the 78th floor only report the small isolated fires?

Why did the 9/11 Commission report only report isolated fires after the impact?





[edit on 5-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
But they did. Refer to wtc.nist.gov...

So where did all the fuel come from? It would take more then 4,000 gallons to cover all those areas.

Umm...maybe the fuel came from the PLANES? If you were indeed trained in aviation, you would know how much fuel is required in a cross country flight of that size aircraft.

Why did the firemen on the 78th floor only report the small isolated fires?

You still refuse to say what they saw on the 79-81st floors. Why is that? Why wont you mention anything about the floors above 78? Are you afraid of the truth?

Originally posted by Disclosed
Umm...maybe the fuel came from the PLANES? If you were indeed trained in aviation, you would know how much fuel is required in a cross country flight of that size aircraft.

You still refuse to say what they saw on the 79-81st floors. Why is that? Why wont you mention anything about the floors above 78? Are you afraid of the truth?

Well you have the information on how much fuel the planes were carrying, most reports state 10,000 gallons. If you figure how much was burned off in the intial explosion and come up with how much is left.

As far as the floors above 78, the 9/11 commission states there was only isolated fires after the plane hit.

Isolated fires? .... *looks at 9/11 footage* ..... not exactly what I'd call an isolated fire.... but, okay - I guess in the sense that it was isolated to the WTC complex and the whole dang city wasn't on fire....

Well, if I'm remembering correctly from everything said... 4000 gallon estimate from an estimate of around 10000 starting gallons of fuel..... leaves.... 6000 gallons to flood into the building, yes?

I would hope my math is correct - as I'm entrusted with avionics equipment and its component level repair.

Fuel, lots of, that is. It could cover quite a bit of area very quickly. I'd estimate about a centimeter or so deep across five floors. Although it wouldn't distribute evenly in reality - just a little bit of a comparison of how much fuel we are talking about.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Isolated fires? .... *looks at 9/11 footage* ..... not exactly what I'd call an isolated fire.... but, okay - I guess in the sense that it was isolated to the WTC complex and the whole dang city wasn't on fire....

Well, if I'm remembering correctly from everything said... 4000 gallon estimate from an estimate of around 10000 starting gallons of fuel..... leaves.... 6000 gallons to flood into the building, yes?

I would hope my math is correct - as I'm entrusted with avionics equipment and its component level repair.

Fuel, lots of, that is. It could cover quite a bit of area very quickly. I'd estimate about a centimeter or so deep across five floors. Although it wouldn't distribute evenly in reality - just a little bit of a comparison of how much fuel we are talking about.

Yes, isolated fires on the floors. Not much flames showing from floors for very long. Videos and photos show fires burning out well before the collapse.

Actually it was more like 10,000 gallons to start and at least 6,000 or more burned off in the intial explosion.

Also you would have to figure how much is soaked up by carpeting. When you figure the size of the floors that would take a lot of fuel to be enough to get to and down the shafts.

And then you figure other steel buildings have had fires burning for much longer and had more structural damage and still did not collaspe.

Oh, please do show me these fires that burned out well before the collapse.

You know, they wanted me to be in the nuclear program for the Navy. I declined - because I like working with electronics - and planes - so I enlisted with the guarantee to go to the AT A-school after bootcamp. But they look for people with very good math and spatial awareness skills for the nuclear program (anyone with an 80 or better composite ASVAAB score - since an 80 or above is impossible without good marks in math and spatial awareness). Having a 98 on record meant that I had the various branches competing for me - they wouldn't leave me alone my senior year.

So, let me explain what's going on inside the steel framed WTC towers in their final hours.

When the planes impacted the towers, the outer steel meshing was disrupted and parts of the inner structural core damaged. The spray-on fireproofing was simply blasted off by the force of the impact and the resulting fireball (yes, it wasn't an 'explosion' - but it was a very rapid expansion of air and would have done a number on the spray-on fireproofing). We can debate how much fuel was burned up in the initial impact until we're blue in the face. The reality is that only vapor burns - and since the fuel was in a liquid state to begin with - I highly doubt 60% was burned up in the initial impact. 40% is a rather large estimate - I would say no more than 15-20%, myself.

So, we have damage to the steel structure and fuel fires. This begins to ignite a number of other flammable materials in the area. This heats and weakens the steel, causing sections to sag under the pressure. Add to this that we have wind randomly applying turbulent force to the structure - the complications become rather apparent. With fires burning unchecked in the most damaged sections, combined effect of heat and the stress of the load above it ultimately lead to the failure of joints in the structure.

Now, because of the steel framing, if a joint fails - the rest of the structure attempts to compensate by routing the stress through the surrounding, uncompromised frame. For split fractions of a second, this can mean nearby areas are exposed to many times the amount of stress they are currently under. In this case - those areas would also be damaged.... and unable to withstand this sudden change. This then gets routed to the next support, and the next, and the next - all in thousandths of a second. This compounds to the point where even undamaged supports cannot compensate and you have a complete structural failure.

Because of the steel mesh framing, the collapse is also unlike anything we've ever seen out of standard platter-and-pillar constructions. The unsupported weight torques and pulls the whole of the structure attached down with it.

So, while we've never seen steel framed buildings collapse from fire before.... we've also never had a steel framed building of such scale be subject to fire and structural damage in this manner, either.

And scale is incredibly important, especially when taking into account the ratio of volume to surface area. Volume increases by an exponent of three - surface area increases by an exponent of two. So an object with twice the dimensions has four times the surface area and eight times the volume (weight). Incredibly important concept in large structures.

Originally posted by Aim64C
You know, they wanted me to be in the nuclear program for the Navy. I declined - because I like working with electronics - and planes - so I enlisted with the guarantee to go to the AT A-school after bootcamp. But they look for people with very good math and spatial awareness skills for the nuclear program (anyone with an 80 or better composite ASVAAB score - since an 80 or above is impossible without good marks in math and spatial awareness). Having a 98 on record meant that I had the various branches competing for me - they wouldn't leave me alone my senior year.


So, while we've never seen steel framed buildings collapse from fire before.... we've also never had a steel framed building of such scale be subject to fire and structural damage in this manner, either.

You need to have high scores just to get in the Air Force. I could have had any electrcial / mechanical job. I chose to be a Crew Chief because you troubleshoot the planes and take care of the pilots, you are in charge of the plane.

Now as for photos of the towers showing little or no flames before they collasped.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

Other steel builidngs that had longer lasting fires and more structural damage and did not collapse.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

1. The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

2. The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

3. The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

4. Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

Firstbank photos.
i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Actually it was more like 10,000 gallons to start and at least 6,000 or more burned off in the intial explosion.

6,000 gallons or more burned off in the initial explosion? Where are you getting THAT from? FEMA states it was between 1,000 and 3,000 gallons for the initial fireball....and the rest was deposited on the floor. Unless you feel the experts used to determine this are incorrect.

You can read the research here, since you seem to be having trouble with that information:
www.fema.gov...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Now as for photos of the towers showing little or no flames before they collasped.

Well, I can't help but notice the bar at the bottom of the screen indicating the relative difference in time between these various photos.... and I see no correlation between the amount of smoke or the progression of time - as you would expect from a fire that is burning out (you would see a correlation of less smoke with the increase of time).

Other steel builidngs that had longer lasting fires and more structural damage and did not collapse.

Recall what I mentioned earlier regarding scale and weight? You also have the relative structural damage to take into consideration. Nearly one entire side of each of the WTC towers was compromised - and aprox. 40% of its support came from the external steel mesh that is unique to the WTC - the other 60% coming from the core structure. None of the examples have damage aside from fire damage. The steel remained intact (the main supporting structure) - much less was an entire dimension of supporting structure nearly eliminated - as was the case in the WTC towers.

So, you have a far more massive structure than any of the other examples, using a unique steel framing structure that derives about 40% of its strength from the exterior steel mesh that has just had a significant portion of that external support compromised (which doesn't mean the remaining support will be reflective of the percentage of damage as geometry - complete geometry - and load distribution contribute greatly to structural integrity). And it's now being heated. It's going to collapse sooner or later.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Recall what I mentioned earlier regarding scale and weight? You also have the relative structural damage to take into consideration. Nearly one entire side of each of the WTC towers was compromised - and aprox. 40% of its support came from the external steel mesh that is unique to the WTC - the other 60% coming from the core structure.

Where are you getting the percentages from?

Both NIST and FEMA, along with most other reports state the builidngs withstood the impacts of the planes. The aluminum airframes were shreded by the steel beams, also the plane that hit the South tower went in at an angle through the side of the building, not causing mush damage to the core.

As Stated the builidngs i listed had longer lasting fires and suffered more sturctural damage then the WTC buildings and still did not collapse.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Where are you getting the percentages from?

Both NIST and FEMA, along with most other reports state the builidngs withstood the impacts of the planes. The aluminum airframes were shreded by the steel beams, also the plane that hit the South tower went in at an angle through the side of the building, not causing mush damage to the core.

Will you please tell me where in the FEMA report it says there was not much damage to the core? I would like to see that information, ULTIMA1.

Originally posted by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H
And plase dont say it was cut like that after...it wasnt

Just a suggestion. You say that the no planes theories etc. discredit the truth movement. IMO, this photo does also. We don't know for a fact if this was cut before, during or after cleanup. Just saying.

Originally posted by thedman
Some studies done recently suggest the the fires alone could have
initiated the collapse without the massive structural damage from the
aircraft impacts.

Please site these studies. As far as I know, NIST has stated that the impact damage or fire alone couldn't do it. It HAD to be the combination of the 2, according to them.

Originally posted by Aim64C
As for bombs in the WTC... I thought we went over this years ago.... please show me the seismic evidence for this.

Do a search for Labtop on this site and you'll be amazed. So far, no one has "debunked" him. He asks you to even.

Rushing in half-cocked is a bad, BAD idea. Especially when you have already been caught ill-prepared.

Like they did when they sent the fighters in the WRONG direction over the Atlantic Ocean?

And I would really like to see the verification of a (presumed radar operator) in direct communication with Cheney. Suffice to say that makes absolutely no sense with regards to chain of command ... or combat in general.

It wasn't a radar operator. As far as I know, the young man isn't identified but it was Norman Mineta...you know...the Secretary of Transportation at the time that told this account. Hmmm...transportation? Wouldn't that include airplanes? I'd imagine so.

BTW, Mineta's testimony directly contradicts Cheney's of when and where he was in the first few hours of 9/11. I can remember exactly were I was on 9/11....why can't Cheney? Is he that old and senile? If so, let's get rid of him.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Again with the 78th floor ehh???? Again..for lets see...the 4th or 5th time...I have lost count.. The 78th floor was a mechanical floor. The was not any thing there to burn. Try looking at the floors up above were the majority of the impact occured.

reply to post by Disclosed


I have asked this of him several times and have yet to see a answer yet, other than the fires burned out. With the fire load in that building, 43,000 + sqaure feet, there is NO way those fires burned out in under a hour. Way too many combutibles.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Fuel, lots of, that is. It could cover quite a bit of area very quickly. I'd estimate about a centimeter or so deep across five floors. Although it wouldn't distribute evenly in reality - just a little bit of a comparison of how much fuel we are talking about.

Well, let's put some math to good use.

At 40,000 square feet per floor, we get 5,760,000 square inches per floor.

At 6,000 gallons of fuel. 6,000 gallons equals 1,386,000 cubic inches of fuel.

Divide the 1,386,000 cubic inches by 5 (for the 5 floor estimate) and we get 277,200 cubic inches per floor.

Divide 277,200 cubic inches by 5,760,000 square inches and we get....... .0481 inches of depth.

That comes out to be less than 1/16th of an inch (.1222 centimeters for our UK friends or 12% of a centimeter). Or approximately 1/21 of an inch of depth per floor.

88% less than your estimate of 1 centimeter per floor depth.

Not alot of fuel per floor I'd say.

Originally posted by Aim64C
So, let me explain what's going on inside the steel framed WTC towers in their final hours.

Please do.

The spray-on fireproofing was simply blasted off by the force of the impact and the resulting fireball (yes, it wasn't an 'explosion' - but it was a very rapid expansion of air and would have done a number on the spray-on fireproofing).

Really? What about the gypsum plaster and concrete fireproofing that we never hear of?



Notice that is the fireproofing for the floor beams. It has nothing to do with the floor slab itself because right underneath this, we see were it states about the concrete slab. Which is different from the concrete fireproofing.

Now, let's look at the fireproofing on the core columns.



Notice the gypsum block that was 2 inches thick with 2 inches thickness of plaster.

Source: NIST

I wonder why they never mention the cement and gypsum that was part of this so-called "spray-on" fireproofing? Maybe because people would look at them like they are crazy when they try and tell us 4 inches of gypsum and cement was "blown" off by the planes? Probably.

With fires burning unchecked in the most damaged sections, combined effect of heat and the stress of the load above it ultimately lead to the failure of joints in the structure.

But we are told that the joints (connections) didn't fail but kept intact so that the sagging floors can pull in the exterior columns. You can't have both.

So an object with twice the dimensions has four times the surface area and eight times the volume (weight). Incredibly important concept in large structures.

Yes, but your volume is not entirely weight. It encompases the voids also...i.e. the air that was in the building.

[edit on 11/6/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Firstbank photos.
i114.photobucket.com...

Nice photo. This pretty much dispells the rhetoric that WTC 4, 5 & 6 didn't fall while 7 did because of the weight on top of the fire floors. Look how much weight is above that fire.

[edit on 11/6/2007 by Griff]